[Winstonm]

Quote

I was happily surprised about the Nobel Peace Prize but it is hard to come up with someone more deserving.

At least it didn't go to Fred Kagan.

[blackshoe]

The US did not create the "mess" in Afghanistan. That place has been a mess for several hundred years, at least. No other nation has ever been successful in "cleaning it up", and I sincerely doubt any ever will.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

The US did not create the "mess" in Afghanistan. That place has been a mess for several hundred years, at least. No other nation has ever been successful in "cleaning it up", and I sincerely doubt any ever will.

The current mess includes the corrupt Karzai government and the warlord segmentation of the country. The US cannot weasel out of responsibility for that by whimpering about days long gone.

[Al_U_Card]

Geez, Louise.....Vietnam, CIA (advisors), arm$, golden triangle (opium)

Afghanistan, CIA (mujahideen), arm$, poppy fields (opium).

Drugs, oil, arms .....Iran-Contra, whatever, its all the same old story. The little guys die while the powerful get richer.

[kenberg]

Some comments from Jim Hoaglund

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9100903899.html


But it is not clear he can be trusted: Hoagland claims to have Norwegian genes but he was born in South Carolina. All good Norwegians are born in Minnesota (or Norway).

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

The US did not create the "mess" in Afghanistan. That place has been a mess for several hundred years, at least. No other nation has ever been successful in "cleaning it up", and I sincerely doubt any ever will.

The current mess includes the corrupt Karzai government and the warlord segmentation of the country. The US cannot weasel out of responsibility for that by wimpering about days long gone.

I agree with you in a sense. Prior to the U.S. invasion, the Taliban had a fairly rigid control and a semblance of governing the country. The U.S. ousting of the Taliban did nothing more than re-institute the older fragmented warlord rule and place a puppet in charge of a lone city - Kabul.

There is little in the way of an Afghan nationalist in the country - it has been and always shall be a fragmented society at odds with itself as much as with anyone else.

[hotShot]

Everybody who thought that other forces will produce better results than the Soviet army in Afghanistan should reconsider his military qualification.

[P_Marlowe]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

I mean what do they want to do in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the war is 9 years old...what do they say?

The USA started the war in Afghanistan after they had been warned by their (European) allies that this wasn't the way to go. European countries and others (e.g. Australia) are trying to build up the country. This is not easy as long as the US is on a combat mission in Afghanistan and the local population doesn't know the difference between an American and an Australian. Obama is trying to change the USA mission there into a more humanitary direction ("Win hearts and minds").

So, in short: The USA created the mess in Afghanistan, the rest of the world is trying to sort it out and the USA hasn't been helping. Obama is trying to change this. The Europeans are saying "Hooray for Obama and for a change in US strategy."

Rik

The US certainly contributed to the mess, but as always the mess did not
start in 2001.

The (partial) US contribution to the mess started as the US supported the
Taliban with weapons in their fight against the Soviets / Russians in the 80s.
And the war against the Taliban had broad European support, e.g.
we (Germany) did send troops into Afghanistan, but did not send troops to
Irak. Does this mean there was overwhelming support? Does it matter?
There was support.

The main issue in the Bush / Cheney year was, that the US forcused mainly
on military power alone, and not on building up community support, which
the German claimed to have done in the North, ... I hear contradicting things
about it, if we did it or not, in the end it will be somewhere in the middle.

And of course the US politics toward Pakistan during the last 10-20 years did not
help either, they looked supiously at India and pumped money into Pakistan.
Just ask youself were the Taliban did hide after they got kicked out of Afghanistan
in 2001.

The ultimate problem with US politics is, that they never look back, they always
say, no time to consider the past.
An old, but true saying: If you dont learn from the past, you are bound to make
the same errors over and over again.
... Of course the European problem is, that we always discuss things from the past
and never get going, take your pick.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[PassedOut]

hotShot, on Oct 11 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Everybody who thought that other forces will produce better results than the Soviet army in Afghanistan should reconsider his military qualification.

The US goal must be a good deal more modest than the Soviet goal.

[nigel_k]

A few points:

1. Nominations for the Nobel closed on February 1. You would normally assume that setting a closing date for nominations means someone will be judged on their actions up to that date that are detailed in the nomination. I guess the committee must have considered what has happened since then, but maybe they did give it to Obama if it is just for being black, left-wing and getting elected president.

2. Don't forget the people who vote for this thing are European socialists and Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream. Whether he will actually change anything much compared to Bush is yet to be seen. But I would expect the committee made the choice in the expectation that it would influence future events. Socialists want to exert influence, not merely recognize merit and reward it.

3. I don't understand why half this thread is about Afghanistan when Obama has essentially continued the previous administrations strategy there.

4. As people mentioned earlier, since the award was given to Yasser Arafat and Al Gore is has been devalued to the point where it is little more than a joke. The best thing Obama could have done (in his own interest) would be to turn down the award and tell them not to consider him again until his term as president is over.

5. There are plenty of more deserving people so it is not a 'slow peace' year. The prize should go to a Chinese dissident such as Hu Jintao but that would conflict with the socialist multilateral approach to peace, which is essentially to avoid doing anything that might upset anybody and to wring their hands and pass lots of resolutions if people nevertheless fight one another.

[cherdanno]

nigel_k, on Oct 11 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

2. (...) Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream.
3. (...) Obama has essentially continued the previous administrations strategy [in Afghanistan].

