President Obama and Afghanistan: Speech Critiques

[Piggy]

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.

I believe you're misreading the speech.

I have yet to see this administration get the basics wrong on that point.

Let's look at his specific references to Taliban:

they [AQ] were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war

only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels

After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban

High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election

There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border.

I don't see any confusion between AQ and Taliban here.

 

[Piggy]

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

I think you're asking for too much.

In a speech, you have to decide what to present in the time you have without losing your audience.

There was no way he could get into the deep background.

Seems to me he did a good job of keeping the two players "in different shirts", so to speak.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I believe you're misreading the speech. I have yet to see this administration get the basics wrong on that point.

We are seeing this through slightly different lenses, and your read of it is a reasonable one.

DR

 

[Piggy]

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

Dominoes with nuclear weapons.

Now, it's true that if we were to simply devolve entirely from the area, and from the Muslim world, then they'd forget about us.

I don't buy for a second the argument that "they hate our freedoms" or that we must fight them there or they'll come and fight us here.

But given that we cannot entirely disengage from the Muslim world, do you really believe that it is not in our national security interest to check violent Islamic fundamentalist extremism in the Near East?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think you're asking for too much.

I demand a lot of the suits, and am frequently disappointed. Since their decisions get people important to me killed, I am not very charitable with information war mistakes. One of my major frustrations with President Bush was the continued self inflicted wounds we suffered due to his, and his team's, poor info war skills.

In a speech, you have to decide what to present in the time you have without losing your audience.

100% agree. Cut a few of the platitudes. Put in more meat.

There was no way he could get into the deep background.

Three sentences max to clearly describe the distinction between the two problems. Al Q can pick up and move elsewhere, Taliban is practically bound to Afgh/Pak AOR.

DR

 

[Piggy]

We are seeing this through slightly different lenses

Well, ok.

But I gotta say, DR, sometimes you really chap my ass because it's much easier to disagree with nutjobs, and you always insist on being reasonable and informed even when we disagree.

What a pain!

 

[Piggy]

I demand a lot of the suits, and am frequently disappointed. Since their decisions get people important to me killed, I am not very charitable with information war mistakes.

<snip>

Three sentences max to clearly describe the distinction between the two problems. Al Q can pick up and move elsewhere, Taliban is practically bound to Afgh/Pak AOR.

Ok, point taken.

And may I say, we civilians are also seeing those we love coming home escorted by motorcades.

Two in the last month here.

The place I work is right by the local airport. When a local boy is brought back under a flag, that's where he lands.

They announce it over the PA, and we all go out to the road and pay our respects.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now, it's true that if we were to simply devolve entirely from the area, and from the Muslim world, then they'd forget about us.

Not a practical consideration.

I don't buy for a second the argument that "they hate our freedoms" or that we must fight them there or they'll come and fight us here.

Curious, since Pres Obama cited a number of persons arrested/caught who were from over there. "They hate us for our freedoms" was one of a mountain of rotten sound bytes from the Bush era, I'm not keen on their being recycled, no matter the reduction in carbon footprint.

But given that we cannot entirely disengage from the Muslim world

Correct.

Do you really believe that it is not in our national security interest to check violent Islamic fundamentalist extremism in the Near East?

Where did you get the impression that I felt that way, or said anything remotely related to that?

Dealing with Islamists is something we have to do. I was one of many dealing with them in the 1980's, operationally, long before most Americans gave a flying fart.

We can't avoid dealing with Islamists. They have chosen to play in the big game.

Turning as many of them as can be found into shredded flesh and splintered bone is a pretty decent way ahead, but it's not the only piece of the solution set. There's a whole non-kinetic realm of action necessary to deal with it. He gave us few details on that, but stated that it was item two of his three item list.

DR

 

[Piggy]

Curious, since Pres Obama cited a number of persons arrested/caught who were from over there.

No no, I'm talking about motives.

I'm talking about the myth that they're motivated by hatred of our way of life, rather than a desire for power in their own land, which is hindered in part by our presence.

I'm talking about the myth that they hate us specifically because of who we are, and would have a motivation to engage us on our home soil even if we were not involved in any way in their region of the globe.

If we were entirely disengaged from the region, they could give a rat's ass about our freedoms.

 

[Piggy]

Where did you get the impression that I felt that way, or said anything remotely related to that?

Ok, must've been a misreading on my part.

Perhaps I'm conditioned to interpret things that way, given that it's the dominant discourse among the armchair warriors where I live.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ok, point taken.

And may I say, we civilians are also seeing those we love coming home escorted by motorcades.

