Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Dec 01, 2009 - 07:35 PM
![President Obama speaks at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY, Dec. 1, 2009. [AP Photo]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/Dipnote/behind_the_scenes/2009_1203_obama_west_point_m.jpg)
President Obama outlined his strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY on December 1, 2009. Read the text transcript or watch the video. Read translations of the President's remarks in Albanian, Arabic, Bangla, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Dari, Estonian, Finnish, French, Georgian, German, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, Turkish or Urdu here.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Donald in Virginia writes:
I also listened to the speech, for the first time President Barack Obama looked serious, presented the speech and delivered it very well. I was impressed. I still think this round table should continue submitting ideas to help our country fight the taliban. My latest idea would have to do with using the AV8 Harrier Jet. It's a multi-role aircraft and would be ideal for Afghanistan. Our Soldiers in the field need good Air Coverage, this bird would be perfect, can vertically take-off, vertically land, hover, and take out various land targets, drop bombs, shoot missiles and still travel just under MACH Speeds. The British were successful with the Falklin Island war using this aircraft. I believe it should be added to the list of equipment our forces use in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
Well Done on the Speech, I still wonder what happened to the 22 Billion dollars Saddam Hussain was worth before the war, and what happened to all the Gold that was reported on the news? Maybe someone can start answering these questions? Plus if the wars cost a trillion dollars, just get the Iraq to pay for it. It's not a blank check, when we all know that Iraq has the oil that could pay for both wars. Start also investing at home in the United States, we need refineries, we need fuel and gas. Going green sounds so wonderful but at the moment, the country that has oil or gas can move ships and aircraft in war, a country without oil, or gas cannot. I think the solution comes down to building one refinery in each of the States in our United States, then just bring in the crude oil and refine it. This would allow the United States to sell gas or diesel on the open markets and make some money, start a brand new U.S. Government oil company under the Obama Administration. If you let the EPA dictate every single reason not to drill or prevent our Nation from getting the oil or gas it needs to survive, and the green jobs or green solutions do not come about, what will you do then?
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
I also listened to the speech, for the first time President Barack Obama looked serious, presented the speech and delivered it very well. I was impressed. I still think this round table should continue submitting ideas to help our country fight the taliban. My latest idea would have to do with using the AV8 Harrier Jet. It's a multi-role aircraft and would be ideal for Afghanistan. Our Soldiers in the field need good Air Coverage, this bird would be perfect, can vertically take-off, vertically land, hover, and take out various land targets, drop bombs, shoot missiles and still travel just under MACH Speeds. The British were successful with the Falklin Island war using this aircraft. I believe it should be added to the list of equipment our forces use in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
Well Done on the Speech, I still wonder what happened to the 22 Billion dollars Saddam Hussain was worth before the war, and what happened to all the Gold that was reported on the news? Maybe someone can start answering these questions? Plus if the wars cost a trillion dollars, just get the Iraq to pay for it. It's not a blank check, when we all know that Iraq has the oil that could pay for both wars. Start also investing at home in the United States, we need refineries, we need fuel and gas. Going green sounds so wonderful but at the moment, the country that has oil or gas can move ships and aircraft in war, a country without oil, or gas cannot. I think the solution comes down to building one refinery in each of the States in our United States, then just bring in the crude oil and refine it. This would allow the United States to sell gas or diesel on the open markets and make some money, start a brand new U.S. Government oil company under the Obama Administration. If you let the EPA dictate every single reason not to drill or prevent our Nation from getting the oil or gas it needs to survive, and the green jobs or green solutions do not come about, what will you do then?
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Joe in Tennessee writes:
It was a good speech regarding the reasons for his decision. I found it to be a more elegant version of the speech provided by GW in the extension of the Iraq war. The cost ratio as a reality to Americas economic position was a most welcome aspect of transparency often neglected. While we see the cost, the differentials of waging war in jobs created are often overlooked. In reality, those figures do not include the jobs created or extended which support both war and peace efforts and the displacement of personal who are involved, who would be seeking work otherwise in the open job market.
Like it or not, it is a quagmire, a paradox in the least, as any decision has both positive and negative long range implications. If you feel that security which would not lead to a nuclear war is important, than we must stand as terrorist groups will regroup, take Pakistan and WMD, then unite with Iran, move into Syria, then Palestine. If this does occur, Israel will HAVE TO STRIKE at some junction within this threshold of developments, it will have no choice. WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF THIS OCCURANCE? We should have more international support, especially from Russia who is the largest benefactor of peace in the region, least they forget why they were there to begin with.
