Obama: U.S. Goals In Afghanistan "Should Be Relatively Modest"

In an interview with McClatchy Saturday night as he returned from his overseas trip, Sen. Barack Obama answered questions about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and other issues in his campaign against Republican Sen. John McCain.

Q: Afghanistan is something you've spoken a lot about...Take us to the next level, why, as you've said, and how, we need to put more U.S. forces into Afghanistan. To the Soviets it became a quagmire. How do you avoid that? How do you measure success? If you could give us a little more detail about what you think you'd like to do.

A: I'm not here to lay out a comprehensive military strategy. That's the job of our commanders on the ground. I can tell you what our strategic goals should be. They should be relatively modest. We shouldn't want to take over the country. We should want to get out of there as quickly as we can and help the Afghans govern themselves and provide for their own security. Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region. And to do that I think we need more troops. I also think that we need to deal with the situation in Pakistan and the fact that terrorists are able to operate with relative freedom of movement there right now.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[lunchbag]

modest goals, is a good way to enpower the enemy. A-Q is spreading it wings, and moving slowly into Turkey, as well as it's involvemnet in Iraq. And from Turkey, no doubt Europe.

Deal with it now or face a 'bigger' issue later.

[holeybuybull]

The easiest way to defeat Al Qaeda is to remove our presence from and stop meddling in the affairs of Arab lands. Stop supporting puppet regimes led by former oil company executives (Karzai). Stop funding them directly(cia) or indirectly (foreign aid to Pakistan). Let the cia fight and/or deal with the locals for their funding pipeline(opium). An ultimatum to the saudis to stop fomenting violence in the region (you don't really believe their propaganda about rejecting their boy bin laden, do you?). These actions would go far to remove any argument for the existence of Al Qaeda. Sounds like this "more war" rhetoric is designed to let the MIC know that it will be business as usual.

[Jonahson]

Modest goals instead of 'winning' should be the objective. There is nothing to win in either Iraq or Afghan. It is more important to win over the hearts and mind of men but if that is not your country then better leave it to the locals to do it.

[danoj]

Hearts and minds my arse. We win by defeating the enemy, and before you ask the enemy is anyone willing to raise arms against or military or the country we are working with.

[Jonahson]

What exactly have 'we' won?

[Sumocat]

Relatively modest? As opposed to establishing a beachhead of democracy that will spread throughout the entire region... after we're welcomed as liberators. Sounds like realism, not modesty, to me.

[danoj]

Sounds like not wadding in to deep to me. Saves him some face in the long run when he leaves both of these places high and dry.

[cdnnewsjunky]

High and dry? You mean just like Vietnam? That's generally the outcome of starting wars you can't win.

[Egalitare]

Modest goals: the key overarching point of his statement. Our goal should not be to eradicate every trace of Taliban action from the face of the Afghan landscape. Tribal leaders are going to hold sway outside of Kabul long after any of our grandchildren weigh in with opinions.

This is a good and flexible framework that allows us to support the legitimate Afghan government, pursue AQ Inc, and keep the Taliban situation in perspective. The key point is to remember that those two entities have different goals. The Taliban seek to control in their immediate area. AQ Inc is bent on eliminating Western influence in the presumed "Caliphate." The fight against AQ Inc is generational and very broad. The Taliban is a limited situation that may yet have a political "solution" of sorts.

[rollingdivision]

Just a few questions about Obama's Afghan policies in contrast to Iraq:

1. Why does Senator Obama advocate a surge of troops in Afghanistan though he considers a surge of troops in Iraq to have been a mistake?

2. Why is a stable Afghanistan crucial to US interests while a stable Iraq is not?

3. How long does Senator Obama expect to keep troops in Afghanistan?

4. Why is an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan manageable while the same in Iraq is not?

5. How much does Senator Obama expect to spend rebuilding Afghanistan?

6. Why is rebuilding Afghanistan affordable while rebuilding Iraq is not?

7. Why does Senator Obama consider the ethno-sectarian issues in Iraq to be nearly intractable while in Afghanistan they are something we can overcome?

8. If leaving Iraq will make the Iraqi government behave more responsibly, how will an increased presence in Afghanistan affect the Afghan government?

9. Why does Senator Obama advocate a "surge in diplomacy" and multilateralism in Iraq while simultaneously advocating unilateral action in the Pakistani tribal areas?

[Liberoservative]

Afghanistan is a "democracy"

Pakistan has Nuclear Weapons....

[danoj]

A good set of questions to which the ony ansewer you will recieive is Iraq is an illegal and immoral war.

[danoj]

All very good questions that none of the folks who believe in Obama prolly have an answer to except to say A-Stan is where the people who committed 9/11 were staging operations.

[BlackWidowPilot]

And this is wrong because?

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[HumeSkeptic]

Most of your questions are based on absurd presumptions. Rework them. Also, ask at most two questions per post. No one would want to waste this much time on you..

Now, scram.
.

[holeybuybull]

Hume, the time has come for you to remove the "Skeptic" from your screen name. It's no longer appropriate.

[ReadyNow]

I love reading the Huffington post. A place for an adult exchange of ideas. No - more like a grade school level....

Scram?

[Nonamnesiac]

Has anyone thought about what will happen when the Russians, or Russian surrogates more likely, start arming Afghans with SAM missiles to get even with our supplying the Taliban predecessors and bin Laden with sophisticated weaponry when the Islamic fundamentalists were fighting those whom the Soviets were backing in the 70s? It would probably lead to a Russian version of Charlski Wilskonski's war, except this time the Russians will be providing arms killing newly Obama-dispatched Americans.

