• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About
  • Contact
  • Founding Documents
  • Shop 76 Supply
  • LIVE

The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

  • Life
  • Leadership
  • History
  • Miscellaneous
    • Politics
      • National
      • World
      • Election
    • Military
      • Soldier Spotlight
    • Foreign Policy

Afghan

Live Coverage of Taliban Attacks Banned By Afghanistan

March 2, 2010 by Daniel

Victim of fighting in Marjah

While there has been a draw-down in Marjah, changes are beginning to take shape. One major change is that Afghanistan has banned live coverage of the Taliban attacks, saying that it enables the enemy. This has been a source of concern during the entire war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan alike. The constant feed of news is finally being slowed to ensure not to help defeat the advancement of liberty.

Reuters – Afghanistan bans coverage of Taliban attacks

The announcement came on a day when the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) fighting the Taliban reported six of its service members had been killed in various attacks.

Journalists will be allowed to film only the aftermath of attacks, when given permission by the National Directorate of Security (NDS) spy agency, the agency said. Journalists who film while attacks are under way will be held and their gear seized.

“Live coverage does not benefit the government, but benefits the enemies of Afghanistan,” NDS spokesman Saeed Ansari said. The agency summoned a group of reporters to announce the ban.

The move was denounced by Afghan journalism and rights groups, which said it would deprive the public of vital information about the security situation during attacks.

One could accept the argument made by the journalists, however, if it is helping aid the enemy by providing the public information then the journalists should wait to share their story. The only objection one could make is if the locals are in immediate danger.

Another change being seen in the Marjah region, is that of the people and their understanding of just what type of action is being taken.

AssociatedPress – Afghan complaints show obstacles ahead in war

An Afghan government delegation from Kabul, headed by Vice President Karim Khalili, made its initial foray to the town to meet with some 300 tribal elders and residents at the largest shura, or council meeting, since coalition troops seized control of Marjah last month.

NATO military commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal and civilian chief Mark Sedwill came along in a sign that international forces intend to support the Afghan government’s efforts in the troubled south.

“The most important thing is to bring peace and stability to the people in Afghanistan,” Khalili told the residents. “This is a promise. … It’s our priority to talk to each other. But others want to prevent this. We will not allow them to keep people hostage again. This is a beginning in Marjah. We will be with you. We will stay and fight. We will bring you good governance.”

But the townspeople appeared skeptical — and some were angry.

An elderly man, wearing a gray turban, stood up to say that his family members had been killed during the military operation, although he didn’t say by whom.

After offering his condolences, Khalili reached out to embrace him and promised some money and assistance to his family.

Another elderly man, dressed in a white turban and blue tunic, complained that his house was destroyed during the offensive.

“You promised not to use big weapons. Why was my house destroyed?” he asked.

He invited the delegation to visit his home nearby.

The allied forces have cleared most of Marjah and are now working to secure the area, though NATO has warned there could be pockets of violence for weeks. Hundreds of Afghan police and civil servants are being brought in with the goal of establishing public services to win the support of the population.

NATO officials say establishing good local governance is key, because corruption and lack of services have led many Afghans to turn to the Taliban.

“We need to move fast enough to try to meet expectations. But carefully enough that we’re not party to being blind to some of the nuances,” McChrystal told reporters. “The key thing is to get the locals represented and shape it the way they want because they’ll know best. In the near term, they have to feel represented. They have to feel it’s fair.”

For more commentary:

  • Jules Crittenden

Filed Under: Foreign Policy Tagged With: Afghan, counterinsurgency, Military, NATO, Taliban

Strategic Withdrawl; An Enabled Enemy

February 20, 2010 by Daniel

Soldiers in Marjah

In the current age of information, both the internet and 24/7 news agencies have created an open window into the policies and strategies of the American way. This has been very detrimental to the strategy of advancing in places like the Afghan region. Reason being, it has enabled the enemy as to when and where the next mission will take the American forces.

