SubscribeObama: We Have To Win Afghanistan War
From his amanuensis at the Associated Press:
Obama says Afghanistan ‘a war that we have to win’
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Contending that the U.S. is not pursuing a sound strategy for keeping Americans safe, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority after ending the war in Iraq.
"This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations, achieve "true energy security," and rebuild the nation’s international alliances…
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact — as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
Obama said the Bush strategy that McCain supports has placed the burden for U.S. foreign policy on American military. National security policy should go well beyond Baghdad, he said, and involve allies around the world. He focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying that if the U.S. were attacked again, it likely would be from the same region where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
"Sen. McCain said — just months ago — that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," Obama said.
Later in the day, Obama was expected to conduct a series of television interviews to bolster his remarks…
We know that this latest pronouncement is just another attempt on the part of the Deity to move toward the center.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations..
Isn’t that why we went to war in Iraq?
But at this point how exactly is Afghanistan any different from Iraq?
Why is a surge in Afghanistan good while a surge in Iraq is bad? Why must we win in Afghanistan and lose in Iraq?
So that he can please his lunatic followers who want a defeat for America at any cost?
Related Articles:
- Obama Purges Critique Of Surge From Site
- Obama Flip Flops On His Iraq War Flip Flop
- Obama Patriotism: "US Just Killing Civilians"
- Pakistan Trip Makes Obama C-In-C Material
- Obama 2004: For Hitting Iran, Even Pakistan
- Obama: Troops Have To Use Taliban Supplies
- Soldier's Death Inspires Obama To Surrender
- Obama: US Must Do More Than Kill Civilians
- Obama Wants To Send Troops Into Pakistan
14 Responses to “Obama: We Have To Win Afghanistan War”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I love the part about “we”…
July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Yeah and I will be a Porn Star next year….
July 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
amanuensis “?” (had to look that one up)
amanuensis [am-man-yew-en-siss, -seez]
Noun
pl -ses a person who copies manuscripts or takes dictation [Latin servus a manu slave at hand]
amanuensis
Formal. 1. a secretary.
2. a scribe or copyist.
literally “slave at hand” ROFL
July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am
What about having empathy for the terrorists?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
-’By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe,’- I know (being an Army Wife) that the US Armed Forces are required to stay out of politics (while in uniform) to stay neutral (you know bi-partisan, non-partisan, protector of all - all those things our Typical Political People ‘claim’ to be) - but in addition to demeaning the possibilities of America and Americans to do anything - he just dissed the US Armed Forces who have served (many multiple times) in Afghanistan since 2001 - as if they have not been fighting, dying, being wounded, separated from family and friends, rebuilding a country while routing out the people who want to keep it in the hands of Taliban/al-Qaida. . .
Well this advid supporter of a Marine (son-in-law) who is putting his life on the line in Afghanistan - while not being able to be with his wife while she gives birth to his son - will say - Shame on you Obama. America is the greatest nation in the World - we can stop this radicalized terrorist movement which attacked us on 9/11 and which would simply ’slip off into the night’ to re-group, if we only had gone into Afghanistan. And President Bush spelled it out - states that aid and support terrorism - there is proof that Saddam did that (often) - and while Obamanation and his ilk apparently does not take the radical terrorists at their word nor even their own President - apparently Gaddafi did, he gave up without a shot. Shame on you for ignoring the sacrifices US Armed Forces (actually Coalition Forces, but to say that would they would have to admit that Cowboy George hadn’t gone it alone) have been making in Afghanistan for the past 8 years. Shame on you for dismissing, demeaning and distancing yourself from the very threat that has been attacking us since 1979 when their insanity was emboldened by the inaction of an American President, especially after being compounded by the inaction of another American President after an attack on American shores.
He sounds like he intends to cure the common cold, end poverty and solve the World’s problems all before lunch. What a crock.
Be afraid, very afraid.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Obama is absolutely naive regarding al Qaida and terrorism. One of the problems with the previous administration was the linear and demarcated thinking of how to engage al Qaida. This thinking had, at its root, that:
1) al Qaida can be engaged as a criminal organization.
2) al Qaida can be engaged as a political organization.
3) al Qaida can be engaged as if it were an organization sponsored by a rogue nation.
The previous administration treated al Qaida thus, and we were not able to effectively subvert al Qaida - leading progressively from the orginal WTC bombings to the Mogodishu debacle, the bombings in East Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and then to the destruction of the WTC, the attack on the Pentagon, and the attempted attack on the White House.
By treating al Qaida as if it were a criminal organization, much like the Italian Mob, the Chinese Triad system, or the Drug Cartels of South America and the Near East, al Qaida was able to effectively ‘out-run the law’ by safe havens in weak or sympathetic nations. This umbrella of quasi-protection allowed al Qaida safety by the knowledge that the Western nations needed to legally prosecute - rather than attack - the al Qaida leadership. What the previous administration failed to see is that al Qaida is not motivated by monetary greed - they want nothing less than the death and destruction of Western Civilization and the rise of the world-wide caliphate. The current administration saw through this smoke-screen and changed the idea from ‘Frog marching’ the leadership in court into attacking with a ‘dead or alive’ mentality. And it has worked - al Qaida has had its organizational structure severly disrupted due to the fact that there is no safe haven in which the al Qaida leadership can freely operate - with one exception - the backwater of northern Pakistan. Al Qaida attempted to turn the asymmetric organization into symmetrical operations in Iraq, and have been resoundedly disrupted. Obama’s naive plan is to drop the successful plan into one that has been known to fail.
By treating al Qaida as if it were a political organization - much like the way the West is currently treating Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland - al Qaida was able to disengage and strengthen. There was no political arm of al Qaida because it had only ephereal political aims. Its aims were largely militaristic - Afghanistan proves this point. The Taliban were running the country of Afghanistan, not al Qaida. The Taliban provided safe haven to a militant organization, but the militant organization was not integrated into Aghanistan’s politics - which is why the West could demand that the Taliban kick al Qaida out of Afghanistan. When an organization is politically motivated - as Hezbollah and Sinn Fein are - engaging them politically is a non-event and can be a useful way to dialog. Al Qaida is not politically motivated, and the current administration saw through the failure of the previous administration, and knew that the surest way to defeat a militaristic organization is to engage them militarily, not politically. Obama wants to return to the failed policies of the previous administration and diplomatically (politically) engage terrorists and those that harbor/sponsor terrorists like al Qaida.
By treating al Qaida as if it were sponsored by a legitimate state, the West falied to account for the fact that al Qaida is not accountable to any one nation - as Hezbollah is accountable to Iran . Al Qaida pulls membership and money from a plethora of peoples, many of whom are not tied to any one regime. Where al Qaida is receiving sponsorship from recognized nations, those many nations allowed al Qaida to act freely - If one nation attempted to rein-in al Qaida, al Qaida had two options: 1) internally attack that nation, or 2) go to that nation’s neighbor and curry favor. This also had the added benefit of keeping the West at bay - the West could not put pressure diplomatically on an individual country without al Qaida slipping out from under one nation into the financial arms of another. This was a highly successful operation for al Qaida in countries known for their instability. By treating al Qaida as if they were sponsored by a single nation - or even a group of nations - the previous administration was diplomatically tied to a layer of abstraction in dealing with al Qaida - and al Qaida was able to slip out from under any pressure put on the sponsoring state. The current administration saw through this smokescreen and engaged al Qaida in each of the countries where they were receiving help. While there have been some areas of greater local participation in the pressure (Djobuti is a great success) than others (Pakistan has been less successful), overall the plan has worked very well. Obama would like us to return to a failed ‘diplomatic abstraction’ approach - one that got us into this mess in the first place.
The question then becomes - what about Iraq? Is Iraq more or less important than Afghanistan in the war against al Qaida in specific, and terror in general? As explained above, the correct way to disrupt and defeat al Qaida is a multi-pronged, asymmetric approach - one that the current administration is pursuing. Iraq is important because it is a winnable front against al Qaida in general, and terrorism in specific - which is what the war is about, anyway. Removing a rogue regime - one that thumbed their nose at the rest of the world - and rebuilding a country into a politically free, economically stable, democratically-elected nation is the surest way to defeat al Qaida and terrorism. Iraq is the first nation to undergo this transformation - becauseof this, it is the current, central front in the war of terror. Al Qaida made it their frontline, so we met the enemy at its frontline. If, within this asymmetrical war, al Qaida shifts to make the front Afghanistan, then that is where we meet them in asymmetric battle.
