Obama Got Afghanistan/Pakistan Right

For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new president get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.

There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this president not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.

Point One: The Military Can't Do It All

The president recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.

The president said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."

This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.

Point Two: Though it's the "War in Afghanistan," we need to treat it like a region

That the president made a point of including Pakistan in this strategy, offering greater aid to them if the Pakistani government makes more of an effort to work and coordinate with us, is as smart as it is practical.

Everyone - myself included - has not helped when we bind the efforts in the region under the name "The War in Afghanistan." This is a regional problem, that requires a regional solution.

President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that. His support for legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, along with another bill that creates opportunity zones in the border region will go a long way towards getting the cooperation we need to really focus in on al Qaeda, and close in on them from the Pakistani and Afghan sides of the border region.

Point Three: There is a tighter focus, open to reaching out to some of the enemy

Maybe most importantly, this president has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism.

We've finally left fantasy-land, where America can simply go somewhere, topple a government, and western-style democracies will pop up and thrive. Afghanistan is a very different beast. And, while the president committed to helping build out infrastructure for the Afghan people, and improve the lives of the Pakistani people, he's not letting dreams of a grand new western democracy get in the way of more practical and tighter goals - namely, fighting al Qaeda and taking the region away as a home base for the terror network, forever.

To do so, the president recognized something that I wrote about last week - there are elements throughout the region that are fighting us now, but could become our partners. This might have been the most striking parts of the President's speech:

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

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Now, will everything go exactly according to plan? Of course not. Nor is this going to be quick. But with the points above, and the rest that the President laid out, those of us who served finally have confidence that this President gets it, and will keep us on the right course - the reasonable and practical course. That's something we veterans have been waiting for.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

Comments

[sysmgr1345]

We weren't in Afghanistan before 9/11, so how did that go?

1) They had bases that trained terrorists for attacks on America
2) They drew in every finatic goofball from countries in their area and indoctrinated them with violent hate.
3) They quit playing soccer, instead they used that as a place to beat the crap out of women or shoot people in the head.
4) They blew up centuries old carvings of Buddhas because the only history they seem to respect is theirs.

So now, folks here are saying "we just need to leave, let them take care of it"

What a bunch of morons.

[dg009]

“As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities”
— Voltaire

Yes let them fight their own lousy battles. We've got enough problems and 9-11 was NOT caused by a ragtag band of terrorists from Afgahnistan, it was a carefully planned military demolition -yes 'inside job' you frigging morons, which completely obliterates the whole reason to be over there in the first place.

You cannot impose democracy at the point of a gun. Save us from moronic, arrogant Americans fed lies and propaganda their entire lives trying to save the world....expletive deleted.

[ElkoJohn]

Obama's Vietnam
nuff said

[WestcoastSteve]

Uh, it was Bush's Vietnam. Obama is trying to clean up the mess.

[JXJASON]

Iraq COST $600,000,000,000 and counting!!!

Two Billion a month is what Afghanistan is costing us!!!

And 10 Billion more for Pakistan.

Obama is NOT BRINGING TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ...despite what you think Obama is going to do to bring our troops home from Iraq.

There is a report from the Congressional Budget Office about the cost of closing 283 bases in Iraq, transporting the equipment out and removing our troops.

I voted for Obama. I am disappointed in his decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will not vote for Obama again.

[WestcoastSteve]

I understand your disappointment. But why not wait until Obama's term is up in 4 years before deciding about whether to vote for him or not. It's going to take time to do these things, and the results will eventually be clear to all.

[LiberalMathProfessor]

Iraq was CheneyBush&Co's way of retaining control of our government via the 2004 general elections. Now, Afghanistan is... is... is for what, really? Who gives a flip about the Taliban? What threat to us do they actually, I mean really, represent? And is our fighting on there just a synonym for the B.S. CheneyBush&Co slogan "We have to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here"? There are no military solutions except to the problem of continuing our military empire. So, we supposedly fight al Qaeda over there so that they will have no playground. HA HA HA, do they really need a clubhouse in order to continue to kick our virtual butts? I say get out of the place and go about the civil business of getting the governments there to provide good places for women and girls to live, learn, succeed, and be respected... A tall order that guns will never, not ever establish.

[lastpost]

Barack. Oh! Barack. Were those expectations of you just a triumph of hope over experience? Have none learnt from autopsies of the past, that ideology cannot be excised by force? Not, that is, without expunging all those who share an idea.
There is however a remedy, capable of providing a cure. Which when applied works, not from without but from within, to erode cancerous concepts.
Sound ideas can withstand exposure and examination. A reticence to submit to such a thought-opsy, demonstrates a dread of what will be uncovered. But don’t expect the Taliban, or others, to examine their ideology, unless you are also prepared to examine yours.

