Obama: Afghanistan 'still winnable'

[bigtree]

February 17, 2009 9:00 PM

from The Chicago Tribune:

"Afghanistan is still winnable,'' President Barack Obama says, "in the sense of our ability to ensure that it is not a launching pad for attacks against North America.

"I think it's still possible for us to stamp out al Qaeda to make sure that extremism is not expanding but rather is contracting,'' the president said in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. airing this evening, as Obama prepares for a day-trip to Ottawa on Thursday.


"I think Afghanistan is still winnable, in the sense of our ability to ensure that it is not a launching pad for attacks against North America. I think it's still possible for us to stamp out al Qaeda to make sure that extremism is not expanding but rather is contracting. I think all those goals are still possible, but I think that as a consequence to the war on Iraq, we took our eye off the ball. We have not been as focused as we need to be on all the various steps that are needed in order to deal with Afghanistan," the president said.

If you've got narco-trafficking that is funding the Taliban, if there is a perception that there's no rule of law in Afghanistan, if we don't solve the issue of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, then we're probably not going to solve the problem," the president said.


transcript of the president's interview with the CBC: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obama_afghanistan_still_winnab.html

[1620rock]

1. I don't like the sound of this.

[alexandria]

2. Good speech Obama.Now let's do it.NT/

[bigtree]

3. do what?

:shrug:

[alexandria]

22. Kick some ass and win.NT/

[bigtree]

24. kick whose ass?

. . . and, win what?

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Guess we'd better send in Smokey the Bear to stamp out the baddies

Perhaps nobody ever told him not to interpret the term "boots on the ground" so literally.

So we're going to impose a government upon them and secure it, while also engaging in pedal vermin extermination?

Does it matter if they plot around some campfire in some kush somewhere or in a hotel room in Jakarta? They're still going to plot. Are we targeting individuals only? It sounds like we're trying to quell an insurgency.

Although strategy IS often described in such abstract terms, military incursions are divinely specific and task-oriented.

Are we going to burn all the poppies? What about the farmers?

Remember: only YOU can prevent florist fires.

[bigtree]

5. simple

. . . we're going to label everyone we attack and kill or maim as 'insurgent' or militant'. When we make a really messy strike or raid with deadly collateral effects we'll announce that we've killed 'senior' al-Qaeda' members or we'll continue to conflate the label, 'Taliban', with with every other resistant force arrayed against our opportunistic, self-serving forces.

And, we'll call it democracy . . .

[karynnj]

9. A woman, from MA, who has been living outside Khandahar had a much better solution

than burning the fields. She spoke of the excellent quality of Afghan fruits and nuts - such as apricots, almonds and pomegranate. These all grow on trees that take 4 years to mature to the point that they bear fruit. She suggested that they consider paying the farmers for growing the trees for those 4 years. After that, they would earn as much as more harvesting the produce. In addition, it would be higher status and consistent with their religion. (This was at a fascinating round table hearing of the SFRC - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090205a.html )

[bdamomma]

6. winnable???

Mr. President I think you better talk to the Russians.

[datasuspect]

8. or the english

[spanone]

7. and what do we 'win'???? what?

[MadHound]

10. Sounds like what Johnson and Nixon said about an ealier quagmire in Asia

Victory is achievable in SE Asia:eyes:

This is why we study history people, so that we don't continue to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again.

[latebloomer]

11. This sounds eerily familiar

Haven't we learned anything from history?

Bring that money back home and take care of our own needs. We have neither the money nor the lives to waste.

I haven't noticed Sweden, or Switzerland, being attacked lately. Let's try minding our own damn business for a change- see how that works out.

I don't even buy this Taliban threat stuff- weren't most of the hijackers supposedly Saudis?

[Mari333]

12. sigh. no, its not. more anti war marches and protests

I hope people stand firm against this on the left. what is this, justification for the defense dept budget? puhleaze. more soldiers used as fodder, more civilians killed for nothing, more deployments of kids who have been there over and over and over again.
Obama, I will now have to protest the Vietnam you inherited .

