Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Jailbird Larry ‘homo-sex and blow w/Obama’ Sinclair runs for Congress Previous entry: Obama Speech Liveblog

President’s Remarks: ‘The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan’

Jesse had you covered for the liveblog in the prior thread. Here is the video—photos and the transcript are below the fold.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

December 1, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama—
As Prepared for Delivery

The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan United States Military Academy at West Point

December 1, 2009


Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there.

As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am 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.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. 

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

###

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:30 PM • (27) Comments

Thanks for the text, Pam.

Comment #1: Dana  on  12/01  at  11:59 PM

at least LBJ had the gulf of tonkin incident, and a draft. and still, it was a clusterfuck. afghanistan & iraq are black holes, the “way forward” should be declaring victory, and leaving them to their own devices.

Comment #2: cpinva  on  12/02  at  02:19 AM

Sorry, but I can’t stomach another Obama speech.

Not since his claim to be a “fierce advocate” for gay rights has played out as betrayal after betrayal, a bald-faced lie.

Usta enjoy the pretty Obama speeches, but you couldn’t pay me to listen to another. I have a thing about being lied to by US presidents.

Comment #3: judybrowni  on  12/02  at  05:46 AM

Not since his claim to be a “fierce advocate” for gay rights has played out as betrayal after betrayal, a bald-faced lie.

While I definitely sit in the camp that believes that this is a big mistake, one thing it’s not fair to call it is a betrayal…

I don’t agree with Obama’s policy decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan, but the fact is, he’s doing exactly what he promised he would do when he campaigned on last year - increasing troop strength in that theater.

I think a lot of us kind of glossed over that campaign pledge in the hope that he would reconsider the decision if and when he became POTUS, but we can’t act as if he’s contradicting his own campaign promises on this one, because this is PRECISELY what he said he would do if he became president.

And now, unfortunately, he’s doing it.

I think it sucks that he’s doing it, I think this could potentially cost him his job in 2012, and I think this could all play out very bad.  I’m quite disappointed with it all.  But I don’t feel betrayed, at least not on this specific issue.  If anything, I almost wish that he was going against his campaign pledge on this.

So we’ll see what happens.  I think 2010 could be pretty freaking brutal for the Democrats, though.  Hopefully we can still hang on to the majorities, even if it gets cut down quite a bit.

Comment #4: DTG in STL  on  12/02  at  07:46 AM

I just don’t understand the President’s logic on this.  If it is our vital national interest to keep al Qaeda from once again having a safe haven in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), how does it stop being in our national interest after mid 2011?  If we are unable to defeat and destroy al Qaeda before mid 2011, does it make any sense that we would then start to turn that job over to the Afghans at that point?

Either it’s in our national interests to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda—in which case we fight, aiming toward their destruction, not a calendar date—or it isn’t, in which case the notion of escalation makes no sense.

I’m old enough to remember another presidential speech along those lines; President Nixon used the term “Vietnamization.”  We saw how well that worked out.

Comment #5: Dana  on  12/02  at  08:41 AM

I just don’t understand the President’s logic on this.  If it is our vital national interest to keep al Qaeda from once again having a safe haven in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), how does it stop being in our national interest after mid 2011?  If we are unable to defeat and destroy al Qaeda before mid 2011, does it make any sense that we would then start to turn that job over to the Afghans at that point?

Dana…

Please tell me that you are not so dense as to believe that it is possible to “defeat” terrorism.

Even if we were to wipe every last member of Al Qaeda off the face of the planet, all that would happen is that some other radical Islamist organization would pop up and take their place.

It will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, end.

EVER.

If you are calling the policy misguided because you agree that “terrorism” is not a sovereign entity that can be defeated, well, then we agree.

If you are calling the policy misguided because you think he should be committing us to indefinite military conflict in Afghanistan, well, then you are Osama bin Laden’s wet dream.

Because what OBL wants more than anything is an America that is willing to throw every last dollar it has down the black hole of endless conflict with boogeyman terrorists.

Do you actually think that if we kill OBL tomorrow that someone else wouldn’t just pop up and take his place?