[DumbDad]

Like millions of this generation you misuse a lovely word. "reticence" means "reluctance to speak", not just "reluctance". "A reluctance to submit to such thought-opsy" would be nice to read. Yes I'm a pedant and unfortunately I really am right. "He was reticent to say anything" is the equivalent of "he was speechless to say anything". I'm dumb enough for this country. Y'all need to do better.

[TFDNYC]

What are you talking about?

Either you're so smart you're crazy (I hoep this is the case) or you're not-so-smart and are trying too hard. Eitehr way, your point is totally lost here...

[sawdustinhershoes]

I don't think there's a concern that the Taliban examine their ideology. They are being asked to set aside their cruel and rigid enforcement of an extreme "religion". They and other extremist groups are upsetting the lives of people and communities in the region solely for the purpose of control by a few who then turn their terrorism on the West.

I believe what needs to be examined here is your head.

[SanjeevBery]

In CNN and elsewhere, President Obama is being quoted as saying that "al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within."

It is certainly true that Taliban and Al Qaeda type terrorists have been wreaking havoc in different parts of Pakistan. However, we should all be careful not to equate terrorism with the threat of a hostile takeover. A Taliban takeover of Pakistan is implausible for a number of reasons.

Ideologically, Pakistanis have historically voted against Islamist parties, let alone terrorists. Logistically, there is no way that 10,000 Taliban troops could take over a nation of 160 million or more Pakistanis. The U.S. and our 150,000 troops had a difficult time controlling Iraq, a country of 30 million.

The numbers just don't add up.

Sanjeev Bery
http://www.digdeeper.us

[JXJASON]

Sanjeev Bery

Thank you for the link. I agree with what you said about the US consumer and the US taxpayer funding drug cartels, growers of poppies and marijuana and other people involved in supplying the consumer with a product AND the cost of the "war on drugs that has never worked".

In 1980 I taught a Marketing course, as part of a college degree program, in a US Federal prison.
One prisoner asked me why he should be in jail for selling drugs. He said " You are teaching me to understand the consumer, provide a product that is in demand and make a profit. I supply a product and I do not have to advertise, the customers come looking for me, and I make more money in one week than you do all year teaching."

What could I say other than " selling drugs is illegal."

In 1980 I concluded that we should repeal all our drug laws.

Starting with pot...Go To:

http://www.marijuanalobby.org/index.html

And sign the petition.

[patstory]

Don't Let President Obama become the next Lyndon Johnson.
The Obama administration rationale for "surging" troops into Afghanistan and dollars and raids into Pakistan is so flimsy as to be negligible. Yes, terrorists are plotting against us there, as they have in London (shoe bomber), New York (truck bomb under World Trade Center), and so on. What is needed is a coordinated global anti-terrorist program.
Instead, Obama is setting foot on the road paved with good intentions by another once-progressive president, Lyndon Johnson, into escalating an inherited land war in Asia. Can it be that Obama has already been tricked into this? He should reconsider Vice-President Biden's reported warning against the "quagmire" that awaits us there.
In the meantime, supporters of Obama in Congress and across the country urgently need to help him avoid this deathtrap by standing up to the military-industrial complex, represented here by Mr. Solz, whose demand is always the same: war, and then bigger war.

[sawdustinhershoes]

Did you read the article?

[MagisterLudi]

Let's hope like Bush Father, who put together an effective coalition and booted Hussein out of Kuwait.

[noam4prez]

Mr. Soltz, your basic assumption is the same as that of Obama and Bush, and it is false. There is no role for the military in responding to terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are crimes. Terrorists organizations are not nations. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us.

Look past the deliberate deception of the "war against terror" rhetoric. Terrorism is not the reason we will continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Our goal, as always, is to enrich our Anglo-American elites, in our ongoing competition with the elites of Europe and Asia.

[MagisterLudi]

I respect Chomsky as great linguist, I used generative grammar as foundation for some of my research in a different field.
But Chomsky has no talent for history and get carried away to an amazing extent.
and you:stop aping other people and GET YOUR OWN MIND, dude.

[vishix]

America should just leave and let India take care of it. India should take over Pakistan and break up along ethnic lines. It's the only solution that can work.

[S1m0n]

That's already happened. Twice.

[TFDNYC]

You can't be serious...

[insanityfollows]

This is how we honor our troops and all who died on 9/11 and as a result of all Taliban and radical terrorist activity. We draw the line. Finally, our troops have a clear mission and enough numbers (though they could probably still use more) to fulfill that mission. To have let them hunker down in the sand for 7 years is heartbreaking to me every time I think about it, and the bravery of the troops fighting the justified war with inadequate equipment, numbers, support, and no clear direction is without question.