I would like to add, that prior to the formal start of the war, the Navy College of Warfare provided Congress, the Senate and Executive branch with their statistical analysis -- in 1999: 2010 in Iraq for basic stability, 2016 in Afghanistan due to the political dependence on narcotics. I do not see what the surprise is among any party or decision maker in this war. This does show the credibility of our Military Intelligence and analyst, who have been unduly defamed throughout the war. It also lends credibility to the fact no one is milking this war on the Congressional side. The war is going as predicted....the only real argument is the cost in lives, money and future.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
It was a good speech regarding the reasons for his decision. I found it to be a more elegant version of the speech provided by GW in the extension of the Iraq war. The cost ratio as a reality to Americas economic position was a most welcome aspect of transparency often neglected. While we see the cost, the differentials of waging war in jobs created are often overlooked. In reality, those figures do not include the jobs created or extended which support both war and peace efforts and the displacement of personal who are involved, who would be seeking work otherwise in the open job market.
Like it or not, it is a quagmire, a paradox in the least, as any decision has both positive and negative long range implications. If you feel that security which would not lead to a nuclear war is important, than we must stand as terrorist groups will regroup, take Pakistan and WMD, then unite with Iran, move into Syria, then Palestine. If this does occur, Israel will HAVE TO STRIKE at some junction within this threshold of developments, it will have no choice. WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF THIS OCCURANCE? We should have more international support, especially from Russia who is the largest benefactor of peace in the region, least they forget why they were there to begin with.
I would like to add, that prior to the formal start of the war, the Navy College of Warfare provided Congress, the Senate and Executive branch with their statistical analysis -- in 1999: 2010 in Iraq for basic stability, 2016 in Afghanistan due to the political dependence on narcotics. I do not see what the surprise is among any party or decision maker in this war. This does show the credibility of our Military Intelligence and analyst, who have been unduly defamed throughout the war. It also lends credibility to the fact no one is milking this war on the Congressional side. The war is going as predicted....the only real argument is the cost in lives, money and future.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Susan in Florida writes:
I watched and listened to President Obama last night. My thoughts and reactions were contradictory. I've become a bit of an isolationist lately and really do not want to have anymore of our soldiers/citizens dying for nations/people who for centuries seem unable to care about their own people. I realize that their history and values differ from ours, but just on a humanitarian level it seems to me that as a country you would learn that continual genocide does NOT work and you would want to change. This to me IS the real problem...do these countries we are dying for, fighting for, really want to change? President Obama made a very significant point last night, that we are a nation that has helped other countries, died for other countries, reached out to support other nations, and have rarely been thanked for all our efforts. I am proud of our country, our soldiers, and our President. I hope and pray that these decisions will prove to be the right ones. Godspeed to all our servemen and women, and all our embassy people.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
I watched and listened to President Obama last night. My thoughts and reactions were contradictory. I've become a bit of an isolationist lately and really do not want to have anymore of our soldiers/citizens dying for nations/people who for centuries seem unable to care about their own people. I realize that their history and values differ from ours, but just on a humanitarian level it seems to me that as a country you would learn that continual genocide does NOT work and you would want to change. This to me IS the real problem...do these countries we are dying for, fighting for, really want to change? President Obama made a very significant point last night, that we are a nation that has helped other countries, died for other countries, reached out to support other nations, and have rarely been thanked for all our efforts. I am proud of our country, our soldiers, and our President. I hope and pray that these decisions will prove to be the right ones. Godspeed to all our servemen and women, and all our embassy people.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Eric in New Mexico writes:
- QARI YOUSUF AHAMDI, TALIBAN SPOKESMAN
"Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan.
Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality. The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.
They will withdraw shamefully. They cannot achieve their hopes and goals."
(as reported by BBC news)
---
As with any war fighting strategy, the enemy has a vote on the outcome.
I am however reminded of how we responded to Saddam's claims of inflicting a lot of US casualties if we were to intervene in 91, during his occupation of Kuwait.