ROTFL

[mike777]

I dont know what a socialist's war or foreign policy would be let alone a European one. What is it?

As for the President's Policy I thought he said the war is a necessary one and he fired the old general and hired a new general a few months ago to follow his policy not anyone elses.


Good morning," began the President today. "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce [Reidel], that I ordered as soon as I took office."


•Read the White Paper on the new policy (pdf) >>
•Read the One-pager on the new elements in the policy >>
The President stressed the perilous position we find ourselves in there, and the threat that would arise should safe havens on Pakistan go unchallenged or should the government in Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again. He also noted that 2008 was the deadliest year to date in that war.

The President put forth the central question:

Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer.

And gave his answer:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

He described the need for a comprehensive strategy in the two countries, including a "standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan." The President expressed his profound respect for the Pakistani people and their history, and pledged that the United States would so all it could to help Pakistan fight against the terrorists who have so often attempted to destabilize the country, including with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

So too did he express his admiration for the people of Afghanistan, before going on to describe the shift coming on the ground there as well:

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home.

For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 -- and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

So 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. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations -- an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future.


The President described a new regime of accountability in the execution of this war, beginning with contractors, and stretching to demanding clearly understood goals:

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've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. And that's 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.

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.




The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500



http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-...n-and-Pakistan/

[mike777]

What’s New in the Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
"As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people…We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future…To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy."

--President Barack Obama
March 27, 2009

An Attainable Objective
On March 27, 2009, the President announced a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that is the culmination of a careful 60-day, interagency strategic review. During the review process, we consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, partners and NATO allies, other donors, international organizations and members of Congress. The strategy starts with a clear, concise, attainable goal: disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens. The President’s new approach will be flexible and adoptive and include frequent evaluations of the progress being made.

A Regional Approach
For the first time the President will treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries but one challenge. Our strategy focuses more intensively on Pakistan than in the past, calling for more significant increases in U.S. and international support, both economic and military, linked to Pakistani performance against terror. We will pursue intensive regional diplomacy involving all key players in South Asia and engage both countries in a new trilateral framework at the highest levels. Together in this trilateral format, we will work to enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border and address common issues like trade, energy, and economic development.

Building Capacity and More Training
For three years, the resources that our commanders need for training have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, this will change. The 17,000 additional troops that the President decided in February to deploy have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 more U.S. troops to train the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can increasingly take responsibility for the security of the Afghan people.

In the President’s strategy, for the first time we will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner.

Using All Elements of National Power
As the President said, a "campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone." As a part of this strategy, we will devote significantly more resources to the civilian efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The President will submit a budget that includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops and contribute directly to our safety and security.

The Administration consulted with the Congress during our review and is committed to working closely together to provide the resources needed to carry out the strategy. The President supports the bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Senators Kerry and Lugar to authorize $1.5 billion a year in direct support to the Pakistani people over the next five years. He also calls on Congress to pass the bipartisan bill creating Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence.

Bringing new international elements to the effort
The President believes we need to provide more resources for the civilian aspects of the mission, working with the Afghan Government and all of our partners in NATO and the United Nations. As America does more, we will ask others to do join us in doing their part. Together with the United Nations, the Administration will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region – our NATO allies and other partners, the Central Asian states, Gulf nations, Iran, Russia, India and China. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development in the region.





1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...n-and-Pakistan/

[Al_U_Card]

Strategy....... strategy?

What is the REASON for being there? Better be a good one. They used up the domino theory. Can't be promoting world peace. The war on terror? Puh-leeze! The more they kill arabs (Persians are next, apparently) the more the terror potential rises. So, other than making money, what could it be????

Obama, pulls out all of the troops and then you have to wonder, where will he send them next? No number of additional forces will make any positive difference to Afghanistan or the Afghanis, so why the hell stay?

[Winstonm]

Nigel K wrote that,

Quote

2. Don't forget the people who vote for this thing are European socialists and Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream.

At least you are consistent in your ideology - fascism good/socialism bad.

[Winstonm]

Quote

"As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people…We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future"

Christ - close your eyes and you can hear Dubya making this little speech. Which Kagan wrote it, I wonder....

Let me set one thing straight, Mr. Obama - as President, your number one responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and all the civil rights contained therein.

When I want you to guard the neighborhood, I'll call you.

[PassedOut]

I note that Nigel K thinks that Obama foreign policy advances the socialist agenda while Al U Card thinks it exists to create corporate profits. Hmmm.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

I note that Nigel K thinks that Obama foreign policy advances the socialist agenda while Al U Card thinks it exists to create corporate profits. Hmmm.

Oddly enough, these are not conflicting sentiments.

[mike777]

"Strategy....... strategy?

What is the REASON for being there? Better be a good one."

Here is his reason. You may not like it but he does have a reason.



As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people…We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future…To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy."


btw I think these posts by Non Americans have been great. I hope to see more.

If I understood the posts, Europe for the greater part seems not to fear the the Taliban taking control of the government again at least not enough to send massive amounts of combat troops. China and Russia seem to care less.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

Let me set one thing straight, Mr. Obama - as President, your number one responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and all the civil rights contained therein. 

When I want you to guard the neighborhood, I'll call you.

I'm pretty sure that if it were required for people to call to express their desire to be defended, the president would recieve an amount of calls that is a 9 digit number including one from me, even if he wouldn't get a call from you.

By the way, let me quote the preemable of that constitution thing you want the president to defend, and highlight an interesting part:

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.