1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

President Obama’s Remarks on New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by The Scotsman, Mar 28, 2009.

  1. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.

    The situation is increasingly perilous. It has been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

    Many people in the United States – and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much – have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.

    So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

    The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

    But this is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it – too – is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

    For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

    As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

    So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

    To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan – which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General David Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

    Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan.

    The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history, and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together.

    .....................
     
  2. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    The terrorists within Pakistan's borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. Make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.

    It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, rugged, and often ungoverned. That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken – one way or another – when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.

    The government's ability to destroy these safe-havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners. To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.

    A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years – resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part – including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.

    I do not ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times, and resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future – because the security of our two countries is shared. Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe-havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people.

    These steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our effort in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.

    Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility. That is why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development.

    This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe-haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

    Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

    I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.
     
  3. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.

    For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. Those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 – and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

    This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

    To advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers. That is how we can help the Afghan government serve its people, and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. That is why I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. And that is why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations – an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in the Hague.

    At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort. But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run – because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

    As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.

    And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.

    In a country with extreme poverty that has been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. I have no illusions that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.

    There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans – including women and girls.

    Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We'll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan's economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

    None of the steps that I have outlined will be easy, and none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act – not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it. And what's at stake now is not just our own security – it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago. That must be our common purpose today.

    My Administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

    And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region – our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.

    That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over twenty other countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who have borne a burden as great as any other generation's. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.

    The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater numbers than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan – a future without opportunity or hope; a future without justice or peace.

    The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.

    Thank you, God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America.
     
  4. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    He is such a fear - slash - war monger... I mean, wasn't Bush Fear - slash - Warmongering anytime he so much as mentioned the need to fight terrorists and the threat they posed to the free world?

    Where is the withdraw date?

    Where is the exit strategy for Afghanistan?

    Why aren't the Dems calling for the Afghans to stand up so that we can stand down?

    Why isn't Congress placing benchmarks on the Afghans and then demanding they be met or our military be defunded?

    Why are the exact same troops who were refered to as "Nazi's" under Bush, now refered to as our "Brave men and women in uniform"?

    How is it that the same troops who carried out the same operations under Bush were said to be merely "Air rading villiage and killing civilians" but are now considered to be undertaking security operations vital to the stability of the region?

    Why hasn't Harry Reid declared "This war is lost"?

    Why are those who wrongly said a surge in Iraq would be a miserable failure now cheerleaders for a surge in Afghanistan?

    Why have our Generals gone from being untrustworthy shills for the Republican Administration to now being unquesionable authorities on the situation?

    Why is it that when Bush announced Bin Laden was no longer our primary target he was savaged for it but after taking over, Obama said the same thing and there was not so much as a raised eyebrow? Shouldn't the Dems be screaming now, as they were under Bush, that Bin Laden was, and still is, the target and we shouldn't be distracted by other operations in other countries(like Pakistan)?

    And another thing.... Dissent was "patriotic" while Bush was in office, now they are trying to paint dissenters as potential domestic terrorists! ...yet its the Republicans who are said to be the fascists.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    . The answer is because liberals are hypocritical but you already knew that.

    The US might be going to hell in a hand basket but at least things will be better for our troops because the constant demonizing of our troops is (mostly) over. There will always be a segment of our population who demonizes them but the obama lovin libs have now at least stopped doing it. They will still demonize them for anything they did under the previous administration but what ever they do now will be A-OK

    I don’t think you will be hearing republicans or conservatives calling our troops evil, or demonize them like obama and his circle has.

    I don’t think you will hear republican or conservative say things like they hope we lose or hope our troops lose.

    There will be no republican or conservative “human shields”

    No republican will threaten or wish to cut the money that services the troops.
     
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Hi Gen - I think the point of the speech was to paint some broad strokes which in conjuction with NATO partners will be refined into a strategy. I think that it recognises that US domestic security depends upon the stability of Central Asia.

    It seems pointless discussing "exit" strategies at this stage since the job is really only in its infancy? The situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan certainly doesn't warrant such consideration until the ANA and ANP are up to strength and trained and the Northwest Frontier is no longer a haven.

    All in all I thought it was a reasonable statement.
     
  7. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Scotsman, it was demanded by the left that Bush have a absolute exit strategy before he sent even one man in Iraq. I agree with you that it’s a silly notion but why was it demanded then by the same people who today have no problem with no exit strategy is the question.