[BlooInBloo]

13. Did all of you think Obama was just kidding during the campaign or something?

:rofl:

[NNN0LHI]

14. I sure was hoping

[MadHound]

15. No, we fully knew what Obama's position was on the two wars

However just because he said this doesn't mean that he should be able to proceed unabated. In fact he needs to have his feet held to the fire on this one. Just because we voted for him doesn't mean that we support his every move. Many, if not most of us voted for him because the alternative was simply not acceptable.

[bigtree]

17. how silly to mock folks with that tripe

. . . you know the choices we faced in that election. Are you really suggesting that our vote was a blank check for every policy or exercise of our military forces?

I'll concede that we have little actual influence outside of our ability to convince our legislators to act in our interest in response to the administration. But, laughing in the faces of those who hope for more than what the president campaigned on is a mockery of the entire political system where our input and responsibility should involve much more than just casting our votes.

I'll tell you what . . . voters would be foolish to remain silent or submissive to a massive deployment mission into a combat zone in which the administration admits they haven't even determined the strategy behind.

[Lost in CT]

18. I have the same reaction. nt

[dcindian]

16. It is impossible to win a battle of ideals when you don't hold the moral high ground.

Oh it may seem like you are in the short run but hey the world ain't over tomorrow. If you cannot hold your own people accountable for torture and starting the worlds largest terrorist strike against Iraq then sorry you lost. By the way just keep on killing innocents in Pakistan I hear that is working oh so well for ya.

[tekisui]

19. Sorry, Mr. President. I strongly disagree.

It is unwinnable.

[JCMach1]

23. Exactly... the sooner he realizes this the better...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. Same old trap

We can't win against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, because they've moved - to Pakistan - with loosely connected cells all over the place.

The biggest hurt we could inflict on Al Qaeda / Taliban would be to legalize drugs. Make their poppy plants no more profitable than wheat or some other food crop.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. So, are we "spreading democracy" or "fighting the war on terror" this time?

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[mitchum]

25. It sounded just as dumb in the original Russian

[backscatter712]

26. What's our exit strategy?

Not that I'm against kicking the Taliban's sorry asses into the next plane of existence, but we need to make sure that any military adventures we undertake in the graveyard of empires are finite in scope and within our capabilities.

I think Obama understands this.

He descoped Bushian objectives like spreading "Democracy" to Afghanistan and keeping a long-term armed occupation in the country to enforce their crony capitalism.

I think it's down to smacking down the Taliban and Al Queda, which is a worthy goal. But we do need to answer some questions.

Are we able to muster enough force, and the right type of force to deal with Taliban guerrillas who will be working on making us playing an open-ended game of Whack-a-Mole in the Afghani and Pakistani mountains?

Can we set some specific military objectives that give us some missions that we can accomplish with our forces that can do real, long-term damage to the Taliban's ability to fight and accomplish anything?

For that matter, can we set some specific military objectives that give us missions that will cause long-term damage and destruction to Al Qaeda's ability to make anything resembling terrorist attacks?

Realistically, it may be better to make our presence in Afghanistan more low key, use special forces, and work on making the Afghan locals do the heavy lifting. If we have a high-profile presence in Afghanistan, we'll make the problems worse.

Limit the scope, define the goals, accomplish those goals, then bring the troops home.

[bigtree]

27. exit strategy

[mmonk]

28. Everyone who has ever thought that has lost. So what makes Obama sure

he is history's exception? Robert Fisk warned back in 2001 that bush was walking into a trap and gives a history of Afghanistan.

http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/fisk-010912-BushTrap.htm

In my opinion, there was a small chance when we changed sides and joined in the effort to topple the Taliban with the Northern Alliance, Russia, and Iran. However we squandered that quickly and are now in the position of countries in the past.

[defendandprotect]

29. Not for the British, not for Russians . . .

and remember Vietnam . . . ???