Obama on Afghanistan: Disappointing

27 March 2009

President Obama has just spoken on AfPak.  I closed my eyes and listened closely to his words, coming via the BBC from the other side of the world.

The President's words were disappointing.  He talked about our goal to reach a force level of 134,000 Afghan soldiers and 82,000 police by 2011.  This is not even in the neighborhood of being enough.  Further, the increase of 21,000 U.S. troops is likely just a bucket of water on the growing bonfire.  One can only expect that sometime in 2010, the President will again be forced to announce another increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

If there were not people like Gates and Petraeus up there, my gut would say to pull out.  It is only my faith in the military, and what I saw them accomplish against heavy odds in Iraq, that gives me hope.

Others would disagree with me.  A well placed and very experienced British officer just emailed me his impressions, to whit:

“An impressive statement of intent – I particularly liked the bits about bearing down on Afghan corruption and corruption in how USAID money is spent.  The speech inspires confidence and, as he is not Bush, it could encourage others to come to the party in a more meaningful way.

I don’t mean any offence about Bush as I for one see history judging him more favorably than contemporary commentators it’s just that the Europeans might follow Obama in a way that they never would Bush.”

And so my views clearly are not held by everyone.  Most British and American officers – especially American – have been far more positive about Afghanistan than I have been.  My confidence in them is great, and before publishing this I called London to talk about this.  There is more confidence coming from the British Army than meets the public eye.