Unless we plan on annexing Afghanistan as the 51st state (which I’m sure the rest of the planet might have a problem with), we cannot ever control or contain that part of the world.

The fundamental flaw in the wingnut thinking on the so-called “War on Terror” is that this is a war that can have a tangible “victory”.  You cannot defeat “Terror” by hitting it harder with military force anymore than you can put out a raging inferno by pouring gasoline on it.  They are not scared of death, they are not scared of conflict… they welcome it with open arms.  Every time you kill one, you create at least one more.  And they will never, ever, ever surrender or call a truce.  Their only allegiance is to the cause of destroying America’s soul - they have no country, they have no property, and they don’t even particularly care if they die in the conflict.  You can’t defeat that.

We cannot win this war by the sword, and the only thing we will accomplish by continuing this folly is getting more American troops sent home in boxes, more money being wasted, and more people hating us.

We are battling an ideology fueled by resentment, a resentment that stems from the perception that we are invaders, occupiers, and murderers.  And so long as we continue to invade, occupy, and murder, we are only strengthening that perception in that part of the world.

This is so easy a kindergartner could understand it.

The #1 recruiter for Al Qaeda in the world is the United States of America.  We do more to rally people to the cause of Osama bin Laden than he could ever do on his own power alone.

And somewhere in a cave probably on the Af-Pak border tonight, OBL may have been watching a second American president giving him PRECISELY what he wants.  We are making his wildest dreams come true - he said after 9/11 that he wanted the U.S. to be dragged into an endless war that would bankrupt our nation, financially and morally.  And we’re giving him exactly what he wants.  If he’s still alive, he’s laughing his ass off right now.

It’s sad that you can’t even see it.

Comment #6: DTG in STL  on  12/02  at  09:23 AM

LBJ only without the major domestic achievements (since the health insurance company bailout will be nothing of the kind, if it even passes.) So sad. So disastrous for a country that will be back under insane Republican misrule before we know it. I tremble for this country’s future.

Comment #7: Steve LaBonne  on  12/02  at  10:28 AM

“Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan.”

Noam Chomsky would like to remind you that this ain’t exactly true. We sorta skipped over that part before going in. It probably wouldn’t have made a difference if we’d talked to the Taliban a little longer. If they were willing/able to turn on Al Qaeda they probably would have done so, but I wonder what would have happened if the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden before we could get really organized to go in? 

“I just don’t understand the President’s logic on this.  If it is our vital national interest to keep al Qaeda from once again having a safe haven in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), how does it stop being in our national interest after mid 2011?”

I guess the idea is that the Afghan National Army which sure couldn’t do it today will take over that job?

We’re not acting like a country with a vital national interest at stake, probably because we know deep down we don’t have one. We’re going to continue to pretend that we do because retreat from any war is the one thing that’s really unacceptable to American political elites.

Comment #8: witless chum  on  12/02  at  12:53 PM

While I definitely sit in the camp that believes that this is a big mistake,

I’m not sure what “camp” I sit in yet, primarily because I’m not taking this at face value.  As I posted on a similar thread over at Shakesville:

“Whatever you may think of Obama morally, you have to admit that he’s a very, very smart man who’s very, very good at getting what he wants in the long term.

What does he want? I think he wants out. The whole situation is a clusterfuck with no good solution, and if we can see it, so can he. But if we just plain bail, then we’ve outright failed, which makes us look weak, which he wants to avoid - a reputation can be a powerful defense or a serious weakness.

So he wants out, as soon as possible, but he wants to do it on terms that allow us to save at least a little face. In the end, I think he’s trying for something like the Iraqi surge: stabilize the situation for a few years (which 30,000 extra boots on the ground probably will do), buy some time for the Afghan government to get their shit together, and hope the whole thing doesn’t collapse immediately after we leave.

It’s cold and it more or less writes off the Afghan people as a loss, but given the state we’re in as a country right now, it might honestly be the least-bad solution.

