President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 22, 2009 08:56 PM UTC

Obama on Afghanistan

  • 10 Comments
  • by: BoulderRepublican

In March of this year, Barack Obama made a speech detailing his plans for Afghanistan. In the speech linked to below at the White House’s own website, he had this to say: “Good morning. 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.”

Then, Obama told America what the goal was: “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. 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.”

Soon after this speech, where he also detailed his new strategy (the White House blog post linked here is actually titled “A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan”), he appointed a man with no counter-insurgency experience to help implement it as the lead General in Afghanistan.

But on September 16th while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the President said “You don’t make determinations about resources, and certainly you don’t make determinations about sending young men and women into battle, without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.

The situation is deteriorating, and even though he has called Afghanistan “the War of Necessity,” the President has so far denied General McChrystal’s request for more troops. And just this week, the General said that “a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”

It appears he is walking back his strategy from earlier this year, and whether or not he eventually commits additional troops to Afghanistan, he appeared on David Letterman saying that “we are not going to make any decision about any further troop deployments until we know what exactly is our strategy…

Maybe this is what Joe Biden was talking about when he said “the Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training.

Comments

10 thoughts on “Obama on Afghanistan

  1. .

    Don’t make any drastic changes in the first couple of months.  

    The people you lead will interpret that as rejecting what they’ve been working for and feel less loyalty to you in return.

    I thing Machiavelli talks about this.

    http://www.coloradopols.com/di

    Suppose Obama really is as smart as his supporters here say he is.  In that case, he’s known for at least a couple of years that the War in Afghanistan was already lost.  Same as you and me and anyone willing to look at the facts.

    So he HAS TO end that war ASAP, but not so fast that he offends the delicate sensibilities of chickenhawk warmongers who carry so much weight in the Senate.  

    In other words, the shift in strategy, from what’s best for arms manufacturers to whats best for the country, has to be made in a number of small, incremental steps.  

    That’s what we’re seeing.

    .

    1. But I’m also not sure we want to let Afghanistan go…  Leave aside the threat of a nuclear Pakistan next door which seems greatly influenced by the fortunes of the Taliban.

      Gaining the support of the Afghani people would be a pretty good step toward improving relations overseas.  Rebuilding the country and putting it on a stable path that doesn’t include the oppressive regime of the Taliban should still be seen as a major stepping stone toward regaining some trust from the Islamic countries in the neighborhood.

      But neither do we want to get bogged down in a counter-insurgency effort without the support of the people.  That’s just another Vietnam waiting to happen – and something al Qaeda was looking for when they first attacked us on 9/11.

      One of the very few things I agreed with Bush on at the time was not committing more than absolutely necessary to the invasion of Afghanistan.  But the ground rules have changed.  Bush never put the civilian resources into Afghanistan to rebuild the country and stabilize it; turning the nation’s attention to the irrelevant Iraq was a gift to the Taliban and to al Qaeda, who have had time to regroup and alter their strategy.

      The Taliban don’t have the loyalty of the people, though; fear is their “loyalty”, and it’s breakable.  I think the General’s assessment fails on several counts, and it may be politically motivated (by some accounts, his boss, Gen. Petraeus, may be angling for a 2012 Presidential run, and by influencing the report from Gen. McChrystal, he can attempt to undermine President Obama’s military credentials..).  I think a serious review and discussion – albeit a quick one – needs to take place to put “the best” plan in to action.

      1. First off, I really doubt Petraeus will run.  If he does though, he’ll likely get my vote.

        Second, I think our focus in Afghanistan has to shift from following terrorists into the hills to protecting the cities.  They will seek us out, and we can destroy them one by one.

        We can’t beat them in the mountains.  But if we focus on protection of civilians, training of an Afghan security force, and improving infrastructure, we’ll have a way to succeed that isn’t possible if we continue the path we’re on.

        That’s the thing about Iraq–it’s much easier  to do the tasks involved in “nation building” when there is already an infrastructure to speak of.  Afghanistan has nothing of the sort.

        1. We must beat them in the mountains – or at least in the countryside.

          We’ve managed to protect most of the largest cities, but the towns, farms, and other civilian targets have gone unprotected under the previous policy (agreed upon by Bush and Karzai).  If we wish to win over the population as a whole, and deprive the Taliban of their financial strength (the poppy fields), we must go out and win over the rural population.  That may mean troops, as Gen. McChrystal requests.  But it may be more than that, or an alternate to that.

          1. But it really seems like the more we pursue them, the more this war will begin to look more like Vietnam than “the War of Necessity.”

            As it stands, I think Obama ought to give his general what he wants.  Let’s be honest, whatever you think about Obama, he doesn’t know squat about the military or warfare in general.  Bush didn’t really either, which is why things went so poorly in Iraq before he picked a general who did.

            1. I think McChrystal’s got some decent ideas, but I’m not sure he’s got it all right.  We have others in the Army War College – people whom Bush ignored in favor of field generals and political hacks – who had it right from the get-go on Iraq; I’m hoping we don’t have a rush to take the first available option, but rather a solid discussion of strategic options.

              We can’t do Afghanistan like we did Vietnam.  It has to be more about civic engagement and less about military support, but we have to have the military support out there…  We at least have the rural population, if not on our side, then not on the other team’s side; they are willing to become our allies, but only if we can protect them and give them a future.  But we cannot win against the Taliban by remaining holed up in Kabul and other cities; we’ve done that for the past 7+ years and it hasn’t worked.

            2. .

              Obama doesn’t need to be an expert in this field.  That’s why he made Jim Jones his National Security Advisor.  Even if General Jones didn’t know much more than me, that wouldn’t matter.  He has contacts in every nook and cranny of the Pentagon and throughout the entire armed forces.  He can get advice and opposing views in minutes.  

              Petraeus helped pick the team that McChrystal hired to help with his analysis and his report.  Warmongers every one.  

              Here’s some current “analysis” by two of them:

              http://www.understandingwar.or

              I’m not impressed.  And these are the folks who are clamoring for 4 more wars, and suggesting we can defeat the “terrorist” enemy.  

              Bad news: the folks we are fighting in Afghanistan are not foreigners, we are the foreigners.  

              And as far as the locals think, they fear our military more than they fear their Taliban neighbors.  Regardless of what we might believe, the locals think we are the terrorists.  

              And all those “Afghan National Army” folks ?  The locals consider them foreigners, too.  Not fellow countrymen.  

              Obama will not take their Anti-American advice.

              .

  2. From an interview with the NYT today…

    General Stanley A. McChrystal:

    “A policy debate is warranted,” General McChrystal said in a telephone interview from his headquarters in Kabul. “We should not have any ambiguities, as a nation or a coalition.”

    1. …Obama announced the end of a “complete policy review” and rolled out “a new strategy in Afghanistan” six months ago.

      If he wasn’t ready and didn’t know what he was going to do, why did he tell us the opposite?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

48 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!