Some bright bulb @ DoD got the figures together and compiled an accurate assesment of estimated casualty figures for US forces in the impending conflict, along with the estimated casualty figures for Iraqi forces.
US figures were detailed in terms of KIA and wounded, Iraqi figures for their military forces were simply estimated as "everyone." -UNQUOTE, and asked for their preemptive surrender.
Then we dropped this estimate via hundreds of thousands of leaflets on Iraqi positions.
Miles of burnt out Iraqi vehicals retreating from Kuwait lent mute testiment to the fact that we weren't joking with the Iraqi military.
My point here is that in order to incentivize a reconciliation effort, the taliban must be completely convinced they are on the losing end of the program if they wish to continue the fight they didn't need to start with us in the first place.
They can walk the path of peace or rest in peace, but there will be peace when all is said and done.
That's not speculative, or subject to deadlines, that's just the inevitable result of America finding its resolve to finish the job.
Let us never again entertain the notion that half measures suffice in dealing effectively with ethical infants, at the demonstratable risk to our folks in uniform of having to go back about a decade later to get the job done right.
My only disagreement with the President is that it was absolutely nessessary to correct that mistake, and removing Saddam was a facet of exactly the premis Eisenhower's quote illuminated.
Did that effort draw resources from Afghanistan? Absolutely, but I don't think GWBush faced the issue any differently than Mr Obama has in his capacity, with the responsibility he holds through his office.
"And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
-President Obama, West Point
In my mind, the divisive debate the president speaks of has already been resolved, and the Iraqi people have judged our efforts to have been absolutely nessesary to the future they are now building for themselves, and have relayed their thanks, despite bearing the brunt of the cost in blood and treasure.
So before we overindulge in partisan bickering over the plan, remember that the knashing of taliban teeth is telling of its potential success even before it's been implemented.
And if if the plan makes folks angry for whatever reason, just be satisfied that the taliban are angrier than you are about it.
Well they have reason to be. The dustbin of history awaits them.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
- QARI YOUSUF AHAMDI, TALIBAN SPOKESMAN
"Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan.
Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality. The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.
They will withdraw shamefully. They cannot achieve their hopes and goals."
(as reported by BBC news)
---
As with any war fighting strategy, the enemy has a vote on the outcome.
I am however reminded of how we responded to Saddam's claims of inflicting a lot of US casualties if we were to intervene in 91, during his occupation of Kuwait.
Some bright bulb @ DoD got the figures together and compiled an accurate assesment of estimated casualty figures for US forces in the impending conflict, along with the estimated casualty figures for Iraqi forces.
US figures were detailed in terms of KIA and wounded, Iraqi figures for their military forces were simply estimated as "everyone." -UNQUOTE, and asked for their preemptive surrender.
Then we dropped this estimate via hundreds of thousands of leaflets on Iraqi positions.
Miles of burnt out Iraqi vehicals retreating from Kuwait lent mute testiment to the fact that we weren't joking with the Iraqi military.
My point here is that in order to incentivize a reconciliation effort, the taliban must be completely convinced they are on the losing end of the program if they wish to continue the fight they didn't need to start with us in the first place.
They can walk the path of peace or rest in peace, but there will be peace when all is said and done.
That's not speculative, or subject to deadlines, that's just the inevitable result of America finding its resolve to finish the job.
Let us never again entertain the notion that half measures suffice in dealing effectively with ethical infants, at the demonstratable risk to our folks in uniform of having to go back about a decade later to get the job done right.
My only disagreement with the President is that it was absolutely nessessary to correct that mistake, and removing Saddam was a facet of exactly the premis Eisenhower's quote illuminated.
Did that effort draw resources from Afghanistan? Absolutely, but I don't think GWBush faced the issue any differently than Mr Obama has in his capacity, with the responsibility he holds through his office.
"And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
-President Obama, West Point
In my mind, the divisive debate the president speaks of has already been resolved, and the Iraqi people have judged our efforts to have been absolutely nessesary to the future they are now building for themselves, and have relayed their thanks, despite bearing the brunt of the cost in blood and treasure.
So before we overindulge in partisan bickering over the plan, remember that the knashing of taliban teeth is telling of its potential success even before it's been implemented.
And if if the plan makes folks angry for whatever reason, just be satisfied that the taliban are angrier than you are about it.
Well they have reason to be. The dustbin of history awaits them.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Ron in New York writes:
DIPNET-CAFES?......