Which is exactly what the current administration is doing.
For someone to detail that one is less important than the other based upon nothing more than political wind, is to hand our defeat to our enemies. And that is exactly what a naive, non-principled person would be expected to do. And that is exactly what Obama is doing.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I’m of the belief that Obama will blunder the US into a bloody land war in Pakistan which will make Iraq look like a day at the beach. Just as JFK was obligated to escalate Vietnam so as not to look “soft” on Communism, Obama will overstep so as to appear strong, yet miscalculate and trigger some unintended catastrophe. Neither Obama, nor his advisors seem to have a clue as to what our strategy should be in the GWOT, if they even believe there is one (GWOT that is).
Hopefully America wakes up & smells what Obama’s got cooking’ before election day. If not, we deserve whatever we get.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
And that is exactly what a naive, non-principled person would be expected to do.
And that is precisely what Obama is….to a tee!
July 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
A long time strategy for vapid Democrats was to oppose everything about the Bush Administration.
Even when they often supported the exact same policy when Clinton was President, including the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.
Somewhere along the lines, someone offered this very ignorant attempt by Democrats, that the GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM needed after the horrific 9-11, was only to be won in Afghanistan.
It really is a concerning sign of Liberal Democrat denial, and one wonders if it is just another facade.
Especially after the bombings in Bali, Jordan, Madrid, London, etc…
Some tried to suggest, they opposed the Liberation of 25 Milliion in Iraq, from a brutal Dictator who openly rewarded PLO Suicide Bombers, was merely because they felt that distracted from the Global War On Terrorism.
These were basically the same Partisans who declared defeat in Afghanistan after a few days of the US Led Operation against the Taliban. Remember the nutty Mr. Apple of the NY Times calling Afghanistan a quagmire?
Of course, all of these Democrat delusions are nonsense, especially because nearly everyone elected in their concerning Party, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
One of the biggest reasons, why we sacrificed to liberate these oppressive Nations and stayed to help build stable Free Democracies, was so we would not be fighting alone against these suicidal Radical Militants.
Today, we see a FREE AFGHANI PEOPLE, able to defend themselves with a growing Army, led by a Free Government, who are fighting along side all the Free Nations within NATO, to stop the death the Radical Militants offer on the border of Pakistan.
The troubled Arab Region was in desperate need of change and reform, long prior to 9-11. Because of the Leadership of GW Bush, Tony Blair, General Petraeus, the bravery of the Men - Women of the US Military, including those serving Poland, Italy, Spain, S. Korea, Romania, England, etc., we see a new potential for the positive in the Middle East.
The Liberation of 50 Million should never be taken lightly…
But the Partisan Democrats, so greedy for personal political gain and festering with overt political bigotry, have only worked to vilify those who worked for the Liberty of the Iraqi and Afghani People.
Now Obama is stuck with his message…
Just like the pathetic Democrats who opposed Ronald Reagan in waging the Cold War against the despotic Communists, today’s Democrat Party have been proven terribly wrong again.
Some of these Democrat ‘human shields’ for progress, seem to be suggesting they believe World would be better off today, with the Butcher of Baghdad still giving refuge to al Qaeda monsters like Zarqawi and buring Iraqi Children alive in mass graves.
It is mindless…
But such is the modern Party of Nancy Pelosi, Code Pink, Rev. Al, John Conyers, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, MoveON.org, Robert Menedez, Chuck Schumer, the NY TIMES, Michael Moore, Frank Lautenberg, Dick Durbin, Al Franken, etc.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
great post Arctain.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Arctain:
Another eloquent post, You really should be writing for a living as your insight is remarkable!
July 15th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Does it escape this dullard that Al Qaeda has been calling Iraq the Central Front of the war for a few years now?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Hey, didn’t the Russians sing this tune once?!? Also, I love this “we” moment. We are Democrats, we HATE the military. nuff said.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Thanks for all the kind words. They are much appreciated.