Obama on Afghanistan: Disappointing
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
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
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 donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
| Recurring Paypal Support | One Time Paypal Support | For recurring or one-time donations through Authorize.net | ||
 |
||||
|
(Recurring subscriptions |
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
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"
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.
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
The USSR maintained as many as 104,000 troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s...attempting 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.
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/trainers,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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I'd like to hear more from Gates/Petreus on the efforts and plans before making a judgement.
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
RSS feed for comments to this post