Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP Source: Obama Focusing on al-Qaida, Not Taliban.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:06 AM
Original message
AP Source: Obama Focusing on al-Qaida, Not Taliban.
Source: ap/nyt

President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and will determine how many more U.S. troops to send to the war based only on keeping al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular war.

Aides stress that the president's decision on specific troop levels and the other elements of a revamped approach is still at least two weeks away, and they say Obama has not tipped his hand in meetings that will continue at the White House on Friday.

But the thinking emerging from the strategy formulation portion of the debate offers a clue that Obama would be unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal's troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to -- the general's strong preference -- as many as 40,000.

Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will ''not tolerate their return to power,'' the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan's central government -- something it is now far from being capable of -- and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/09/us/politics/AP-US-US-Afghanistan.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I figured as much when McChrystal started leaking.
He has been pushing back against what he saw coming from Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Leaks from anonymous sources mean diddly squat
They are using the media to push their agenda. We have to be patient and wait until President Obama makes the announcement himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'd say this is a sounder strategy in terms of our actual national security,
but this is certainly going to generate controversy. I expect the right will try and hold up McChrystal as some sort of martyr if Obama doesn't just give him everything he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I agree, both ways,
and sure hope dems support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. I Remember Hearing Taliban, Taliban
many times during the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Sure, that was before any had studied Afghanistan,
Edited on Fri Oct-09-09 02:12 AM by elleng
relations with Taliban and Al Queda. There's been enough time now for those who cared to do so.

For example:

Interview with BBC Reporter David Loyn, who has written the definitive book on the subject of Afghanistan and the history of foreign-power involvement there over the last 200 years.

David Loyn: Geography certainly defines Afghanistan’s destiny. Less than 5% of the land is irrigible farmland; the rest is deserts and mountains, framed by the right-angled ranges of the Hindu Kush across the middle, and the Suleiman Mountains running up the east of the country. But this does not mean it was always poor. In the 1970s Helmand exported more raisins than California, thanks to the Helmand irrigation project (based on the Tennessee Valley Authority). That fertile valley now grows about 90% of the world’s illegal opium. Afghanistan is on a geographical crossroads, trampled across by invaders for thousands of years, but none has stayed the course. There were big mistakes made after 2001, with raised expectations that women would ‘throw off the burqa’ and that a western-style voting system would somehow conjure up a civilised society as if by magic out of nowhere. In a highly critical report the World Bank talked of an ‘aid juggernaut’ descending on Kabul, sucking out the translators and officials for itself, rather than building the capacity of the Afghan state. Dealing with local corruption might have been a better use of international effort. In the first year after the Taliban fell, government revenues were actually lower than during the Taliban years, as local warlords creamed off the cash again for themselves. There is a growing realisation that it will not be possible to create something like Switzerland in the Hindu Kush, and eight years on there are far lower expectations about the kind of society that can be built. Respecting Afghans’ ability to do things for themselves and then letting modern notions of sexual equality spread out from the cities would be a better way forward. But without stability and competent government none of this will happen. . .



David Loyn: If you ask people in rural Afghanistan, or in the Pakistani North-West frontier, why they are backing the Taliban, the answer that most often comes back is that the Taliban provide justice. It may not be the kind that we would like – sharia law has some notoriously harsh penalties, such as amputation. But the worst failure in Afghanistan since 2001 has been in allowing corruption to return so that the police and courts did not provide justice. How could 2 million refugees be expected to return to their land if warlords were again controlling things? It is the same story on the Pakistani side of the mountains. Easy access to justice has deprived people of any recourse other than to the Taliban. And the failure to provide any education has opened the door to Wahhabi religious schools, madrasas, some financed from Saudi Arabia, who teach little other than the recital of holy texts by rote. Any western-designed policy that does not address this, and do it in a way that respects local customs, is likely to fail. Expensive and cleverly constutructed aid programs designed outside the country have not worked so far. One of the popular reasons for the war against the Taliban was because of their harsh treatment of women, but the outspoken Afghan woman MP, Malalai Joya now says that ‘Rights for women in Afghanistan are worse now than under the Taliban.’


http://themoderatevoice.com/38259/interview-with-david-loyn/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. There's been plenty of information out about Afghanistan
Edited on Fri Oct-09-09 02:31 AM by EFerrari
since before the invasion. We didn't hear much of it because BushCo wanted to collapse al Qaida and the Taliban in the public's perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. It would be scary to think it had worked on Obama, as well as on some elements of the general
public.

Obama's sudden turnaround on Afghanistan is puzzling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. No sudden turnaround.
As Prez, his responsibility is greatest in world, as are his resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Run for President without study of Afghanistan when we are "at war" there?
Edited on Fri Oct-09-09 07:16 AM by No Elephants
And say consistently, from 2002 until McCoverUp asks for more troops, that we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq, when we should have remained focused on Afghanistan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QUALAR Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. COUP D'ETAT
Karzai may want to contact his former Big Oil boss and see if a job is available in the mailroom. I fear that he'll end up like Vietnam's Diem when he fell out of favor. There are a lot of similarities, but the main problem is they both falsified the will of the people and the people know it. There may be one last job for Cheney's dead squad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. al-Qaida = does not exist...Just chasing ghost...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I had a young lady ask me
the other day. Terrorism is a tactic, How do you wage war and win against a tactic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. An act of terrorism is usually, if not always, a crime. People have been fighting crime and
punishing criminals since before Biblical times.

The War on Terra was a myth, to enable Dummya (and his successors) to use his alleged CIC powers whenever he felt like it, endlessly. Congress should NEVER have passed a resolution that enabled him (and his successors) to do that. Congress ought to repeal it. To his credit, at least Obama did put an end to use of the term by his administration.

In any case, we ought to be treating crimes like crimes and criminals, conspirators, co-conspirators, aiders and abettors, accessories, etc. like criminals, conspirators, co-conspirators, aiders and abettors, accessories, etc. We should have been doing that all along, instead of bombing civilians and nation building, usually with corrupt locals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I agree with you
and you said it much better than I could have. Thank you. I am going to print it up and when my Granddaughter gets home from school and comes over I will let her read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC