Readers — after Obama’s presentation last night, I opened up the floor for comments on the troop escalation in Afghanistan. This conversation has so far been enlightening and I think sensitive and well informed. Your view will inform my coverage of this issue, and I appreciate your taking the time to comment.
20 thoughts on “The floor is open for comments on Obama’s speech”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I didn’t watch this but I knew it was coming. From a different persepctive, I have been saying Obama is between a rock and a hard place with these wars. Here’s why: both wars have caused huge government contracts in manufacturing. Both wars employ hundreds of thousands of people both over there and here and both military and civilian. In an economy that has record unemployment and huge economic problems, where would we employ all those troops if they did come home? Where would we employ the folks that get laid off due to the lack of defense contracts if the wars ended? In other words, Obama had to choose between keeping the wars going or stopping them and having huge unemployment and all the social ills that would have created. The drain on family assistance and unemployment coffers would have been enormous and the impact would be felt RIGHT HERE. Keeping the wars going has an enormous impact on many people…but many of them are OVER THERE and the ones here that are employed are invisible because they ARE employed.
Without the new “green” technologies up and running or factories retooled for them, and with the post Depression “works projects” being called unconstitutional, what else could Obama do? After WWII, factories retooled to make goods and women were sent home to make jobs for the men. That wouldn’t happen now. Rock and hard place…pretty simple when you think about it.
My lover emailed me today: “our presidents are selected, not elected.” My reply: “I know [sigh].”
One has to look back over the past decade or so and wonder why the Republicans work so hard to court their “base,” while Democrats apparently work so hard to alienate theirs. Something’s real squirrelly about that, as we say here in Carolina.
But I also think Barack Hussein (and I say his name proudly) wants to live to see his little girls grow up. My $20 says the jury’s still out on that, what with the Hard-Right loony toons on one side, Shadow Gov’t/Establishment demons on the other.
Sword of Damocles, indeed.
It’s not clear to me that the preceding responses are informed about the real problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I mean, believing that Obama is a good man?! Hoping he is well-informed? This is a man who in his economic policies put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. I’m not sure it’s responsible for us as citizens who pay the money that funds these wars to remain satisfied with hopes and unfounded beliefs.
The Nation had a good issue on Afghanistan (November 9), but if you don’t have access to that, try reading the petition on the Campaign for Peace and Democracy website (www.cpdweb.org). That will give readers some inkling of the complexities and why these complexities argue for a U.S. withdrawal, not an escalation.
‘No Bravery’ ( http://nobravery.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ )
Mandy, chrys:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments, and the harder look.
Eric commented that we need to look at the fraud behind the first war after 9-11. Let’s also mention the fraud of the 2000 election that brought a criminal war regime to power in the first place, of which we are today paying yet another great price. I think we’re not only reacting to news of this next war, I think we’re also still fighting the ghosts of the illegally appointed criminal regime that took lives and futures from a vast many people, fucking up countries and economies—the price their successors are paying with having to regain their trust at the very least.
This is not a way to justify this war. I am against it, but I also think Obama is walled in on this one. Pakistan is too volatile a state for both India and China, major economic allies, and their borders vulnerable. Pakistan is a nuclear state on a hair trigger.
I would be interested in watching testimony by Hillary Clinton before Congress today. I want to hear what she will bring up when Congress, meaning us, asks hard questions.
I suggest everyone give your representative some heat if you disagree with the plan.
Bin Laden was likely never in Afghanistan or if he was he’s either dead or in Pakistan somewhere. Its documented from several sources that he had to have renal dialysis – not a ‘machine’ but abdominal. If these sources are correct then he has to have power, cleanliness and ready access to medical supplies. All of which can be tracked. Renal failure is not a condition that can be *coped* with on the run, close medical observation has to be undertaken. So either he is in Pakistan or another relatively advanced state, somewhere that has decent and very private hospitals…
I’ve believed that Iraq and Afghanistan is not about those countries but the one in between – and maybe now Pakistan…
Obama is too smart not to know all the history
of this region…
This is beyond nation building –
My sense is that this is the speech and decision
he did not want to make-
will we ever find out what is really underneath it all
maybe –
but possibly it is about Pakistan-
and their nuclear weapons….and something that we have yet to
know
‘Truth’ is an ideal with large incisors..
It is only real once you fuel it with emotion.. and then it whoops your ass!
I’m British, so naturally I have a little more detachment from the US Goldfish Bowl. For me, quite apart from sheer size, material means or power, many people (so make that nations too) have never progressed into a vision of life beyond the survival instinct. Generally speaking, there is therefore a paranoia at large that “what I have may be taken from me at any time”.