Michael

Please Click to view the President's Full Statement


Comments   

# a&n 2009-03-27 17:18
Feel similar to you Mike..."If there were not people like Gates and Petraeus up there, my gut would say to pull out. It is only my faith in the military, and what I saw them accomplish against heavy odds in Iraq, that gives me hope." It isn't a question of our Military doing a great job over there. If their hands were untied and politicians and lawyers weren't running things and our best Generals were in charge we would win...but it isn't going to happen. Half steps with an agenda other than winning only make the world less safe, emboldens our enemies and gets our men killed....Besid es, haven't you heard...everyth ing evil in the world is our fault. Maybe my first thoughts on 9/11 were best after all...fresh before the spin set in...Secure our borders, throw the enemies out of our own country, get the big ones ready and tell the world that one wrong move in our direction from any terrorist backing country and they'd be glass. You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse no matter how you try. You can clean a pig up and put a bow on him but soon as you look the other way he heads right back to the mud hole you pulled him out of. You also have to have leaders with Americas interest at heart...not their own. Thanks Mike for your great observations
Reply | Report to administrator
# isma 2009-03-27 17:50
www.perdidoenkuwait.blogspot.com
Reply | Report to administrator
# Charles Coone 2009-03-27 17:59
The U.S., with a usurper-in-chie f, needs to be more than thankful for the quality of all our military and especially Gen. Petraeus. I call on all all Americans who have taken the oath,"..to preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA..." to continue to honor it with the same enthusiasm and vigor when you first gave allegiance.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Pat Patterson 2009-03-27 18:29
Except for the Brits and Poles, of course the Europeans might follow Obama more than Bush because they are all a bunch of weak-kneed Socialists. They echo nothing more than a version of Rodney King's "Can't we all get along" plea.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Jim Burke 2009-03-27 18:41
Dear Comander in Chief - Drop your pants, bend over and kiss your A$$ goodbye!!!
Reply | Report to administrator
# Bob Sydow 2009-03-27 18:42
The Euros won't "follow" Obama in any way that matters. That is the diplomats' pipe dream. Their leaders will jockey to get into photo ops with the new rock star, and they may send a few more "soldiers" with the same rules of disengagement: that they be kept safely away any unpleasant encounters with the enemy. Aside from the Brits and Poles, the Euro leaders want above all to be re-elected and they know their people, and they know Europeans are not going to make any sacrifices for their own fredom, much less anyone else's.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Brian Sanderson 2009-03-27 19:23
Look people, let's be totally honest, Obama is a politician...Bu sh is a politician...Pe traus, McKiernan, Gates, and soon to be Ambassador Eikenberry are the experts and continuity, along with us, the Soldiers on the ground kicking ass and taking names (literally), no matter what the "Political" agenda or fu*^&%, make this party or this group happy today. At the same time, how about showing some respect for the leadership of our great country. I am sick and tired of constantly reading or hearing people including you Mike, speak bad about our ELECTED officials, no matter what level of government. Opinion is opinion but damn. How about a little less speech dissecting, biased bullshit and focus on the real issues. Put the politics aside because that crap is not going anywhere! The one American "interest" that seems to have fallen by the wayside or even become routine to most amidst all the other crap going on in our country is the fact that we are still fighting and losing our brothers in arms here in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I would have you guys and gals out there that haven't experienced this shit and lost good friends and family know that this is absolutely serious! It means so much to me that I'm sitting here on my downtime before going on a patrol writing this. I'm in agreement though, plus us up here in the stan, expand our logistics and support systems, hell turn the heat up so we can squash these Taliban/Al Qaida/Shady Pakistan f&*kers and whoever else is out there doing dirt.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Robert Sciolino 2009-03-27 19:28
Michael, its amazing that we are giving such heavy value to style, impression and perception when there are men fighting us with blind rage, hatred and religious zeal. I'm sorry to use metaphors here, but these initial takes on Obama's statement are truly coming from people lost in a forest, counting the trees. If it is your judgment based on wisdom and experience, that the forces Obama has declared will not be nearly enough, why would you even give consideration to the ambiguous and clearly abstract "hope" that other countries will possibly pick up the slack and ally around Obama simply because they perceive him to be of higher mind than Bush in this war? In the meantime, the Taliban fights on and will find every miniscule measure of incentive they can grab from meandering rhetoric from our new "Commander-in-C hief". As you must know by now, Islamists find amazing motivation in any weakness we show while they fight. They are not interested in "chess match", Western style diplomatic "footsy", unless it shows weakness on our part. Providing "benchmarks" are just fuel for the Taliban. They are not interested in a compromised outcome. This war must be won with victory and it must be absolute. Our enemy is playing that way...for us to be fighting with measured moderation, will at best lead to a long stagnation and at worst utter defeat. Either way, many more of our soldiers will be coming home in pieces and in boxes thanks to this "moderate" approach against this type of adversary. God bless Patreus and his team; they are now fighting two wars, one on the battlefield and one in the White House ops rooms. Michael, its OK to evaluate before coming to a final conclusion, just don't forget the big picture, especially as our enemy sees it.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Robert Sciolino 2009-03-27 19:35
Michael, its amazing that we are giving such heavy value to style, impression and perception when there are men fighting us with blind rage, hatred and religious zeal. I'm sorry to use metaphors here, but these initial takes on Obama's statement are truly coming from people lost in a forest, counting the trees. If it is your judgment based on wisdom and experience, that the forces Obama has declared will not be nearly enough, why would you even give consideration to the ambiguous and clearly abstract "hope" that other countries will possibly pick up the slack and ally around Obama simply because they perceive him to be of higher mind than Bush in this war? In the meantime, the Taliban fights on and will find every miniscule measure of incentive they can grab from meandering rhetoric from our new "Commander-in-C hief". As you must know by now, Islamists find amazing motivation in any weakness we show while they fight. They are not interested in "chess match", Western style diplomatic "footsy", unless it shows weakness on our part. Providing "benchmarks" are just fuel for the Taliban. They are not interested in a compromised outcome. This war must be won with victory and it must be absolute. Our enemy is playing that way...for us to be fighting with measured moderation, will at best lead to a long stagnation and at worst utter defeat. Either way, many more of our soldiers will be coming home in pieces and in boxes thanks to this "moderate" approach against this type of adversary. God bless Patreus and his team; they are now fighting two wars, one on the battlefield and one in the White House ops rooms. Michael, its OK to evaluate before coming to a final conclusion, just don't forget the big picture, especially as our enemy sees it.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Commander Hollywood 2009-03-27 19:40
Obama is not trying to win this war. He is simply trying not to outright lose it. There is a huge difference. Petraeus and, to a lesser degree, Gates have made a deal with the devil. These men know what the outcome would be should the US fold its tent and come home. They are simply trying to make the best of a dismal set of choices, mostly bad.
Reply | Report to administrator
# kbdabear 2009-03-27 20:33
ƒ??An impressive statement of intent ƒ?? I particularly liked the bits about bearing down on Afghan corruption and corruption in how USAID money is spent. The speech inspires confidence and, as he is not Bush, it could encourage others to come to the party in a more meaningful way.