Usman from Pakistan sends his posting from a net-cafe in Pakistan....Read his post below....he provides a good snap-shot of realities on the ground; and tips on good policy options....He signs off quickly; limited time at the cafe.....Imagine a network of DIPNET-CAFES where people can express their views with no time limits... DoS could set these up...providing jobs...and new outlets for Democracy in critical regions.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
DIPNET-CAFES?......
Usman from Pakistan sends his posting from a net-cafe in Pakistan....Read his post below....he provides a good snap-shot of realities on the ground; and tips on good policy options....He signs off quickly; limited time at the cafe.....Imagine a network of DIPNET-CAFES where people can express their views with no time limits... DoS could set these up...providing jobs...and new outlets for Democracy in critical regions.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Denise in Florida writes:
These are difficult decisions that have to be made. First and foremost at hand is the national security of our country which the President has so eloquently stated. It is very easy to stand back and say what one thinks this decision should or should not be or even criticize one that has been made; however, Americans in general do not have all the pieces of information in which the President has been briefed in order for this decision to have been made. How can we judge this when we only have bits and pieces of the big picture? Only time will tell how this decision plays itself out and meanwhile, I know that the President will continue to monitor its effects. Obviously, there is a good reason for the deployment of 30,000 troops (which is not an overly excessive number). I do not believe that we can just pull out our troops nor can we ignore the threats that are still in existence. A fine balance is needed here and while I may not agree with all the decisions, this much I do believe. The President is making the very best decision in the context of many underlying issues. While this may not be a popular decision, that is the job of the President knowing that this may cause divisions. The American people voted President Obama in because they wanted believed he would bring to the "think tank" table his level of integrity and character, backed by the love of this county and its people to be valuable factors when making these kinds of decisions. One question I do have. Pertaining to the capture of Osama bin Laden, why hasn't the International Criminal Court been given a referral such as in the case of Sudan? It seems to me that this falls under Article 5, Section 1, the Court has jurisdiction which shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community pertaining to crime of aggression, crime against humanity. Does not terrorism affect the international community. This is not just our fight but it is a global one due to terrorism around the world. Crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population such as murder even persecution (i.e., hating the western world and its way of life). The attack on our soil on 9/11 could also fall under War Crimes, Article 8, Section 2(e)(i), intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. We were attacked and continue to be under attack (crime of aggression). The World Trade Center held thousands of innocent civilians who became under attack and thereby war was declared and these terrorists continued threat towards Americans should be held accountable via the International Criminal Court.
Thank you for the opportunity to exercise my First Amendment rights and God Bless the President for taking on such a job in a very difficult time within our history and to those of you working with and around him.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
These are difficult decisions that have to be made. First and foremost at hand is the national security of our country which the President has so eloquently stated. It is very easy to stand back and say what one thinks this decision should or should not be or even criticize one that has been made; however, Americans in general do not have all the pieces of information in which the President has been briefed in order for this decision to have been made. How can we judge this when we only have bits and pieces of the big picture? Only time will tell how this decision plays itself out and meanwhile, I know that the President will continue to monitor its effects. Obviously, there is a good reason for the deployment of 30,000 troops (which is not an overly excessive number). I do not believe that we can just pull out our troops nor can we ignore the threats that are still in existence. A fine balance is needed here and while I may not agree with all the decisions, this much I do believe. The President is making the very best decision in the context of many underlying issues. While this may not be a popular decision, that is the job of the President knowing that this may cause divisions. The American people voted President Obama in because they wanted believed he would bring to the "think tank" table his level of integrity and character, backed by the love of this county and its people to be valuable factors when making these kinds of decisions. One question I do have. Pertaining to the capture of Osama bin Laden, why hasn't the International Criminal Court been given a referral such as in the case of Sudan? It seems to me that this falls under Article 5, Section 1, the Court has jurisdiction which shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community pertaining to crime of aggression, crime against humanity. Does not terrorism affect the international community. This is not just our fight but it is a global one due to terrorism around the world. Crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population such as murder even persecution (i.e., hating the western world and its way of life). The attack on our soil on 9/11 could also fall under War Crimes, Article 8, Section 2(e)(i), intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. We were attacked and continue to be under attack (crime of aggression). The World Trade Center held thousands of innocent civilians who became under attack and thereby war was declared and these terrorists continued threat towards Americans should be held accountable via the International Criminal Court.