If nothing else, I take some small, cold comfort in the knowledge that, unlike Bush, Obama isn’t stupid enough to think he can build anything worthwhile over there with nothing but a sledgehammer. There’s no doubt in my mind that the next year and a half is going to include a lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get the Afghan and Pakistani governments moving in the right direction.”

Comment #9: Seraph  on  12/02  at  01:11 PM

DTG, it doesn’t matter whether I think it’s possible; the President for whom I’d guess the majority of the Pandagonistae apparently thinks it’s both possible and necessary.  I simply presented an either/or question, and noted that the President’s decision doesn’t make much sense, regardless of how you come down on the national interest question.

Comment #10: Dana  on  12/02  at  01:37 PM

LBJ only without the major domestic achievements

I disagree.  For one thing, most economists out there seem to agree that the economic situation would be a lot worse without the Stimulus, and a great deal of it remains to be spent.  Whether people will actually give him credit for it or not come 2012, I’d say that staving off a second Great Depression is a significant achievement. 

(since the health insurance company bailout will be nothing of the kind, if it even passes.)

Health Care Reform will not be good enough.  Not to those of us who care about people instead of insurance companies or ideology.  That’s true.  However, it will be a major achievement.  Forget LBJ, we’re talking FDR.  By making public health care a matter for the Federal Government, it will rewrite the American social contract. 

Social Security and Medicare had small starts, too.

So disastrous for a country that will be back under insane Republican misrule before we know it.

See above in re. the Stimulus.  It’s designed to work over the course of 4 years - i.e., by the time he’s running for reelection, it will have taken full effect.  I think that might just help.

And the Republicans themselves are doing the best they can to help us.  If they keep purging everyone who isn’t an utter frothing wingnut, NY-23 is their future.

Comment #11: Seraph  on  12/02  at  01:38 PM

Mr LaBonne wrote:

LBJ only without the major domestic achievements (since the health insurance company bailout will be nothing of the kind, if it even passes.) So sad. So disastrous for a country that will be back under insane Republican misrule before we know it. I tremble for this country’s future.

Wrong president; this was much more like President Nixon’s “Vietnamization” policy.

Comment #12: Dana  on  12/02  at  01:39 PM

“Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan.”

Noam Chomsky would like to remind you that this ain’t exactly true. We sorta skipped over that part before going in. It probably wouldn’t have made a difference if we’d talked to the Taliban a little longer. If they were willing/able to turn on Al Qaeda they probably would have done so, but I wonder what would have happened if the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden before we could get really organized to go in?

Actually, the Taliban did offer to turn over Bin Laden - to a neutral third country. Bush’s reply was ““When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations. We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.”“

Comment #13: Dunc  on  12/02  at  02:03 PM

LBJ only without the major domestic achievements

I think that’s a little bit over the top.

You’re comparing what one president did over the course of 62 months to what another president has done over the course of 10.5 months.

Stating the opinion that this is a really bad decision is legit… characterizing a presidency as a total failure when it isn’t even 1/4 of the way through the first term is kinda ridiculous.

Comment #14: DTG in STL  on  12/02  at  03:56 PM

at least LBJ had the gulf of tonkin incident, and a draft.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the barest fig leaf of propriety covering the administration’s rush to war.  We had 9/11.  That was our excuse to make a terrible mistake.  But we got to make it for 7 long years.  I don’t see the deep-seated need to continue the glorious tradition of fail.

And the Draft is a “good idea” now because we all know how bad an idea it is in actuality.  The current military at least has to bribe people to join.  Yesterday’s military could basically march you into combat at gunpoint.  It was an absurd mockery of Democracy, that you had a bunch of paranoid grandparents goose-stepping their children’s children into the slaughter house, without even giving them the right to vote.  The 26th Amendment was perhaps the only good thing to come out of Vietnam.

Instituting a draft would - theoretically - create a massive public backlash against future wars.  That’s the big appeal of the measure.  And it would trigger a backlash because it would target people in power.  But as every draft-war has taught us, people in power have a plethora of alternatives for draft dodging.