Teleprompter signed off on the stimulous and found himself "shocked" that AIG bonuses were in there, and this officer has "confidence" because Teleprompter promises to root out Afghan corruption? I guess if you read a script with a deep voice, some people will bend over time and time again. Did the officer explain how this "confidence" will open up rapidly closing supply routes? Just keep in mind that the "con" in con man is short for "confidence man"
Reply | Report to administrator
# Tim Perren 2009-03-27 21:10
Hooah! I am an OIFIII veteran, and I love to read that people still think the Army is doing good things. I got out at a time when things were a little different. Thanks for being the "REAL" eyes and ears on the ground.
Reply | Report to administrator
# MlR 2009-03-27 22:22
Regardless of Petraeus and company, it's time to significantly change the mission or pull out.

Nation-building in Afghanistan is a lost cause, and ticking time bomb. It can still get much worse. Adjust the policy, focus on killing Al Qaeda, and drastically reduce strength and expectations - don't do the exact opposite.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Michael Moore 2009-03-28 00:05
I am most impressed by the amount of study and the caliber of perople who weighed in on this and made this decision.
Both nations (Afgh and Pak) support it. as does Secretary Gates. There are many differing opinions held by many very smart people, but ultimately, someone has to make the final decision.
He also left the door open (though Axlerod) to increase troops if required.

Your Truly,

Mike Moore
Reply | Report to administrator
# A. C. 2009-03-28 00:27
As you reported, Michael, the British troops are unquestionably highly skilled and well motivated troops. However, as we saw in southern Iraq, neither skill, nor professional pride, nor attitude count for much when the government sells you out. The British government's deal to sell out the Basra people to the Iranian directed shiite gangs for an illusion of peaceful occupancy by British forces left a bloody mess. It cost the Iraqi army too many lives to replace British forces - it should have cost them none to take over from the British army. So I wouldn't take much stock in the Army's opinion.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Av8R 2009-03-28 03:11
Tell me if this sounds ironic:

The USSR maintained as many as 104,000 troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s...attempt ing to impose order and suppress a mujahideen. In nearly ten years, they suffered 469,685 casualties as the 'world's most lethal armed force'. The mission: 1. Strengthen Afghan forces, so once the resistance and mujahideen were defeated, the Army could be withdrawn; and 2., Stabilize the country and provide logistic, air, artillery, and intel support to Afghan forces.

PLEASE ... do not go into this venture looking for a 'fight' with insurgents. Afghanistan is not a winnable scenario .. it needs presence and civil stability, not an army. A half-million US troops couldn't settle this fight.... just ask the Russians.
Reply | Report to administrator
# paul conway 2009-03-28 05:31
Mr Yon;
In my opinion, Obama laid out a clear stategic goal, at least as clear as is possible given the complicated nature of the Afghan-Pakistan war. Achieving it will be very tough indeed. You may well be right, 134,000 Afghan troops and 82,000 police is too few. But 4000 more US troops to be advisors/traine rs,added to the 17000 already annouced, is probably all we can scrape up now.
This will not satisfy our legion of bellicose bloggers baying for Moslem blood but they can always enlist.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Barry Sheridan, Hampshire, England 2009-03-28 08:21
Michael.
I have always felt that the sort of backward looking repressives such as the Taleban/drug gangs can be defeated, it does however take patience and a lot of effort because you need develop security and other opportunities that spreads wealth around rather than seeing what limited amount is there concentrated in the hands of handful. Inevitably in a backward nation like Afghanistan where life is hard and the opportunities few, it is going to take plenty of money to go with that effort. Although interestingly I also feel there is enough evidence to support the idea that even amongst that crowd attracted to death and thuggery, there are those capable of responding to reason, if only because most still want to live. We saw this in Iraq I think you would agree. The lost causes, the brainwashed fanatics are best dealt with in the only way they understand, the more lost in this way the greater chances there will be for those who want something more than living in religious or psychedelic penury.