President Obama does have it right. We should have carpet bombed the Taliban into submission long ago, helped set up a proper government for them, and given the Afghan people enough representation and education for them to realize the futility of the Taliban and recognize the hope of a better government. Now, because of President Bush, the Taliban is resurgent, Bin Laden is still at large, and Pakistan is on the brink of instability. Thank goodness grey matter again resides in the White House. I look forward to a Taliban-free Afghanistan.

[JXJASON]

You, President Obama and Jon Soltz are very, very wrong. You should go to Justforeig­npolicy.or­g and subscribe to the free email messages.

You will then learn a lot about the complex issues in the middle east, India, Pakistan and other parts of the world.

The citizens of Canada are fed up with their citizens dying in Afghanistan. Canada is going to remove all combat forces from Afghanistan.

As I have said before..."The money and lives wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been better used if we increased our border security." By keeping terrorists out of the US we would have reduced the threat of terrorism in the US and there would have been more world leaders who would have supported us.

There are two good books to read on this subject. One was written by President Jimmy Carter and the other by Lee Iaccoca.

[exhale09]

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not attack Canada and kill 3000 innocent human beings on Canada's soil.

If the effort that was wasted in Iraq, would have remain focused in Afghanistan things would be different now. WE started out after 911 with ONE GOAL only...dismanteling Al Qaeda and bringing Bin Laden to justice.

George Bush is the one who decided to misdirect that goal and change it to DOMOCRITIZING Iraq.

Our BORDER security is being adressed now, finally, after Bush let it go unchecked for the last nine years.

[espressobeans]

Bring the boys home. If you are bent on nation building, how about doing some of that in places like Flint, Michigan. How does anyone think we can afford this? More war was not the change I voted for.

[pdawn]

I kinda agree with you but you must remember that Obama is doing the best that he can with the mess that those ridiculos Republicans left him. A veteran told me that just telling them to come home is like saying "YOU FAILED". Let us give his plans a chance to work. At least I think he has the country's good at heart unlike Bush who thought he was Rambo although his ass was'nt the one in Iraq dying in vain.

[swo68]

It's funny how people like yourself think Obama is so different from Bush when it comes to war.

Who's ass will be dying in vain in Afghanistan? Won't be Obama's.

[TFDNYC]

The soldiers have not failed! The stupid governments and those who run them have ALL failed , starting with ours here in the USA.

[exhale09]

I'm a Democrat, and the "change" I voted for, spent two years campaigning and clearly saying we had to begin leaving Iraq and we had to do what we should have done from the very beginning after 911....dismantle Al Qaeda and go after Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and bring him to justice!

I want Al Qaeda blasted off the face of the earth, frankly. I want Osama Bin Laden to PAY FOR WHAT HE DID.

Nothing outraged me more then when George Bush let Bin Laden get away, and then redirected his/our focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, who had NOTHING to do with 911.

George Bush turned tail and ran out of Afghanistan where "the terrorists actually WERE" and he took us on a bizzare sensless detour insisting his "mission' would be accomplished QUICKLY and COST us very little.

WTF?! Neither Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden was in Iraq!

George Bush, effectively turn our country into a frenzied and VERY COSTLY "MOB Mentality"

Frenzied MOBS just want "Blood" and they don't much care WHO'S blood or if the person they are "hunting" is actually guilty or innocent of the accused crime.
George Bush DIVERTED our anger to Iraq. He turned our country into a mob and stupidly directed our outrage to the WRONG Person in the WRONG country at the WRONG time.

Obama repeatedly stated HIS intentions to go DIRECTLY after THOSE who were actually GUILTY of murdering 3000 people in my country.

[swo68]

"Obama repeatedly stated HIS intentions to go DIRECTLY after THOSE who were actually GUILTY of murdering 3000 people in my country."

You're somewhat right. Obama sometimes said he was bringing the troops home without mention of Afghanistan. Other times, he was honest.

[AN2009]

Isn't it kind of too early to make these kind of claims, that Obama got this or that right...

[LizM]

No, a new strategy has been announced and it is the right one...no ifs, ands or buts about it! Now, will this strategy achieve it's goals? If it's well executed, chances are very good that it will achieve what it has set out to do.

[swo68]

"it is the right one...no ifs, ands or buts about it!"

Then...

"Now, will this strategy achieve it's goals? If it's well executed, chances are..." [sic]

Certainty turned to doubt in an instance.

[JXJASON]

And who is going to pay for it?

[exhale09]

What President Obama HAS RIGHT...is he is going after the RIGHT PEOPLE that planned and carried out the 911 attack in my country...and I support him every step of the way.
This is one of the reasons I voted for him....and thanks to George Bush, who allowed these murders to go free for the last 6 years, while he totally botched "his stupid WRONG mission in Iraq" the job is now going to be a hundred times more difficult.