At least under LBJ we had taxes that weren’t cratering our budgets.  One thing I absolutely would love to see is a constitutional amendment demanding that all war spending be paid for with a war tax.  Then perhaps we can balance out the Republican obsession with war and obsession with tax cuts and strike some kind of saner medium.

Comment #15: Zifnab  on  12/02  at  04:10 PM

Actually, the Taliban did offer to turn over Bin Laden - to a neutral third country.

No, they demanded proof.  That’s why Bush went on and on about guilt and innocence.  And, frankly, the Taliban was playing coy.  We were supposed to hold a trial before even being able to take him into custody?  Please.

Instituting a draft would - theoretically - create a massive public backlash against future wars.

I hate it when people make this claim.  First, rich people and even much of the middle class are perfectly capable of avoiding a draft.  A draft means that poor people fight and die.  Period.  No one gives a fuck about the poor.  Second, it took most Americans years and thousands of lives to turn against the Vietnam war, and, in the long run, it taught Americans close to nothing.  The only lesson most Americans took away from Vietnam is that losing sucks.  Thirty-five years later and we still feel sorry for ourselves over that shit.

Comment #16: keshmeshi  on  12/02  at  04:48 PM

Seraph, thank you. Ten months in and already all my buddies on the left are shedding angel tears over the shattered hopes of the American dream etc. Also, am I the only person on the entire left who believes that if we’re going to engage in crazy imperialist because-you-looked-at-us-wrong wars, the decent thing to do is probably not to turn around and withdraw, leaving collapse in our wake, the second we get sick of imperialist projects being actually sort of difficult? It’s not like we’re gaining anything from hanging around Afghanistan trying to clean up our own mess - it’s not like we’re going to defeat some vague concept of some vague network of some vague baddies who have managed to do some very bad things - at this point the best we can do is try to lessen the destabilized hellhole quotient slightly.

So I don’t understand: do people believe that we’re just making it worse, or do they think its worse-or-betterness is not our problem?

Comment #17: purpleshoes  on  12/02  at  05:39 PM

Actually, the Taliban did offer to turn over Bin Laden - to a neutral third country. Bush’s reply was ““When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations. We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.”“

Furthermore, it should be noted that Congress quietly released a report last week that indicated that only 4 months after 9/11, we HAD Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, and when the generals on the ground requested more troops so they could go in for the capture, the request was denied by Def. Sec. Rumsfeld… because we didn’t want to alienate our allies in the region.

We could have caught OBL eight years ago, and we didn’t.  Bush royally fucked that one up, among his countless other fuckups.

Comment #18: DTG in STL  on  12/02  at  06:14 PM

Afghanistan and Iraq had less to do with “protecting America” than they did with achieving the goals of the ruling plutocracy: to keep a short leash on the hoi polloi and to enrich themselves. Tell me exactly what we have to show after 8 years of throwing cash down ratholes that are Iraq and Afghanistan, other than massive debt and a wrecked economy. The war was an excuse for not doing anything for the middle class—in fact, an excuse for kicking us when we are down.

You need to stop and ask yourself who they are really waging war on.

Comment #19: Jim Palmer  on  12/02  at  09:01 PM

<em Also, am I the only person on the entire left who believes that if we’re going to engage in crazy imperialist because-you-looked-at-us-wrong wars, the decent thing to do is probably not to turn around and withdraw, leaving collapse in our wake, the second we get sick of imperialist projects being actually sort of difficult?</em>

Probably not the only one. But the number of people who still cling to the hope that “Obama has a secret plan” is getting smaller and smaller.

Comment #20: millie  on  12/02  at  09:37 PM

keshmeshi: The only lesson most Americans took away from Vietnam is that losing sucks.

That one’s going in my quotefile. Delicious.

Comment #21: grendelkhan  on  12/02  at  11:33 PM

“The #1 recruiter for Al Qaeda in the world is the United States of America.  We do more to rally people to the cause of Osama bin Laden than he could ever do on his own power alone. “

I disagree with this statement completely.  What exactly did the US do to provoke Bin Laden into launching the terrorist war of the 1990’s against the US culminating in the 9/11 attacks?