Why do these major party Presidential candidates all feel it necessary to threaten to get our young killed and maimed when they run their campaigns? Do they think war threats are like Extenz? We do not need to act as the cowards we've become and destroy whole countries, all massively weaker than we are militarily and economically, in order to defeat al Qaeda and their allies. When we start acting like we do need to destroy whole countries, we strengthen al Qaeda, not weaken it. Got that Obama, or are you actually the cowardly warmongerer your votes for Bush's occupation budgets, including war crimes, indicates?

[HumeSkeptic]

Why would Russians want to get even with us for helping Mujahedin against the Soviets? Russia is not the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan remains a sanctuary for al Qaeda, the thugs who attacked us. They need to be defanged. In fact, they should have been defanged six years ago, instead of fighting an immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq.
Once that is done, steps must be taken to improve the economic condition in Afghanistan. Without that, Taliban and AQ would just regroup after we leave. We have to give Afghans reasons to side with us, rather than with AQ.

[holeybuybull]

Hume, your comments are generally more reasoned than this one. Unlike americans, the arabs are very patient people. Who is going to get the taxpayer funded contracts to improve the economic conditions in Afghanistan? The forces fighting against us there are insurgents, you know, those who were born and reside there. If Karzai was a "man of the people", wouldn't the Afghanis rally to protect and support him? If I remember correctly, Russia was the heart and mind of the Soviet Union. They would jump at the chance to fight a proxy war with the US in order to diminish our power in what they regard to be their sphere of influence. The more we engage in pointless conflict for the benefit of corporations, the sooner we become a paper tiger. If our system was really the envy of the world, we should concentrate our time and effort to restoring our reputation by restoring freedom and economic vitality at home. When I look at the US today, I see a country that has assumed the mantle of the "ugly american", at home and abroad. Why would any other country in the world aspire to become a country with diminished individual freedoms, growing economic inequality, and an imperialistic foreign policy?

[Rotwang]

Russia has a long memory, and certainly thinks of itself as the once-and-future Soviet Union.

Circumstances are different, though, than they were in the Cold War. They cannot mount a proxy war against us in Afghanistan while crushing their own Muslim problem in Chechnya. Besides, it would be a very obvious and publicized provocation, whereas in the old days it was just Superpower SOP.

[danoj]

Last I checked AQ is in Iraq as well. Doesn't matter how or when they got there they are there.

[dadw5boys]

The Russians won't give them missles thery are not are stupid as Regean and Daddy Bush were.

The Russian support Iran and would not endanger them.

[danoj]

If I am not mistaken the Iranians have russian made missles and the russians don't support Iran they support there business interests with the country

[Nonamnesiac]

It's also a global battlefield. If there's no cold war, the US insisting on placing an ABM shield along Russia's border (as opposed to along the border of the Soviet Union) still triggers longstanding geopolitical concerns from a nation that was attacked when it was a monarchy and when it was a Soviet dictatorship. In other words its interests transcend ideology. This is even truer when the US has clearly emerged as a cowardly bully of a nation, willing to use extreme force on incredibly weak countries to enhance the perceived interests of its business elites. Looking at the US from an international perspective it no longer even appears as a representative democracy, as anyone outside of brainwashed or intimidated Americans could only view the 2000 election as a coup -- one in which the candidate who won the election had it stolen from him by an "old boy" network of appointees of the losing victor's dad. So there's no reason for Russia trust the US or be functioning in a way that would assist the US.

Add to that the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan for secular local forces who believed in the rights of women to work against Islamic fundamentalists while the US was arming feudalists and drug pushers in order to defeat them. From a Russian perspective, especially a Russian military perspective, they were fighting the good fight against feudalists and were defeated by US arms. So getting even feels good too.

[Nonamnesiac]

Iran is only helped with a US bogged down in a costly Afghan occupation, especially if the US enemies are fundamentalist Sunnis (al Qaeda and the Taliban). Enemies fighting enemies -- just like when we threw out Saddam and his band of secular Sunnis and secular Shia in Iraq and made fundamerntalist Shia and Iran dominant in Iraq.

[mamacat]

Wait a minute. This man,.....he, uh.........sounds like.......he might actually make a good president!

Are we still allowed to have a competent president, or have the Republicans passed a law against that yet?

[rooks]

Sadly,, there are still people that don't understand that a competent POTUS works out for us.

[Nonamnesiac]

Has anyone thought about what will happen when the Russians, or Russian surrogates more likely, start arming Afghans with SAM missiles to get even with our supplying the Taliban predecessors and bin Laden with sophisticated weaponry when the Islamic fundamentalists were fighting those whom the Soviets were backing in the 70s? It would probably lead to a Russian version of Charlski Wilskonski's war, except this time the Russians will be providing arms killing newly Obama-dispatched Americans.

Why do these major party Presidential candidates all feel it necessary to threaten to get our young killed and maimed when they run their campaigns? Do they think war threats are like Extenz? We do not need to act as the cowards we've become and destroy whole countries, all massively weaker than we are militarily and economically, in order to defeat al Qaeda and their allies. When we start acting like we do need to destroy whole countries, we strengthen al Qaeda, not weaken it. Got that Obama, or are you actually the cowardly warmongerer your votes for Bush's occupation budgets, including war crimes, indicates?

[awcbuddy8]

Wow Obama, you think of that all by yourself?

[JiminNC]

Along with the best advice in the world.

[NoahVail]

There is no doubt that this man should be and will be our next president.

Get over your frustration, and get with the program.

[holeybuybull]

How paternalistic of you. Big fan of individual freedom? Are you channeling W?