ForeignPolicy – Strategic Withdrawl

It is tempting to note these and other examples of strategic withdrawal by guerrilla forces now that reports are pouring in from Marja, in Helmand Province, where many of the Taliban fighters holed up in the town appear to have fled before the U.S. Marines arrived. Of course, in the name of counterinsurgency strategy, the American commander, General Stanley McChrystal, deliberately encouraged the Taliban to withdraw by publicly signaling his plans. If the bulk of the Taliban pulled out before the Marines arrived, the thinking went, that would reduce casualties and damage to civilian property during the seizure of Marjah, and it would allow U.S. and Afghan forces to establish control of the Helmand River Valley, open transport routes, and facilitate the deployment of Afghan and international civilians to provide previously absent government services—an approach referred to as the unpacking of “government in a box.” If they succeeded, the Taliban would find it impossible to return.

Routing the Taliban from Marjah, where they had established a vicious and increasingly unchallenged shadow government, was undoubtedly necessary. I’m no military strategist, but it remains unclear to me why surging U.S. forces continue to invest their efforts and their numbers so heavily in Helmand. The axis of Taliban power, guerrilla infiltration, and money flows in southern Afghanistan lies somewhat to the East, along the routes between Kandahar and the Pakistani cities of Quetta and Karachi, which serve as sanctuaries for senior Taliban leadership. Kandahar is the birthplace of the Taliban and a historical seat of power. From their birth in 1994, the Taliban have relied upon their ability to move freely between Kandahar, Baluchistan and Karachi. The Times recently carried a good piece about just how porous the border remains between Kandahar Province, in Afghanistan, and Baluchistan Province, in Pakistan. It is true, of course, that U.S. forces cannot operate in large numbers in Pakistan, and are dependent on Pakistan’s fitful, ambivalent cooperation against the Taliban. Yet that still raises the question of why the thousands of U.S. Marines available in southern Afghanistan are concentrated largely to the west of Kandahar, rather than reinforcing struggling Canadian troops in the province itself.          . . . MORE

As stated further in the article, “The Taliban are weak and vicious, but they are not dumb.” True as that statement is, they are smart enough to pay attention to the announced strategy of American forces. And, while it appears that the American forces are taking large areas, the Taliban has one thing the American forces don’t. The ability to move from place to place quickly.

We are not talking about the ability to move small teams quickly – that is one thing American forces are well known for. We are talking about moving a whole force. The American fighting force is very large and complex, while the Taliban force is small and more rogue. They lack the complexity of an elite force, but their ability to perform a strategic withdrawl is far easier than that of another force.

Filed Under: Foreign Policy, Politics Tagged With: Afghan, afghanistan, counterinsurgency, Taliban

President Obama Afghanistan Address Transcript

December 1, 2009 by Daniel

Text of President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan, Dec. 1, 2009, as provided by the White House – LATimes

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.

They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they 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, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the ….

 

…North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and 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. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. 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.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.

That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. 

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. 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, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. 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.

And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there.

As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.

Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.

Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. 

I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.

This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a 

blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. 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.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.

We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

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.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear.

America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

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.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.

Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade.

I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.

Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. 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.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty. 

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.  

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Filed Under: National, Politics Tagged With: administration, Afghan, afghanistan, Al Qaeda, McChrystal, Obama, Pakistan, Taliban

Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy Announcement

November 25, 2009 by Daniel

President Obama has stated that he will announce his strategy for Afghanistan on December 1, which will be addressed at West Point. It has been reported on that he will likely announce a troop increase between 30,000 and 35,ooo. While this is less than what Gen. McChrystal requested earlier in his assessment, the major spotlight will probably be his exit strategy. All of which will ignite the debate on everything dealing with how you commit to a troop surge to formulating an exit strategy that will ultimately leave Afghanistan and its people in a better way than befor troops first entered country.

The committing to an increase of troops weighs heavily on previous assessments and studies that were presented to Obama. Most controvercial of these assessments was issued by Gen. McChrystal, which found its way leaked into the hands of the media. This itself has presented a hurdle for the Obama team. The very metrics that got the president elected – the social media powerhouses of Facebook and Twitter – have been the distracting factor in easily formulating a plan for Afghanistan. In what is termed “the war of leaks,” the Obama administration has been faced with numerous leaks of information that has forced them to continuously rewrite their strategy. 

The long-awaited plan from Obama has stirred a great deal of controversy, namely speaking how America would exit the Afghan territory. Whatever the announcement may be, one guarantee by Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, is that the war will not continue on for “another eight or nine years.” Reportedly, the upcomming announcement will include an exit strategy of “off-ramps,” points starting next June which could adopt a more limited strategy or even a halt of deployments.

The reported “off-ramp” strategy | McClatchy:

  • As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops. In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
  • “We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that’s it,” the U.S. defense official said.
  • It’s “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.

Filed Under: National, Politics, World Tagged With: administration, Afghan, afghanistan, assessment, exit strategy, McChrystal, Obama, troop surge

Obama Rejects Proposed Strategies for Afghanistan

November 12, 2009 by Daniel

Nov 11 has now come and gone, and so have all the proposals for action in Afghanistan. The hand-picked general submitted his assessment, which itself brought a good deal of controversy. However, General McChrystal was put on hold for Olympic bids, for Afghan elections, and even a few rounds of golf.

Now, it was commented in an previous post that if Obama delayed long enough, it would be cause enough to probe for yet another assessment. Well, enough time has passed that Obama is now asking for more information and direction that should be pursued. The absurdity in all of this is that if he knew how to act on pressing issues in a timely manner, this would not be an issue.

He has gone on record to say that this is his war. But there is one problem with that statement. He has continually shown absolutely NO ownership. The only things he’s been consistent on is putting off the direction needed, and that the troops are still in a dangerous way.

After announcing that none of the proposals would be chosen, instead he has embarked on a trip to Asia that will postpone the decision even longer if not until after Thanksgiving. The time has certainly come that something come to be in the way of a decision. The troops are waiting. The American people are waiting. The Afghan people are waiting.

For more commentary:

  • The Associated Press
  • Counterterrorism Blog
  • New York Times
  • Wall Street Journal
  • The Washington Times

Filed Under: National, Politics Tagged With: administration, Afghan, afghanistan, Al Qaeda, assessment, General, McChrystal, Obama, Taliban

Afghanistan Awaits Tee Time Decision

October 26, 2009 by Daniel

Almost two months ago, General McChrystal submitted his assessment on the situation in Afghanistan along with some requests. His most debated request being a surge of troops in upwards of 40,000.

Still without a decision, President Obama has yet to signal what direction he wants to go with Afghanistan. However, this does not mean that he has not been busy.

USAToday reports that Obama is now tied with former President Bush when it comes to rounds of golf, matching him at 24 rounds. Barack has only been in office for 10 months, while Bush elected to stop playing after 2 years and 10 months.

While Obama has been busy teeing off on the links, he has at least been thinking of what his next actions will be, after an election run-off in Afghanistan.

Fox News reports:

The administration is debating whether to send tens of thousands more troops to the country, while the Afghan government is moving to hold a Nov. 7 runoff election between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah. The runoff comes after complaints by international monitors of fraudulent voting in the first election. 

But, Obama’s critics say the time for him to make a decision is running out.

“Republicans want very much to support the president’s decision,” Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told “Fox News Sunday.” But he cited Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s own warning that U.S. and NATO forces may only have about one year before the insurgency’s momentum becomes irreversible. 

“It’s been more than two months since the recommendation went to the president. And Gen. McChrystal is talking about a 12-month time frame,” Kyl said. “So clearly time is of the essence here.”

Obama said to a group of Navy service men and women that he “will never rush the solemn decision of sending [troops] into harm’s way.”

Filed Under: National, Politics Tagged With: administration, Afghan, afghanistan, assessment, General, McChrystal, Obama

The Waiting Game for Afghanistan

October 20, 2009 by Daniel

With the announcement of a run-off election for November 7 in Afghanistan, hopes for action by President Obama rise. Without having made one decision about future actions in Afghanistan, it looks as though a decision won’t be made any time soon.

So the question arises: Will Obama have waited too long to make a decision that he will order a new strategy assessment report?

Without pressure from either side, it may be possible. Another possibility would be his hand-picked commander, General McChrystal, to step down or be released from command. Without the support and trust of the President behind him, why wouldn’t he.

The problem Obama is facing is one of popularity. However, popular politics isn’t cutting it with the troops. They are the ones suffering and in need of help. Continuing to put pressure on NATO for support and troops isn’t going to cut it. It is time for Obama and his administration to step it up and decide whether they want to win or lose.

So far, many feel they are on track to lose.

Filed Under: National, Politics Tagged With: administration, Afghan, afghanistan, assessment, General, McChrystal, NATO, Obama, Taliban

Afghanistan Waits on Health Care Reform

October 19, 2009 by Daniel

Day in and day out, people turn on the news and hear more and more about the proposed health care reform, and how the President wants it done and passed in as little time as possible. True that there are things wrong with the health care system, but there are many more important issues on the table that continue to get brushed aside.

Health care this, health care that. Baucus bill here, Baucus bill there. What about taking a stance on the future of Afghanistan and whether or not to send more troops? This has become more of a game to the current administration. The only downfall to not taking action soon is that more and more American soldiers will continue to die at rediculous rates.

The time is over! It is time to decide on a direction for Afghanistan. Understanding the dificulties of politics, at some point one would question the President on when he would make his next move. Today’s delay comes way of waiting on election outcomes. True, it would be nice to have the backing of the incoming government to support any future steps. However, the major concern comes when the lives of not only Americans are in danger, but the Afghan people.

The pressure on health care has taken front stage before the lives of the American troops. American soldiers are continuing to die, while a new health care bill takes shape. The American troops should always come first! NOT health care reform!

Take a good look at history. How was America so victorious during WW2? The soldiers came first. America was behind it’s troops 100%! There wasn’t a health care bill being shoved through Washington at the time. Global Warming/Cooling wasn’t a hot topic. Failed government policies weren’t debated and blamed on the previous administration. NO! The troops came first. The President listened.

Filed Under: National, Politics Tagged With: administration, Afghan, afghanistan, General, Health Care, Obama

Afghanistan: From Strategy to Comparison

October 11, 2009 by Daniel

Among the most heavily debated issues in Washington, none is more prevalent than what the next steps and actions will be in Afghanistan. From an addition of 40.000 troops, to a slow and deliberate pullout of troops in favor of strategic air strikes, President Obama definitely has to make a difficult decision. A decision that many hope will not take too much longer, and one that will receive more attention than what it has in the last few weeks.

Whatever the decision shall be, Obama has another thing weighing down his shoulders with Afghanistan. That would be the parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam. In commentary at RAND Corporation that originally appeared at The Huffington Post, James Dobbins shares the same concern.

Here are a few things from his commentary that shed some light on this issue:

Beyond that, polls are showing that Americans are increasingly skeptical about this conflict, and citizens of other nations contributing troops, such as Britain, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, are even more negative.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Now that U.S. involvement in Iraq has finally begun to require fewer resources, Afghanistan is the new focus of American and European anti-war sentiment, and increasingly Obama’s critics are drawing on the analogy of Vietnam. They assert that the United States and its allies are bogged down in a long, inconclusive conflict in support of a corrupt and incompetent government against an elusive, popularly based enemy operating out of an untouchable cross-border sanctuary.