Believe it or not, virtually everyone has an element of this going on. The problem is that, for many people, it is true to their experience. Powerful people take from less powerful ones all the time – but propaganda smokescreens sanitise our recognition of this process writ large.
You cannot stop it as an individual, as far as its hegemony outside of you, and its global impact. What you can do is root out the psychology of fear within yourself, without becoming naive or gullible about the realities out there. You can then start to offer generosity of spirit to others and proactively help them and do ANYTHING BUT take advantage of them – this is simple kindness. How much of that is lacking today in individuals?
So how can we expect nation states to be kind? It’s not realistic.
Be thankful methinks, that Obama has plea-bargained his way to some significant reforms, at the expense of an idealist notion of ‘truth’.
He would not be tolerated if he swept away all the corruption. The very fact he is president represents enormous progress. Every positive impact he has, in building a more responsible citizenship, must surely be applauded.
Remember, they say Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God. Martyrdom is not nearly so attractive today as it was two millenia ago. And look what transpired there. You win some.. you lose some.
Let’s give thanks for the trajectory away from the old. It will take much more than one man to rebuild the foundations of our ‘civilisation’.
That’s why we visit Planet Waves and shape our stuff together – a living, breathing, moving ‘human pottery’ workshop. Let’s keep working the clay and not believe that there is some transcendent immutable potter, running the show..
I watched Obama’s speech last night. I have not changed my mind about him. He is at his core a peacemaker. I have faith that these core values are rock solid and they will inspire and empower the players in this war. He has to walk a tightrope between two extremes. Military might versus immediate withdrawal. He spoke directly to those women and men who will be the ones sent to carry out his plan/vision and those in that audience who are attuned to his vision and truly believe in it, will hopefully be the ones to shift the energies at the grassroots level towards an implementation of that vision. This mission has a deadline which can help focus hearts and minds to concentrate the efforts.
I am not naive about war anymore. I want peace in our world. I don’t want a world owned by warmongers which could be wiped out at the click of a button but sadly that is the world we live in; massively imperfect on so many levels. There are people who believe that the only way for them to get their points across is to blow themselves up and take as many people who are “the enemy” out with them. We have begin in some fashion to stop people from reaching those levels of hatred and violence and it is a two pronged approach — use of military (ugly yes, but I reluctantly believe necessary for now to stem that violent scourge) but more importantly, empowering people on the ground who CAN make differences. Hold Karzi on a short lease, unite NATO resolve, build from the bottom up and give the people of Afghanistan faith and hope in themselves that they can create their own community.
Having grown up in war torn N. Ireland for the first 25 years of my life I have experienced terror and fear firsthand and I have seen what happens when those who perpetrate terror are actually invited to the political table. Perhaps many in the Taliban will reject such an invite right now but if honest respect it shown on some level, miracles are possible. Some many actually drop violent means in favour of a better world. We have to start somewhere. It’s an unbelievable mess yes, but there is a subtle process at hand and one that begs for belief and optimism. Your President still has mine.
I have been refusing to watch anything about the war(s) as I’m disgusted and frustrated with where we are as human beings … but, since my show was pre-empted (even Fox aired the speech!) I watched and was moved.
If nothing else let this be a lesson to all those who wage war that there is no quick bomb and dash (“you break it, it’s yours”) — our President makes a thoughtful and reasoned case for his plans, which I can appreciate under the circumstances. In the final analysis I do believe he is the right man for the very demanding job he’s got.
mm.
…..” I ain`t buyin what he`s sellin. ” …..Seems to be more about keeping high levels of troops on Iran`s eastern border ….in case there is a dust-up between Iran and Israel……or as a deterrent to said skirmish.
My first reaction was to curl up into a ball; I really wanted President Obama to get us out of there. However, a small voice inside keeps telling me to hold steady and not give into despair.
Cheney acts like he has something to lose if policy changes.
That boy is slimy to the core.
I would suggest taking a more complex view of this, folks. I do not support this war, but I also don’t know how to get out of it, and a yawn is not opposition. What we saw last night was a reasoned and honest approach; valid except for its premise: that bin Laden did or was exclusively responsible for Sept 11. But no major network commentator, no matter how far to the “left,” can talk about the Aug 6 PDB or the New American Century plan for a “galvanizing, Pearl Harbor-like event” and not be accused of treason. That is the conversation we need to be having here: the fraud that led to these wars.
Further, I have seen no mention of China, of borrowing from China and of protecting China through this troop increase.
I studied Obama’s face through the presentation last night. I did not miss one second. I did not see a happy man or someone who truly believed in what he had to do; I saw someone however who was resolved to do his duty as commander in chief. Which we know is his job. Which is not an easy job and which we make no room for an ethical person to do — we are only accustomed to seeing criminals in that role. He may turn out to be one, but I for one cannot say that now, and I will not.
And what about Dick Cheney? Covering up for what, with his vicious rhetoric?
===
Guys — I’ll be taking the rest of the day off from this blog. Please carry on.
I couldn’t watch. the day was stressful enough without listening to that.
*HEAVY SIGH*
phall:
I was sad too. I’ve been sad the last week over this, but thought this energy could be put to good use by bringing some history and context to the subject and the current predicament.
but, oh yeah, he’s going to be given the nobel peace prize. well-deserved
hmmm…. another us president commits himself to further war … yawn…
We’re witnessing the US’s progressed mars continuing on its retrograde path – as the force of our nation’s power turns inward upon itself. As a member of Veterans for Peace I was saddened by Obama’s speech tonight.
FROM TALKING POINTS MEMO:
From the White House
FACT SHEET: The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
OUR MISSION: The President’s speech reaffirms the March 2009 core goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan. To do so, we and our allies will surge our forces, targeting elements of the insurgency and securing key population centers, training Afghan forces, transferring responsibility to a capable Afghan partner, and increasing our partnership with Pakistanis who are facing the same threats.
This region is the heart of the global violent extremism pursued by al Qaeda, and the region from which we were attacked on 9/11. New attacks are being planned there now, a fact borne out by a recent plot, uncovered and disrupted by American authorities. We will prevent the Taliban from turning Afghanistan back into a safe haven from which international terrorists can strike at us or our allies. This would pose a direct threat to the American homeland, and that is a threat that we cannot tolerate. Al Qaeda remains in Pakistan where they continue to plot attacks against us and where they and their extremist allies pose a threat to the Pakistani state. Our goal in Pakistan will be to ensure that al Qaeda is defeated and Pakistan remains stable.
REVIEW PROCESS: The review was a deliberate and disciplined three-stage process to check alignment of goals, methods for attaining those goals, and finally resources required. Over ten weeks, the President chaired nine meetings with his national security team, and consulted key allies and partners, including the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The President focused on asking the hard questions, took the time to carefully consider all of the options, and united a variety of competing views in his cabinet before agreeing to send any additional Americans to war.
As a result of the review, we have focused our mission and developed a common understanding regarding our regional approach and the need for international support. We will deploy forces into Afghanistan rapidly and will take advantage of these additional resources to create the conditions to begin to draw down combat forces in the summer of 2011, while maintaining a partnership with Afghanistan and Pakistan to protect our enduring interests in that region.
The meetings were focused on how best to ensure the al Qaeda threat is eliminated from the region and that regional stability is restored. We looked closely at the alignment of our efforts and the balance between civilian and military resources, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the efforts of the U.S. and the international community.
A number of issues were explored in depth: national interests, core objectives and goals, counterterrorism priorities, safe havens for terrorist groups in Pakistan, the health of the global U.S. military force, risks and costs associated with troop deployments, global deployment requirements, international cooperation and commitments for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Afghan capacity in all areas to include Afghan security forces, central and sub-national governance and corruption (including the narcotics trade), and development and economic issues.
WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE March: Since the President announced our renewed commitment in March, a number of key developments led the Administration to review its approach in Afghanistan and Pakistan: new attention was focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, new U.S. leadership was established in Afghanistan, Pakistan increased its efforts to combat extremists, and the situation in Afghanistan has become more grave.
The United States assigned new civilian and military leadership in Afghanistan, with the appointments of Ambassador Karl Eikenberry as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, and General Stanley McChrystal as the new Commander of ISAF military forces in Afghanistan. Upon arrival in Afghanistan, both Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal recognized that after eight years of underresourcing, the situation was worse than expected. Together, Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChyrstal published a new Civilian-Military Campaign Plan to integrate U.S. efforts across the country.
Afghanistan’s difficult, extended election process and evident signs of the absence of rule of law made clear the limits of the central government in Kabul.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the Pakistanis showed new resolve in defeating militants who had taken control of the Swat Valley, just 60 miles from Islamabad. Pakistani political leaders–including opposition party leaders–came together to support the Pakistani military operations. This fall, the Pakistanis expanded their fight against extremists into the Mehsud tribal areas of South Waziristan along the border with Afghanistan.
