President Obama and Afghanistan: Speech Critiques

[Luntoc]

Check out what some New World Order crackpots have to say.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-h...d-order-global-citizenry-common-humanity.html

As we all know, Obama is part of the new world order.

 

[Peephole]

It's a speech. None of his pronouncements were much of a surprise.

I'm referring to his decision to not pull out of Afghanistan. You know, the topic of the speech.

 

[dudalb]

I'm referring to his decision to not pull out of Afghanistan. You know, the topic of the speech.

SO handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies is Fine and Dandy with you?
Guaranteed, if the Taliaban gets back in we will have to go back in a couple of years later.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

SO handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies is Find and Dandy with you?

See this is the problem I have with the debate. I understand that this is very likely to occur without the presence of foriegn troops, but there never seems to be much beyond: "We can't pull out and leave them to the Taliban". Is it likely that there will be substantial improvements with foriegn troops, or is it just a butt plug for a rather forceful feces such as the Taliban? The moment the plug comes out, the **** spreads throughout.

The only possible conclusion that is even remotely positive is a well trained Afghan army yet with an incredibly corrupt and brutal Government. As Obama liked to say about Iraq: "There are no good options, only bad options".

Is that what we're looking at here?

 

[Peephole]

Oh, I have no problem with the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda. Propping up Karzai indefinitely, however, is something completely different.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm referring to his decision to not pull out of Afghanistan. You know, the topic of the speech.

It would have been nice if you'd bother to make that clear rather than offering us an imprecise foam at the mouth.

However, taking you at your word:

Choosing not to withdraw, worst thing he's done ... for whom? I can at the moment count but a single gutless Belgian for whom it is the worst thing he's done.

DR

 

[Sporanox]

Oh, I have no problem with the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda. Propping up Karzai indefinitely, however, is something completely different.

So you want to US to pull out?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, I have no problem with the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda. Propping up Karzai indefinitely, however, is something completely different.

OK, your issue is with Karzai. You are making an assumption, that he'll be propped up indefinitely.

Why do you make this assumption? Any facts, or just more hyperbole?

DR

 

[dudalb]

And I am no fan of Karzai, but if the Afghan Government falls the Taliaban/Al Qaida is back in. There is, at least for the moment, no viable third alternative.Maybe over the next couple of years one will emerge.
And you have to consider the impact this would have in Pakistan. If the Islamic Fundies get control of Pakistan,they get control of Nukes, and they will use them..probably on India.

 

[dudalb]

It would have been nice if you'd bother to make that clear rather than offering us an imprecise foam at the mouth.

However, taking you at your word:

Choosing not to withdraw, worst thing he's done ... for whom? I can at the moment count but a single gutless Belgian for whom it is the worst thing he's done.

DR

A real problem I have with a lot of Europeans on the Left is the way they play ostrich to the problem of Islamic Extremism. It's like the US Right wing reaction to Global Warming..because dealing with it would require measures that does not fit in with their ideology, they prefer to pretend the problem does not exist.or minimize it to the point where there is not much difference between denying the problem.

 

[JihadJane]

War of necessity, my ass!

 

[Darth Rotor]

War of necessity, my ass!

I note the breath holding, but have you turned blue yet?

DR

 

[Piggy]

He announced a surge of 30,000 troops while including a time-line for withdrawals! Setting time-lines is a bad idea in almost any war, but especially a counter-insurgency. He might as well have said "Hear that, Taliban? All you gotta do is wait us out for 18 months." And they will.

I'm getting real tired of this false argument.

First, these guys don't seem content to wait out anything except the winter.

But more to the point, every decision has to be considered in the face of alternatives.

If we keep things open-ended, they'll simply continue with an attrition strategy -- hit and retreat, hit and retreat, hit and retreat.

They know that if they do this long enough, we'll run out of money, fresh troops, and popular support.

For every strategy we undertake, there is a counter-strategy. That's just the reality of it.

At least Obama has the balls to face that reality and not pretend that tough talk can translate into victory. At least he's dealing with the reality of limited time and resources.

Our enemies know this as well as we do. We can pretend otherwise, but we're not fooling anybody.

Yes, it's risky. But the fact is, we cannot attempt a permanent occupation.

It's best to tell the local forces that we intend to transition over, and they need to step up.

And of course, if conditions on the ground change, we can always scrap our current strategy for a new one. It's happened before.