Remember, the September 11th attacks happened after the 1990’s, a period when America was generally viewed as benevolent.  The only foreign wars launched by the United States during the 1990’s were in aid of Muslims - first, to rescue Kuwait from Hussein and the Iraqis (albeit there was a self-interest there too), then, in Somalia to try to bring peace to that country, then in Bosnia, then in Kosovo.

Bin Laden started his war with the United States and amassed thousands of followers years before the “war on terror” and Iraq 2. 

Even if the US were to withdraw all foreign forces from all Muslim countries, and leave the Israelis to fend for themselves, it would still be a target for terrorist attacks.  Maybe they would be organized in a re-Talibanized Afghanistan, or maybe they would be given safe haven in the Islamist areas of Somalia.  More to the point, such withdrawals would lead to power vacuums and a series of terrible wars which would kill millions.  But hey, at least you’d get to feel less guilty about being American.

Comment #22: PeterZeroOne  on  12/03  at  04:37 AM

PeterZeroOne -

Study up the last 50+ years of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and then you’ll have your answer.

Read about the House of Saud, the Shah of Iran, and our secret funding of the mujahadeen but then bailing out on them after the USSR fucked their country up more.

Go see Charlie Wilson’s War.

This thing was brewing LOOOOOONG before the 1990s.  Go back to the 1970s.  Better yet, go back to the 1950s - Operation Ajax.

Most of the Muslim world didn’t just start magically hating us for no reason in the late 1990s when OBL rose to power…. most of them hav hated us for much longer than that.

And while the first Gulf War enjoyed much greater global support than our current endeavors, don’t full yourself into believing that was a humanitarian effort on our part to help the poor maligned Kuwaiti people (a country which happens to be a pretty tyrannical dictatorship)... we cared about one thing, and one thing only.  It’s black, sticky, and in limited supply.

Our foreign policy doesn’t give a leaping fuck about any actual people who live over there, despite the PR spin you’ll hear from both of our political parties… it’s about oil.  Always has been, always will be.

And yes, even though there’s no oil in Afghanistan, it is still part of the Muslim world, and what happens there influences what happens in the Muslim nations where there is oil.

As Congressman Ron Paul (of all people) put it, 9/11 was a backlash for decades of shitty American foreign policy in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world.

Comment #23: DTG in STL  on  12/03  at  09:16 AM

good,,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect…
http://www.coolforsale.com /productlist.asp?id=s76(Tracksuit)
Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready?
coolforsale com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.Nike shox $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g;) $35Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,ect…For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

Comment #24: lisa1986  on  12/03  at  09:34 AM

@ DTG #6: fabulous summary.

Comment #25: Ranylt  on  12/03  at  10:40 AM

millie, I never referenced a secret plan - if you have a theory, please expound. The plan as stated - attempt to hold things together in an attempt to stabilize the situation enough that the Afghani government has some vague chance of getting a grip on internal stability, through providing security services, infrastructure improvements, and training, is all I think is happening. I think it’s a good idea. I think it’s very possible that, having thought through the consequences, Obama sees that as having a positive long-term outcome. Agreeing with a stated plan is not equal to thinking maybe he has something in the Batcave that will help, yes?

Seriously, I don’t understand this fetish on the left for deciding that because a malacious fuckwit started the war, the second he’s out of office it’s not our national business to try to bring the thing to any sort of civilized close instead of just giving up and flying everyone out immediately, and who cares what happens to the people whose country we invaded. I don’t need someone to explain this to me in person - I’ll take a link to another blog - but I’m not understanding how this falls in line with our traditional bleeding-heart responsible-global-citizen stance on my end of the political spectrum.

Comment #26: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  02:01 PM

DTG, Afghanistan has part of one of the best pipeline routes for getting NG to Europe.
We didn’t make a mess in the Middle East.  We’re the chumps who keep cleaning up the European countries’ messes all over the world when their empires fall apart, usually mucking things up even more in the process before making any progress (when we do, which isn’t often).

Comment #27: helen w. h.  on  12/04  at  02:34 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.