Two in the last month here.

The place I work is right by the local airport. When a local boy is brought back under a flag, that's where he lands.

They announce it over the PA, and we all go out to the road and pay our respects.

Thanks, from the bottom of my heart. The small kindnesses we, as people, can do for one another are what make the world a little bit better.

DR

 

[Piggy]

The small kindnesses we, as people, can do for one another are what make the world a little bit better.

A little bit better, hell.

It's all that makes living worthwhile.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm talking about the myth that they're motivated by hatred of our way of life, rather than a desire for power in their own land, which is hindered in part by our presence.

Not the conversation we were having, though.

I'm talking about the myth that they hate us specifically because of who we are,

Some do, because who we are is something they can't avoid due to globalization and "the world" shrinking, but that isn't how the message/myth you (and I) dislike was presented. Oddly enough, who they are is something we can't avoid, for the same reason.

and would have a motivation to engage us on our home soil even if we were not involved in any way in their region of the globe. If we were entirely disengaged from the region, they could give a rat's ass about our freedoms.

Aye, in some respects, some of the more virulent would like like to be left alone to kill one another.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

A little bit better, hell.

It's all that makes living worthwhile.

Seems you and I turned this thread into the Darth/Piggy chatroom. Nice talking to you, the missus is calling.

DR

 

[CHF]

All this rhetoric about fighting in Afghanistan to protect us from Al Qaeda is rubbish for a few reasons that are unfortunately rarely discussed.

Al Qaeda is a small player in Afghanistan at this point. The current Taliban insurgency a tribal/nationalist war against what they see as a foreign occupation propped up by their northern ethnic rivals.

Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan for a "base" and never did. A few rooms in Hamburg or London is enough from which to launch terror attacks.

Ever seen what those much-feared "Al Qaeda training camps" actually look like? Ever seen their training videos? Their camps are no different than the kind of militia bases you find in any war zone: guys practice shooting, bomb-making, planting IEDs, staging ambushes etc. There are no flight simulators in these camps, or anything else that was crucial for 9/11 to happen - for that they came (legally) to the US.

Heck, the last six years in Iraq have training more jihadists than those camps ever could.

At this point we're in Afghanistan to prop up one group of brutal warlords against another group of brutal warlords. None of them care for human rights, all of them hate women, and none of them are worth the blood of a single NATO soldier.

It's time we leave the Afghans to their own devices. If that means civil war and mass deaths, then so be it. After all, we didn't suddenly care about Afghans during the carnage of 1992-2001, did we? So let's not pretend we give a damn now.

If we want to protect ourselves from terror attack, we can start by ditching the Saudis and their wahabbi mosque financing. It was no coincidence that 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis.

 

[Piggy]

If we want to protect ourselves from terror attack, we can start by ditching the Saudis and their wahabbi mosque financing. It was no coincidence that 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Taliban did harbor Bin Laden. Other than that, Obama did not equate the two.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems you and I turned this thread into the Darth/Piggy chatroom. Nice talking to you, the missus is calling.

DR

Maybe you should honor my request and reread my post that you replied to suggesting you totally distorted what I said.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe you should honor my request and reread my post that you replied to suggesting you totally distorted what I said.

I read it once. I responded. You gave no evidence of reading my entire response, part of which included my agreement with you on a couple of ponts? Indeed, you gave evidence of going off in a snit about two paragraphs in.

You do not have clean hands here. My response, in detail, was in post #23.
Your lazy bilge in response to that cited a small portion of my post:

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin.

A signal of your mental laziness

[snipped the reply to imaginary comments]

And a smart arsed remark.

Please try again and take off your, "I know what she wrote without reading it glasses", thank you.

Your indignation is self inflicted. Why not go back to post 23, see where we have common ground and disagreement, and restart from there.

@ CHF: leaving Afghanistan is one course of action, which does hold the risk of 1) taliban restored to power and 2) potential for any number of extranational groups to set up shop in "the wild west" regions there or in Pakistan.

On the other hand, it is possible that if the Taliban restore themselves to power, we can show them how it is in their interest not to support or condone such groups, with the implied threat that we'll come and hammer them again if they don't. Velvet glove over the mailed fist, and all that. Don't know if Pres Obama can make that sort of threat credible, too early to tell.

DR

 

[DDWW]

What is the exit strategy of this thread? Do we go on for 18 more replies and then quit? Should it depend on what is accomplished by the replies?

I say if we resolve the issue in 18 replies we stop this subject, otherwise we keep going for as long as it takes!

DD (did I leave enough “outs”?)WW