To all those in Afgahnistan, take care.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Durward Fargward 2009-03-28 13:05
Consider: If drugs were legalized, the financial legs would be cut off of the Taliban and western drug lords, profit taken out of street distribution, street crime diminished for a probably relatively small increase in rate of addiction. I say "probable" only because, unlike in the late 1960s, the destructiveness of addictive drugs is far more evident, causing far greater hesitation about experimenting and thereby becoming hooked. There always will be, as there always has been, an irreducible level of addiction.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Linda Lee Brecht 2009-03-28 14:46
Remember ALL promises, statements, and so on come with an expiration date. We can only watch helplessly as he does....whateve r!
Reply | Report to administrator
# Steven 2009-03-28 16:55
War between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and nether Country can control it. Both need a bigger army, to control their own people. More advisers and reainers are needed. This should have already been done. Both Countrys need to act like the Countrys they are. It is bedlam. More communication between governments and factions are needed.
Reply | Report to administrator
# mcarroll 2009-03-28 17:49
i have faith in our troops as well, but with Obama as a "leader" and being "backed up" by the Europeans, this seems to be a joke. and has anyone forgotten that we still need to destroy islamic fanatics?...i mean we meed an attitude of ABMB.... (absolute bloody minded brutality) to deal with these rats. Obama doesn't have this. He like's to "kiss arse".
Reply | Report to administrator
# Jamison Hill 2009-03-28 21:14
Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam. Obama is of the belief system that an infinite amount of spending will solve any crisis. Witness how he is bankrupting the US treasury with poorly run stimulus efforts. The reason that Iraq was a rousing success that Mr. Yon pointed out before we had something to work with, we had a state, a police force and infrastructure to work with. Afghanistan has nothing.

Failures in Iraq were more of a failure back home at the Pentagon (too few troops, not enough weapons and armor, trying to run a budget war) than anything to with our men and women overseas. The minute Bush has Rumsfeld and Brenner replaced with Gates and Petraeus the situation turned around completely.

I have faith in our troops but I have little in our commander in chief. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but until that day comes, for me it will be the teleprompter presidency, plenty of impulsive policies, poorly crafted, designed for novelty, and putting smiles on the party base, but doing little for the long term viability of our country.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Jamison Hill 2009-03-28 21:16
Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam. Obama is of the belief system that an infinite amount of spending will solve any crisis. Witness how he is bankrupting the US treasury with poorly run stimulus efforts. The reason that Iraq was a rousing sucess that Mr. Yon pointed out before we had something to work with, we had a state, a police force and infrastructure to work with. Afghanistan has nothing.

Failures in Iraq were more of a failure back home at the Pentagon (too few troops, not enough weapons and armor, trying to run a budget war) than anything to with our men and women overseas. The minute Bush has Rumsfeld and Brenner replaced with Gates and Petraeus the situation turned around completely.

I have faith in our troops but I have little in our commander in chief. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but until that day comes, for me it will be the teleprompter presidency, plenty of impulsive policies, poorly crafted, designed for novelty, and putting smiles on the party base, but doing little for the long term viability of our country.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Jamison Hill 2009-03-28 21:17
Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam. Obama is of the belief system that an infinite amount of spending will solve any crisis. Witness how he is bankrupting the US treasury with poorly run stimulus efforts. The reason that Iraq was a rousing sucess that Mr. Yon pointed out before we had something to work with, we had a state, a police force and infrastructure to work with. Afghanistan has nothing.

Failures in Iraq were more of a failure back home at the Pentagon (too few troops, not enough weapons and armor, trying to run a budget war) than anything to with our men and women overseas. The minute Bush has Rumsfeld and Brenner replaced with Gates and Petraeus the situation turned around completely.

I have faith in our troops but I have little in our commander in chief. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but until that day comes, for me it will be the teleprompter presidency, plenty of impulsive policies, poorly crafted, designed for novelty, and putting smiles on the party base, but doing little for the long term viability of our country.
Reply | Report to administrator
# JD 2009-03-28 21:34
I'll take Gates and Petraeus over any of the arm-chair partisan bull-shiters here or elsewhere. Obama has provided all the troops McKiernan asked for this year, and we may well need more. We will probably need more Afghan security forces, and the president left open the possibility of increasing the current targets as we go forward.

Bottom line: he was being counseled to take the minimalist path. With that, we wouldn't win, just lose slower. He didn't do that. He's taken the harder path, with the ultimate goal of success. We may need to adjust as we go forward, but he has committed himself to success. We need to support him.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Randolph Williams 2009-03-29 11:19
Iƒ??d just like to point something out to all the posters here who are damning Obamaƒ??s speech and also who support the use of torture. Yet these same people thank God for Gates and Petraeus. Where do you think this stuff comes from? Iƒ??ll tell you where it came from - FM 3-24 also known as the ƒ??U.S. Army * Marine Corps Counterinsurgen cy Field Manualƒ?. Read the damn book people!, this IS David Petraeus talking!