THE WAY FORWARD: The President has decided to deploy an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. These troops will deploy on an accelerated timeline to reinforce the 68,000 Americans and 39,000 non-U.S. ISAF troops already there, so that we can target the insurgency, break its momentum, and better secure population centers. These forces will increase our capacity to train effective Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans get into the fight. And by pursuing these partnerships, we can transition to Afghan responsibility, and begin to reduce our combat troops in the summer of 2011. In short, these resources will allow us to make the final push that is necessary to train Afghans so that we can transfer responsibility.
We will maintain this increased force level for the next 18 months. During this time, we will regularly measure our progress. And beginning in July 2011, we will transfer lead security responsibility to Afghans and start to transition our combat forces out of Afghanistan. As Afghans take on responsibility for their security, we will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces, and maintain a partnership on behalf of their security so that they can sustain this effort. Afghans are tired of war and long for peace, justice, and economic security. We intend to help them achieve these goals and end this war and the threat of reoccupation by the foreign fighters associated with al Qaeda.
We will not be in this effort alone. We will continue to be joined in the fight by the Afghans, and the aggressive partnering effort envisioned by General McChrystal will get more Afghans into the fight for their country’s future. There will also be additional resources from NATO. These allies have already made significant commitments of their own in Afghanistan, and we will be discussing additional alliance contributions – in troops, trainers, and resources – in the days and weeks ahead. This is not simply a test of the alliance’s credibility – what is at stake is even more fundamental. It is the security of London and Madrid; of Paris and Berlin; of Prague, New York, and our broader collective security.
We will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to strengthen our civilian effort, so that Afghanistan’s government can step in as we establish better security. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction, including his commitment to reintegration and reconciliation, improving relations with Afghanistan’s regional partners, and steadily increasing the security responsibilities of Afghan security forces. But we must see action and progress. We will be clear about our expectations, and we will encourage and reinforce Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders who deliver for the people and combat corruption. We will not reinforce those who are not accountable and not acting in the service of the Afghan people and the state. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
CIVILIAN ASSISTANCE: A continuing significant increase in civilian experts will accompany a sizable infusion of additional civilian assistance. They will partner with Afghans over the long term to enhance the capacity of national and sub-national government institutions and to help rehabilitate Afghanistan’s key economic sectors so that Afghans can defeat the insurgents who promise only more violence.
Growth is critical to undermine extremists’ appeal in the short term and for sustainable economic development in the long term. Our top reconstruction priority is implementing a civilian-military agriculture redevelopment strategy to restore Afghanistan’s once vibrant agriculture sector. This will help sap the insurgency of fighters and of income from poppy cultivation.
An emphasis of our governance efforts will be on developing more responsive, visible, and accountable institutions at the provincial, district, and local level, where everyday Afghans encounter their government. We will also encourage and support the Afghan Government’s reinvigorated plans to fight corruption, with concrete measures of progress toward greater accountability.
A key element of our political strategy will be supporting Afghan-led efforts to reintegrate Taliban who renounce al Qaeda, lay down their arms, and engage in the political process.
OUR PARTNER IN PAKISTAN: Our partnership with Pakistan is inextricably linked to our efforts in Afghanistan. To secure our country, we need a strategy that works on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The costs of inaction are far greater.
The United States is committed to strengthening Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that pose the greatest threat to both of our countries. A safe haven for those high-level terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear, cannot be tolerated. For Pakistan, we continue to encourage civilian and military leadership to sustain their fight against extremists and to eliminate terrorists’ safe havens in their country.
We are now focused on working with Pakistan’s democratic institutions, deepening the ties among our governments and people for our common interests and concerns. We are committed to a strategic relationship with Pakistan for the long term. We have affirmed this commitment to Pakistan by providing $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to support Pakistan’s development and democracy, and have led a global effort to rally additional pledges of support. This sizable, long-term commitment of assistance addresses the following objectives:
(1) Helping Pakistan address immediate energy, water, and related economic crises, thereby deepening our partnership with the Pakistani people and decreasing the appeal of extremists;
(2) Supporting broader economic reforms that are necessary to put Pakistan on a path towards sustainable job creation and economic growth, which is necessary for long-term Pakistani stability and progress; and
(3) Helping Pakistan build on its success against militants to eliminate extremist sanctuaries that threaten Pakistan, Afghanistan, the wider region, and people around the world.
Additional U.S. assistance will help Pakistan build a foundation for long-term development, and will also strengthen ties between the American and Pakistani people by demonstrating that the United States is committed to addressing problems that most affect the everyday lives of Pakistanis as we work together to defeat the extremists who threaten Pakistan as they also threaten the United States.