President Obama isn't looking for any non-defined VICTORY, he is looking for JUSTICE.

That is a CLEARLY defined goal.

[hrholmes]

At least I have a viable solution! Instead of using the existing broken down military we have now let's just put uniforms on all the existing do nothing folks we have employed here like the Pentagon, Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs, Immigration and Border Patrol etc! They are used to failure in every objective measurement for the past 3 or more decades so they won't be disappointed! Many of them already have guns and SUVs so all we have to do is change their clothes and ship them out at a much lower pay rate too! As soon as we have like a 30 year supply of heroin we can bring them all home. Maybe 6 months tops. Then muster them out so they have to find new jobs too. Then all America will be saved forever and ever. Glory! *please pass the kool-aid*

[Bill64]

This article written by a man of which I consider to have very limited military experience, based on the fact he makes the assumption that Mr Obama got this one right.. As a military veteran of more than twenty-six years with special ops I have served all over the world, and trust me Mr. Obama does not have this one right, as neither did the president before him. You will never bring a democratic state to this part of the world, it's not their nature nor do they want our style of government.
These people have lived this way for thousands of years and they don't intend to change. Look around you, crush AlQuada in one area, they just pop up in another, maybe it is time to figure out we are not the worlds policeman, that just maybe the rest of the world don't want to mirror us. We have more pressing issuses in the United States such as a flawed economy. A strong defense and inteligence service against future attacks is our best answer. There has been to many American live lost for us to only leave a country just like we found it. Two good example comes to mind, Vietnam, and Iraq, where we made progress until our politicians couldn't get it right, and the American people grew weary of the war. It was my hope after vietnam we would say no more, I guess I was wrong.

[JXJASON]

Bill64, Thanks for your comments. I agree with you 100%.

President Obama needs to hear from those of us who understand the true costs of war. I have already asked my Senator, Bob Casey, D. PA., to only fund the costs to transport our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone should complain to their members of Congress and President Obama.

[exhale09]

President Obama has never said his goal is to Democritize Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Sorry. You have the facts wrong. The premise of your criticism is wrong.

He is not trying to be the world's policeman like George Bush was. HE is RIGHTLY going to go after those who killed 3000 innocent people on American soil....and THIS President CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.

Going after Bin Laden and Al qaeda is an entirely different situation from BOTH Vietnam and Iraq. The goal is DIFFERENT, the REASON for the fight is entirely different.

Going after Bin Laden is JUST.

[Bill64]

There is no difference, stop and think if that's possible, neither of these countries attacked us. Terroist are criminals not armies, it is because this president is incompitent and only has his own self interest at heart. You need to walk the walk before you try to talk the talk. This man and his administration is out to bankrupt this country plain and simple, however I understand that you have the talking heads doing your thinking.

[Sikander]

People who understand this region of Afghanistan Pakistan know very well how closely linked these two countries are. There is no practice border between to the two countries as same ethnic group lives on both sides of the border and does not recognise the international border. Also for ages, as Afghanistan is a land locked country, all its trade is conducted through Pakistan. Resolving Pakistan will resolve Afghanistan and vice versa so for the purposes of eliminating Al-Qaida, this region should be considered one continuous territory and Afpak is an apt name for it.

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

By Sikander Hayat

[JXJASON]

Sikander,

Who is going to pay for increasing the size of the Afghanistan army?

[jeffd]

We are. And it will be a bargain - compared to the cost of Pakistani nukes hand-carried to New York, London, Los Angeles...

Our collective stupidity in allowing the last eight years to happen as they did is a major cause of the present situation. (You could make a strong case for either the last 28 or 35 years, but the last eight have self-evidently made things orders of magnitude worse.) The Pottery Barn rule DOES apply here: we broke it, therefore we MUST fix it. We're not three-year-olds who can just say "I'm sorry" and expect that to be a Magic Reset Button™ that will Make Everything All Better.

And for those wailing about how home needs fixing first - yes, it MUST be fixed. But how was it broken? Until we fix the root cause (multinational corporate-friendly "free" "trade"), all we're going to do is throw money at the problem. Wasn't the foolishness of that your original point? At least GM isn't going to be setting off nukes in Times Square or San Francisco Bay; if Pashtunistan as it's presently run gains control of the Pakistani nukes, those (or nearly identical) events WILL be coming to a region that many more Americans *know* they have a stake in.

(continued)

[jeffd]

(continued)

Think of the past few years as the deliberate spread of plague upon the world in our name. We have a moral, ethical, legal duty to not only stop the contagion, but to actively promote treatment leading to recuperation. Failing to do that makes us a mockery of everything this country ever stood for, and WILL hasten our own demise.