You didnƒ??t think that statement came from a Chicago ACORN organizer did you? It came from doctrine that neither Bush nor Obama had anything to do with. It came from our military, It came from their blood, sweat and fears. It is ultimately rooted in Vietnam. It came from the final victory of Special Forces to force the ƒ??Regularƒ? Army to accept and listen to them as a valued element rather than an ugly cousin.

While we battle at home to preserve whatƒ??s left of the Republic letƒ??s support the AF/PAC effort and pray that The Man keeps his word! Itƒ??s going to take all we have here at home to preserve this union, lets try to pick our battles and the ground we fight on.

BTW: Killing the YF-22 is suicide. The next war will most likely be a major conventional war. Weƒ??ll suffer mightily without the Raptor to maintain air dominance in the face of a modern military theater. History my friends, it does repeat!
Reply | Report to administrator
# sikander 2009-03-29 11:52
I think what Obama is doing by putting more forces on the ground is to escalate the war initially and put pressure on the insurgents and then bribe people away from Taliban. This is classic stick and carrot policy and how much it will succeed; only time will tell.

Another very important aspect is the increase in Afghan national army from 80000 to 134000. I believe that this is most important aspect of his speech as a strong central force will definitely have some impact on the overall situation. If the situation in Afghanistan stabilise to the extent that local army takes charge of the situation (even if the Taliban are not totally defeated) and foreign forces leave than situation in Pakistan will cool down as well.

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

By Sikander Hayat
Reply | Report to administrator
# Diogenes 2009-03-29 11:53
Just remember who/what President Obama is. He promised to go after the insurgents (terrorists who want to destroy our way of life) in Afghanistan during the campaign. He also has an ultra liberal base. Consequently, he will implement his campaign promise in the most minimalistic way thereby keeping his campaign promise while alienating as few of the members of his base as possible. As is the case in most instances where one has two masters, it will not likely result in the desirable outcome.

I'm a veteran with a son serving in the combat zone. Please pray for him and the rest of our troops who are risking their lives to protect our way of life.
Reply | Report to administrator
# kenny komodo 2009-03-29 20:42
The Euro's might talk about how much they love Obambi and how much they're going to support him right up until the moment he calls on them to fulfill their obligation. Then they will find some way, some reason, why their troops can't be deployed at the moment. Obambi is going to find out that he's going to be going into Afghanistan pretty much alone, and if history is any kind of teacher that road will be difficult. The Afghans have a history of rejecting foreign troops no matter how noble their cause may be, the Russians being only the latest example. Afghanistan is a rugged, mountainous country where tribal loyalty has always been put in front of loyalty to the government. Poverty, illiteracy and unemployment are rife throughout the country. Obambi and his acolyes haven't shown me that they have the will to stand and fight when the going gets tough, just look at the numerous calls from Harry Reid and Obambi himself, among others, to abandon Iraq when the going was the most difficult. Now that Obambi is sitting the the head man's chair do you think he's going to let his administration be hampered by a difficult and costly war? I sure don't, I see Obambi pulling out as soon as possible when the casualty count starts to climb, as it most surely will. There is no easy solution to Afpak but I don't believe that Obambi is the man to be in charge of this difficult and most likely costly operation. We need a President who can focus on the Global War on Terror and not running off to do comedy with Jay Leno.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Donald Liveley 2009-03-29 21:56
My initial reaction to the whole issue with AFPak (or Jurassic Park) as you so eloquently described it as, is the relationship between cause (stimulus) and effect. I do not see displayed in any sense the relationship between our manpower, billions of dollars in aid to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do not see identified tangible goals (both inch stones and miles stone) by which competent experts and informed policy makes stake out what is necessary for purported success. Is success spending the money and sending the men? Why is 200,000 a proper goal? Because the President said 200,000? Why is that a measure of success? Then the amount of money to be sent ot Pakistan - why should that be considered an appropriate number??? Why should we believe that Pakistan agree with our goals. What does Afgnaistan say about the aid and manpower and why should we believe them on these parameters? Why should we take 2 or more years to accomplish this. Why is incrementalism a good strategy versus some blitzkrieg strategy. Can our present and immediate future economy sustain this? Is the strategy aatinable and sustainable. What logicalized rigor has been applied to this matter?