 

[Piggy]

Obama also pretended that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same. Simply not true.

You obviously did not hear the same speech I did. I never heard him conflate the two.

 

[Piggy]

To compound this insanity, the new Afghan war plan calls for US/NATO forces to focus on securing the top 10 urban centers in the country as well as a few agricultural areas.

If this urban-based strategy sounds familiar, it's probably because it's exactly what the Soviets did!

You misunderstand the strategy.

The marching orders for the different regions are not the same.

That's actually where this strategy makes some sense. They're making meaningful distinctions between the Pashtun zones and other zones. They're not treating the country as if it were homogenous.

My apologies if others have already dealt with this. I haven't read the entire downthread yet.

 

[Piggy]

Their reaction to the speech is that the speech as a speech was a flop (too long, confused, etc.)

They're wrong about that. Rhetorically, it was superb.

 

[Dragoonster]

A real problem I have with a lot of Europeans on the Left is the way they play ostrich to the problem of Islamic Extremism. It's like the US Right wing reaction to Global Warming..because dealing with it would require measures that does not fit in with their ideology, they prefer to pretend the problem does not exist.or minimize it to the point where there is not much difference between denying the problem.

Aside from the hypothetical future nuclear weapons acquirement, drunk driving is a bigger problem to the West than Islamic extremism. In numbers of casualties, cost to society, pervasiveness, and destruction of property.

Just imagine the media and politicians and people around you suddenly stop talking about it except when there's an actual attack. Most would forget it even exists.

And since overhyping it leads to invasions like Iraq which add another generation to it, it would probably wiser to just ignore it. Or call it what it once was, a regional problem, which it'll likely return to if we stopped interferring with everyone. The Afghanistan War was justified as retaliation for an act of war, but that's all we should do militarily. To deal with it long-term we need to change our foreign policy to opposite of what it currently is.

At least that's my super-lefty mode. I wouldn't call it appeasement or noninterventionism though, unless nations like Madagascar or Japan are also guilty of that. Most nations get along fine with ME countries and OPEC, getting what they need based on mutual respect for soveriegnty. And the occasional UN sanction.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You obviously did not hear the same speech I did. I never heard him conflate the two.

Actually, he did, though it was not all that obvious.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban
---
The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.
--
We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

Also, FWIW, a rework of the Domino Theory is alive and well.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

I know you got this Piggy, but for those unclear about what he distilled it down to:

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition;
a civilian surge that reinforces positive action;
and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

That last is a direct linkage to the Taliban problem in Pakistan. So while Al Q is still a core problem, he has us fighting the Taliban not just in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan as well.

You can argue that he named two different enemies, but the valid point CHF was making was related to his decision to use the same old rhetoric:

The struggle against violent extremism
as well as
al Qaeda and its allies

This rhetorical decision lends some weight to the critique that he tied the two together rather than being very explicit in how to address the two different threats, both to Afghanistan and anyone else, our friends included.

Maybe I am hair splitting, but this is a thread for critique of his speech.

That the military in Afghanistan are painfully aware of the differences between the two should not be news. I am sure the President's been briefed on the differences, and grasps most of the distinctions. He didn't reflect that understanding very well in what he said.

DR

 

[Piggy]

Actually, he did, though it was not all that obvious.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban
---
The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.
--
We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

I'm not seeing it. I don't see a conflation there. Pointing to contacts and cooperation is not the same as confusing the two entities.

I don't believe Obama is either confused about the identities and goals of these two groups or trying to confuse the public about them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't believe Obama is either confused about the identities and goals of these two groups or trying to confuse the public about them.

I am sure you are right on the first half, but "trying to confuse" isn't what I think was going on. Due to past association and conflation, his use of old rhetoric did nothing to represent to the public the important distinction between two similar (Islamist) but different (national versus extranational) groups. By recycling the old rhetoric he leaves the old habit of conflation uncorrected.

IMO, it was an important detail missed, and IMO a necessary detail, due to too many years of the mixing and matching in White House rhetoric of various extremist parties as "our enemy" in a unified sense.

Yes, I think it is on him to undo some of the damage already done to the clarity of public debate. An opportunity missed, albeit a somewhat technical one. Also one I may be more sensitive to than the general public.

The way I see the sound bytes, "struggle against violent extremism" is simply recycled code for "war on terror" and "they are all one enemy" thinking.

DR