In fact, the two societies, Vietnamese and Afghan, and the two insurgencies, Viet Cong and Taliban, could hardly be more different. Yet the conflicts may, in the end, have a similar impact on American public opinion. And that could have a similar impact on their outcomes. The most decisive battles over Vietnam were fought for the heart and minds of the American people and the most decisive defeat was in the U.S. Congress. The contest for Afghanistan is now being conducted over this same terrain.

For years, the war in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan. Obama has characterized Afghanistan as a war of necessity, in contrast to Iraq, a war of choice—and a bad one at that. Yet as controversy over Iraq fades, this comparison, perhaps accurate and certainly powerful in its time, has dwindling impact. In its place is a new controversy, Afghanistan as the new Vietnam.

There’s no debate about how that war turned out, but little agreement on why. The insurgency in South Vietnam had been reduced to manageable proportions by the time American troops departed in 1973. Counterinsurgency thus largely succeeded, yet the war was still lost when North Vietnam launched a conventional invasion in 1975. Vietnam thus offers material for both sides in current debate over troop levels in Afghanistan. Those who argue for a better resourced counterinsurgency campaign can point to the tactical and operations successes in Vietnam. Opponents recall the strategic failure.

To read Mr. Dobbins commentary in its entirety, please visit RAND Corporation.

Filed Under: National, Politics Tagged With: Afghan, afghanistan, Al Qaeda, counterinsurgency, Iraq, McChrystal, Obama, Taliban, Vietnam

Direction for Afghanistan Becoming Priority with Obama

October 6, 2009 by Daniel

In what President Obama refers to as “his war,” he is definitely taking his time deciding what direction to take the war in Afghanistan. Soon, he will be faced with making a decision that could either be victorious or one of defeat. Either way, one not to be taken lightly.

Someone else not taking the decision lightly is General McChrystal. Hand-picked by Obama, he was asked to deliver an assessment on the situation/progress in Afghanistan. His 66 page assessment was subsequently leaked to the media, and became somewhat of a source of controversy.

The most heat to date would be that didn’t go through the proper chain of command. There are proper measures that are to be taken in military structure. It doesn’t change depending on the amount of stripes you have, or how many stars you have. There is a chain of command that must be followed. However, this argument does nothing on the surface but stall the debate going on behind closed doors.

The debate is whether or not to follow the commanding general on the ground who sees first-hand what is happening, or go with a group of selected Republicans and Democrats who have put their heads together who think they have derived the greatest plan ever. Ask 100 different people on what they would do, and you would likely get 100 different answers. Everything from, “Pave the country” to “Nuke the damn place and show Iran that we mean business” to “Continue this hunt and peck operative that hasn’t proven anything yet.”

More consideration should be shown to Gen. McChrystal and what he proposes. But, Obama doesn’t want to look like the failure. He would rather have McChrystal take the fall. If McChrystal was smart, which he is, he would resign immediately if his demands are not met. Another reason for resignation would be that it would demonstrate Obama’s distrust in anyone, even the person he appointed to be in command.

So, certainly this is a very difficult situation for many. Even the enemy. Either choice would be a victory in their eyes. If troops are decreased, then they will view it as victorious as they did with Russia. If troops are increased, then another victory in that U.S. troops will be stretched so thin they would have a hard time being victorious in any other region if conflict were to escalate. If heavy bombing missions were to take place, then they would see it as a victory because Americans would be killing innocent men, women and children.

Time should be spent dissecting any and every option by the President. However, he should not be out gallivanting around begging for the 2016 Games to be held in Chicago. This, along with other issues plaguing the American people, should be top priority.

Filed Under: National, Politics, World Tagged With: Afghan, afghanistan, Al Qaeda, assessment, General, Iran, McChrystal, Obama, Olympics, Russia, Taliban

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter!

* = required field

powered by MailChimp!

© 2023 · The Stafford Voice