A clear prouncement of the Obama Adminstration is transparency. Transparency in the ultimate sense in analysis is that all the variables are disclosed and the relationship between the variables are disclosed along with all subsequent or projected effects. I do not see that in this strategy declaration by Presdient Obama.

Donald J. Liveley BA, BS, MBA
Bear River, Utah
Reply | Report to administrator
# Mary 2009-03-29 23:32
The way to win over an oppressed, closed and autonomous tribal Muslim population? Our ONLY foreign aid should be in the form of our Army Corps of Engineers, who are heavily protected by our troops (with agreed authority to protect themselves), building and rebuilding infrastructures for the common people. Let that be our military presence. As it is, our troops are just being distracted and picked off in the Middle East while global jihadists work their cultural and genocidal takeovers all over the world. The fighting between the Shiates and the Sunnis is, on the whole, a red herring competition/pow er struggle. When they finally unite (against
us) we will be too weak to oppose them. Even if Al Qaida was seemingly wiped out, there would be another jihad group springing up to prominence in the global jihad. Obama is only facilitating the thinning of our troops by pouring them into Afghanistan over the next several years and aiding and abetting our enemies by giving Pakistani and Afghanistan governments any monies.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Frank Stinton 2009-03-30 08:49
On this subject Mike I totally agree.
I don't think these people want anything from us except to put billions of US Dollars into there country and then get out. They would, after we revive their infrastructure and pump labor and money into their drug infested economy and their corrupt warlord and taliban controled region tell us to get out and go back to the medevil thinking that has kept them a struggling third world country that they have been for all of history. They don't want democracy because they are not capable of understanding nor successfully using it to bring themselves into the 21st century.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Don Ward 2009-03-30 16:28
I appreciate your on site and insider judgment on this. I can't but help remembering that the Soviet Union at its mightiest could not subdue and pacify this country. True that the Muj had some high tech assistance, but I'm not sure any of us in the west understand the way people think in Afganistan. In many villages they think that shaking a pregnant woman is the best way to get a baby out when the mother has a difficult labor (this is a first hand account). This 12th century view of life permeates everything there. Tanks aren't going to fix it. I think Iraq will be judged far more successfully than any military operation in Afganistan will be. I fear this becoming a sinkhole for American lives that will bear very little fruit for peace in the end. I pray that I am wrong for the sake of all nations involved.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Richard Gascoigne 2009-03-30 18:28
I cannot dispute that the additional "surge" of 4,000 troops is insufficient. But in politics, as war, one must set achievable objectives. Obama has to ensure that the increase doesn't alienate too many of his more marginal supporters. The numbers may be short, but the direction is correct, IMO: "teaching them to fish", a strong emphasis on infrastructure and people development, and fighting the quicksand of corruption.

With a few small, but significant, wins on those fronts he will then be positioned, and the Afghans will be encouraged, to do more. There will never be an absolute victory for the USA against all the opposing tribal leaders, Taleban, al Qaeda, ... - but we need to create the space for the Afghans to work toward that end on their own. That will be our victory.

AfPak is a critical pivot point that cannot be yielded. Success will be step by step - Mosul by Mosul.

Hang in there, Mike, so that we are informed of the reality on the ground - winning or losing, your reporting is our barometer.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Why has Petreus fell silent? 2009-03-31 15:52
I remain unconvinced by anything that has come out of the Obama administration so far....

I'd like to hear more from Gates/Petreus on the efforts and plans before making a judgement.
Reply | Report to administrator
# Lubo 2009-04-01 17:23
I find it really interesting that some of the hottest spots for security concerns are emerging from former colonies of the British Empire: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mesopotamia (Iraq), the Levant (Middle East), Somalia, etc.

As for the plan, in my opinion, it is way too incomplete and lacks comprehensivene ss. As it was stated in the white paper and from the President (considerable differences by the way), it falls short of tackling the actual problems. It will neither defeat al Qaeda, or cut off the life cord between the local and global jihadists, the Pakistani security services ISI, and the Taliban.

Lubo
http://www.politea.org
Reply | Report to administrator

Add comment

Due to the large amount of spam, all comments will be moderated before publication. Please be patient if you do not see your comment right away. Registered users who login first will have their comments posted immediately.


Security code
Refresh

Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated.  Recurring and one-time gifts are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.

supp

supp

subscribe

My BitCoin QR Code

This is for use with BitCoin apps:

189

You can now help support the next dispatch with bitcoins:

Donate Bitcoins