    I am fine with not having one but I would like those who demanded it then at least give a reason why they are not demanding it now.
     
  8. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Thats all the man ever gives people are generalities and statements open to interpretation... On the incredibly RARE occasion when he gives specifics, he lies or doesn't follow through. During the Campaign: "95% of you will get a tax cut under my plan.." After election: "Ooops! Did I say 95% would get a cut? I meant 100% would see their taxes go up."

    His statement was empty rhetoric and platitudes with a sprinkling of "Hope & Change" for flavor... He said nothing of substance.

    My questions are all still valid. Had McCain won the election, our troops would still be "Nazi's" - "air raiding villages and killing civilians", Dems would be CRYING over withdrawl dates, benchmarks and the cost of the war... our Generals would be shills for the Republican administration... etc. etc. etc.
     
  9. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    That's a fairly substancial commitment that doesn't strike me as empty rhetoric?

    The Obama administration inherits a rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. In fact, both President Obama and General David McKiernan, who commands all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, agree that we are not winning the war against the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Facing facts on the ground is a prerequisite to responding to this challenge, which will require a comprehensive and long-term approach that uses all elements of U.S. national power.
     
  10. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    The empty rhetoric is the part where he takes credit for this as being somehow new... Bush came out with a plan to send 30k new troops there, Obama cut it to 17k new troops... Bush wanted 6k trainers, Obama 4k... Democrats in charge of Congress, which means in charge of the purse strings, wanted to CUT our funding of operations not only in Iraq but Afghanistan as well, its only now that Obama is CIC that they are willing to give the president whatever resources he feels is necessary and for however long it takes.... If only they could have had that attitude while Bush was in office, perhaps both wars would have been over by now.

    Its funny you used something from AmericanProgress... They were on the front lines calling our soldiers Nazi's under Bush, demanding we withdraw completely from both theatres, claiming the Generals in charge were shills for the administration, now they have pulled a 180 and nobody so much as raises an eyebrow. They would have been pleased to hang a military failure around Bush's neck, and tried like hell to make it happen, but now that Obama is in office, they will do whatever it takes to run cover for the new administration.

    Just the phrase "long term strategy" sent them in fits declaring Bush was bogging us down in another vietnam but when the term is applied to Obama's administration, its seen as forward thinking.
     
  11. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    What Obama is advocating in Afganistan is what should have been done in the first place. Go in and fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is what we should have done instead of going in to Iraq to avenge the pres's daddy, or because there were WMD, or because god told him to, or whatever other lame reason was given for invading a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic extremism.

    Maybe Obama can rally the country and our allies into supporting a real war on terror, whether or not he wants to call it that. If he can, then he will have fixed one of the things that his predecessor broke. I'd call that a pretty good start, if he can pull it off.

    Of course, it would have been a lot easier on September 12, 2001 than it will be now.

    Some of the "liberals" or Democrats who opposed the war may have done so for partisan reasons, as people are alleging. It doesn't seem too likely, though, as both parties supported the war in the beginning, when it was believed that Iraq had both WMD and ties to Al Qaeda. It seems more likely that Republicans continued to support Bush's war against Iraq due to partisan reasons once it was painfully obvious that a terrible mistake had been made.

    The war against Islamic terrorism is not a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue. it is an issue of how best to root out the cockroaches that attacked us and that continue to terrorize nations around the world. It started badly, and has a long way to go. Maybe now, it will start to turn around.
     
  12. marklutroni

    marklutroni New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with what you have said. The approach Obama has is for everyone's sake. I can sense that the move of "long term strategy" by his administration is all what we need.
     
  13. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Its to bad you guys never ask these questions...BEFORE the war starts....
     
  14. rationalist

    rationalist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What makes you think that you can achieve this victory over Al Qaeda?

    How many years evidence of failure on the part of the co-allition and other nations who are much closer (USSR) do you need before you accept that this war is unwinnable? It has already been going on longer than the second world war.

    And let's be real about this, they don't exactly have the fire power of the US do they?

    The fact is that western countries cannot deal with modern warfare where the enemy doesn't come walking over the hill wearing the same clothes as each other. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have shown quite remarkably how a small number of poorly armed but very determined guerilla fighters can frustrate a hugely well equipped modern army that is a long way from home.

    What is it that you think will change to make an outcome any different to the one you see day in day out?
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Thinking that war can be nicely predicted in advance in lunacy.
     
Loading...

Share This Page