Thank you for the opportunity to exercise my First Amendment rights and God Bless the President for taking on such a job in a very difficult time within our history and to those of you working with and around him.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Joseph in Oregon writes:
I disagree with the President's decision this evening. There are no good choices in Afghanistan, sending more troops will not resolve the conflict, in fact it will increase animosity against the U.S. and its NATO allies over the long term. Resolving the conflict in Afghanistan is not a military solution.
President Obama in his recent decision is pursuing the wrong strategy for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan.
All that corruption and drama over the Afghani elections, where former President Karzai was reinstated as the prime minister and they are criticizing the Iranian elections here from last summer?
The administration should seek an immediate shift in strategy and in policy, from one of war waging in Afghanistan to a political solution, where the emphasis is placed on nation-building and with placing the a renewed focus on the reconciliation process for restructuring Afghani society. The Afghan people view the U.S. presence as an occupation, many civilians have been killed since the beginning of the conflict, it will be difficult for the U.S. and its allies to gain the support of the local tribal communities. Prime Minister Hamid Karzai, has little influence outside of Kabul, thus, we need to acknowledge the importance with engaging with the tribal leaders in an effort to establish a policy of long-term stability. The U.S. needs to engage in a meaningful dialogue with local tribal leaders and with the Taliban in all provinces, build their trust and place less of an emphasis for a U.S. and NATO long-term troop presence.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
I disagree with the President's decision this evening. There are no good choices in Afghanistan, sending more troops will not resolve the conflict, in fact it will increase animosity against the U.S. and its NATO allies over the long term. Resolving the conflict in Afghanistan is not a military solution.
President Obama in his recent decision is pursuing the wrong strategy for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan.
All that corruption and drama over the Afghani elections, where former President Karzai was reinstated as the prime minister and they are criticizing the Iranian elections here from last summer?
The administration should seek an immediate shift in strategy and in policy, from one of war waging in Afghanistan to a political solution, where the emphasis is placed on nation-building and with placing the a renewed focus on the reconciliation process for restructuring Afghani society. The Afghan people view the U.S. presence as an occupation, many civilians have been killed since the beginning of the conflict, it will be difficult for the U.S. and its allies to gain the support of the local tribal communities. Prime Minister Hamid Karzai, has little influence outside of Kabul, thus, we need to acknowledge the importance with engaging with the tribal leaders in an effort to establish a policy of long-term stability. The U.S. needs to engage in a meaningful dialogue with local tribal leaders and with the Taliban in all provinces, build their trust and place less of an emphasis for a U.S. and NATO long-term troop presence.
Posted on Wed Dec 02, 2009
Francine S. in Florida writes:
I do not envy the job we've elected this Administration to. And I apologize for the horrible mess you've inherited. Good luck, God speed and may you keep the strength to "mop up the mess".
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
I do not envy the job we've elected this Administration to. And I apologize for the horrible mess you've inherited. Good luck, God speed and may you keep the strength to "mop up the mess".
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
Ron in New York writes:
Most Scary...
Pak-Nukes...and AQI will not hesitate to use them....
Iran is the real threat...it can empower rogue states to incite nuclear war.
Where's our intelligence; if we can't keep uninvited guests from getting into the White House?
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
Most Scary...
Pak-Nukes...and AQI will not hesitate to use them....
Iran is the real threat...it can empower rogue states to incite nuclear war.
Where's our intelligence; if we can't keep uninvited guests from getting into the White House?
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
Joseph in Oregon writes:
I disagree with the President's announced strategy and troop build-up in Afghanistan. There are no good choices in Afghanistan, sending more troops will not resolve the conflict, in fact it will increase animosity against the U.S. and its NATO allies over the long term period. The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is seen as a foreign occupying force by the Afghani people.
Resolving the conflict in Afghanistan is not a military solution alone.
President Obama in his recent decision, is pursuing the wrong strategy for bringing peace and more stability in Afghanistan and within the Pakistan tribal regions.
All that corruption and drama over the Afghani elections, where former President Karzai is reinstated as the prime minister, while during last summer we were critically criticizing the Iranian election process here, as a misrepresentation of the Iranian voters?
The administration should seek an immediate shift in strategy and in policy, from war waging in Afghanistan to a political solution, where the emphasis is placed on nation-building and the reconciliation process for restructuring Afghani society. This strategy may be more costly, but it poses the greatest chances to achieve even limited success in Afghanistan and would be perceived as a better solution in resolving the conflict by the Afghani tribal leaders and the Afghani people. I would rather see our U.S. tax money go in support of restructuring Afghani society, particularly if the Afghani people welcome this strategy, rather then seeing U.S. tax money going to support a policy of war waging, in a incredibly unpopular war effort.
Too many Afghani civilians have been killed, unecessarily over the past nine years and we no longer have the support of the mainstream Afghani population.
The U.S. needs engagement with local tribal leaders and with the Taliban in all provinces & less of a U.S. and NATO troop presence! The Taliban are embedded in the very fabric of Afghani society, a society which is structured on the premise of the tribal leader, supported by the local community -- intertwined with Pakistani tribal regions.
This is not a military solution.
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
I disagree with the President's announced strategy and troop build-up in Afghanistan. There are no good choices in Afghanistan, sending more troops will not resolve the conflict, in fact it will increase animosity against the U.S. and its NATO allies over the long term period. The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is seen as a foreign occupying force by the Afghani people.
Resolving the conflict in Afghanistan is not a military solution alone.
President Obama in his recent decision, is pursuing the wrong strategy for bringing peace and more stability in Afghanistan and within the Pakistan tribal regions.
All that corruption and drama over the Afghani elections, where former President Karzai is reinstated as the prime minister, while during last summer we were critically criticizing the Iranian election process here, as a misrepresentation of the Iranian voters?
The administration should seek an immediate shift in strategy and in policy, from war waging in Afghanistan to a political solution, where the emphasis is placed on nation-building and the reconciliation process for restructuring Afghani society. This strategy may be more costly, but it poses the greatest chances to achieve even limited success in Afghanistan and would be perceived as a better solution in resolving the conflict by the Afghani tribal leaders and the Afghani people. I would rather see our U.S. tax money go in support of restructuring Afghani society, particularly if the Afghani people welcome this strategy, rather then seeing U.S. tax money going to support a policy of war waging, in a incredibly unpopular war effort.
Too many Afghani civilians have been killed, unecessarily over the past nine years and we no longer have the support of the mainstream Afghani population.
The U.S. needs engagement with local tribal leaders and with the Taliban in all provinces & less of a U.S. and NATO troop presence! The Taliban are embedded in the very fabric of Afghani society, a society which is structured on the premise of the tribal leader, supported by the local community -- intertwined with Pakistani tribal regions.
This is not a military solution.
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
Ron in New York writes:
ENDISTAN AND THE NEW AMERICAN WAY.....
PRESIDENT HITS A GRAND SLAM WITH A LASER-POINTED, HISTORY-SWEEPING, CONNECTING-THE-DOTS, POLITICALLY-SAVVY, AND MYTH-DEBUNKING ARGUMENT FOR THE WAY OUT OF AGHANISTAN.
WILL THE DOOR NOW OPEN TO A NEW FRONT IN PAKISTAN?
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
ENDISTAN AND THE NEW AMERICAN WAY.....
PRESIDENT HITS A GRAND SLAM WITH A LASER-POINTED, HISTORY-SWEEPING, CONNECTING-THE-DOTS, POLITICALLY-SAVVY, AND MYTH-DEBUNKING ARGUMENT FOR THE WAY OUT OF AGHANISTAN.
WILL THE DOOR NOW OPEN TO A NEW FRONT IN PAKISTAN?
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
Usman in Pakistan writes:
who far we learn about the polcey on the afghanistan and pakistan is very incarging.we have to find the depomatic stacture rather then army.gannig the trast of the people especialy with those us army is figthting.beang a tribal country they are man of there words.do not pay thraed paty for that you can do for your salf.sorry one nosecns mack to wright these words form net cafa
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
who far we learn about the polcey on the afghanistan and pakistan is very incarging.we have to find the depomatic stacture rather then army.gannig the trast of the people especialy with those us army is figthting.beang a tribal country they are man of there words.do not pay thraed paty for that you can do for your salf.sorry one nosecns mack to wright these words form net cafa
Posted on Tue Dec 01, 2009
Page 1 of 1 pages