I know where you stand, zulchzulu. We'll have to agree to disagree. Unlike many others here, I know that your
opposition to Pres. Obama's decision is honest.
<<To say Obama is blameless for any decision on the wars is delusional.>>
I never said that, did I? But to call it "Obama's War" to rebrand it as per RNC strategic aims is delusional as well.
Read this and "educate yourself" as to why I, many DUers, and a big majority of Americans support Pres. Obama's
decision:
"Al Qaeda may be diminished, but it still poses a threat, he said....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125469118585462615.html">Al Qaeda also remains allied with and protected by the Taliban... Retired Gen. James Jones, the president's National Security Adviser, acknowledged on CNN Sunday that the links between the two groups had become a "central issue" in the White House discussion... Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor who has written extensively on al Qaeda....believes that... if the U.S. pulls out, al Qaeda will return.
Though there is emerging international consensus among counterterrorism officials that al Qaeda isn't the foe it used to be, U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials caution that it doesn't mean the fight in Afghanistan or Pakistan is tilting America's way. "They're not defeated. They're not dismantled, but they are being disrupted," said a senior U.S. intelligence official in Washington.
Mr. Obama himself has argued that al Qaeda could strengthen if the U.S. eases up on the Taliban. "If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting," he said at a speech in Phoenix at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in August, before the current strategy debate heated up. "This is fundamental to the defense of our people."
For years, the fortunes of al Qaeda and the Taliban moved in tandem. The Taliban hosted al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Mr. bin Laden's network launched its 2001 attacks from there. After the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban continued to provide haven after retreating to the tribal areas of Pakistan, while al Qaeda trained Taliban fighters.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER:... It was a strong speech, Larry.
I think he laid out an important case. I agree with a lot of the sentiments that Michael Moore expressed.
I do think in this case, the president limited the objectives. He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy. I think he pointed right at the objective, go after Al Qaeda. He didn't talk about Pakistan, but Pakistan is all over this speech.
And the simple truth is that, as he said, you can't get at Al Qaeda in Pakistan without doing more in Afghanistan. So I think that he's going to put a lot of pressure on the Pakistanis and give them a lot of help and expect them to do a lot more directly against Al Qaeda while
the U.S. forces in Afghanistan also work against Al Qaeda and work for a very minimalist objective with the idea of getting ourselves out of there in a responsible way pretty quickly... CLARK: I think victory here is we go after Al Qaeda, particularly in Pakistan. We do it with the leadership of the Pakistanis, we give them the support to do it, we build a strong relationship with Pakistan, and we leave behind in Afghanistan some kind of minimally stable government.
If we have to go back in there at some later time, if we have to leave a residual force, if we have to leave some special forces and intelligence collectors there, we might have to do that.
But the point is the objectives in Afghanistan are pretty minimal. What we really want to do is go after Al Qaeda. And that's a war that there won't be a victory parade. Mark's exactly right on that. But we'll know when we're winning. We've already done a pretty good job against Al Qaeda.
We just need to finish the job a little bit more in Pakistan, and we can't do that if we don't hang on in Afghanistan. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/01/lkl.01.html...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34387&mesg_id=34387">those officials pitted on the front line against the Taliban insurgents, said a rapid surge of 30,000 troops this winter was desperately needed, since Afghan forces could not fight off the current insurgency on their own.
“It’s a very good idea,” said a senior security official who has been in the forefront of tracking Al Qaeda and Taliban since 2001. The United States had very good human intelligence on Taliban on both sides of the border in Afghanistan and Pakistan but they did not have enough good fighters in the Afghan army and police, he said.
“They need the Americans,” he said. A surge of extra forces could undercut the insurgency in six months since many of the Taliban were ready to negotiate and could be persuaded to swap sides with a concerted effort, he said.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
