Obama sets new approach to Afghanistan
“President Obama this morning announced a new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy that will require significantly higher levels of U.S. funding and thousands more military and civilian personnel to reverse what he called an “increasingly perilous” situation….
Among the resources required, he said, are an additional 4,000 troops, beyond the 17,000 he authorized last month, that will bring total U.S. deployments to more than 60,000. U.S. military expenses for Afghan operations this year, White House aides said, will increase about 60 percent from the current toll of $2 billion a month. The newly announced forces, from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, will serve as trainers and advisers to an Afghan army expected to double to 134,000 by 2011….
“In going forward,” he said, “we will not blindly stay the course,” but will monitor progress with a series of benchmarks and metrics imposed on Pakistan, Afghanistan and U.S. efforts. “And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al-Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders,” Obama said.
In an indication that U.S. covert and overt operations against insurgent hideouts in Pakistan will continue — including missile attacks launched by Predator drones, Obama said that “we will insist that action be taken — one way or another — when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.”
…. Lawmakers and the administration itself have questioned the ability and will of the Afghan government to fight corruption and the narcotics trade and have criticized the Pakistani military’s performance against al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups. U.S. intelligence officials believe that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service continue to actively collaborate with the Taliban.”
I’m on deadline for a Monday column and can’t give this the time it deserves right now. But I’ll make one quick point: Obama’s correct to stress the responsibility of other parties to step up. We Americans can’t fix Afghanistan by ourselves, no matter how much money, time and manpower we put into it. If others don’t do their part, Afghanistan will fail no matter how smart or committed we are.
Sometimes that’s a hard thing for Americans to accept. We have this crazy idea that everything that happens anywhere around the world is a result of something we did or didn’t do. It’s not. Despite our immense relative power, events in other parts of the world have an historic and cultural momentum that we are sometimes helpless to alter.
When Mao and the Communists took over China in 1949, it set off howls here in America of “who lost China?,” as if we somehow had more power over China’s fate than the Chinese themselves. Likewise, there was little we could do to stop North Korea and Pakistan from going nuclear and we may not be able to stop Iran either.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try every reasonable means at our disposal. But the idea that events in the rest of the world can be molded to our liking by sufficient application of U.S. willpower and muscle just ain’t true, and our refusal to accept that reality has sometimes caused us problems.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
134 comments Add your comment
@@
March 27th, 2009
4:57 pm
Oh great! Obama is sending a U.S. diplomat to an SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) Conference hosted by Russia. That’s like saying “Bye Bye NATO!”
So why is an American attending the SCO now you might ask? Word has it that it could be due to a mix-up amid the general confusion occurring within the State Department — an organization that, along with the rest of Washington, is going through upheaval related to the presidential transition. As jobs are filled within the department, those in the Eurasian section are being filled last and it is not clear who is in charge of anything relating to Russia. This has made it possible for an official from the South and Central Asia section to accept the SCO invitation without understanding the ramifications that would carry over into other foreign relations.
This is so sad…
I wonder if China will attend?
In the past, the Chinese put up with the Russians’ spin on the SCO because they knew such things were not taken seriously. Now Obama has given the organization credibility.
Obama has no inkling as to what he’s doing, does he? He really is clueless…
NRB
March 27th, 2009
4:57 pm
Loser Oblahma is sending 20,000+ trooops to Afghanistan to “die for oil”, but the front page of the AJC online discusses T.I.’s one year sentence, like we care. Sure no mystery why you guys are bleeding out a million per week, Jay.
Sharpen those pencils, AJC staff, you’ll be selling them on the street corner in no time.
@@
March 27th, 2009
5:04 pm
For the Corporal:
This is the song my Dad left us little ones with when he was going overseas
It would be before the sun came up. Mom would be standing in the doorway and he lean over and give us all a goodbye kiss. We were awake but played the role of sleeping soldiers. The tears would come after he was gone so he didn’t have to see them.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
5:04 pm
Corporal,
Well I can only hope he’ll listen to the people on the ground (his generals). I think that’s been a criticism all along – that wasn’t being done enough.
Last paragraph – I agree. This business in Mexico is completely out of hand but until the demand for drugs from our side is under control it will only escalate. I watched a report on this last night, and they said that 90 percent (or something like that) of the guns used by the cartel were from the U.S. That was pretty alarming to think about. I think that is more dangerous than AQ is right now.
It’s interesting that people are starting to talk about legalizing drugs again.
About Jesus? As with most things religious, I think it’s metaphorical. I’m not sure if Jesus actually thought himself to be the son of God, or if he meant for us to take it as metaphor for all of us are worthy of God’s salvation, grace, and forgiveness. I’ve always had the belief that Jesus’ message was that we are all worthy in the eyes of God.
Be careful on patrol.
Kamchak
March 27th, 2009
5:07 pm
Using the words “he”[Bush] and “character” in the same sentence, hmmmm….
ByteMe
March 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
If you’re into technical analysis of the market, this is a must-see:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/evil-kniev-quad-form.png
Pogo
March 27th, 2009
5:10 pm
Let me understand Redneck Convert; as you see it your daily satirical contribution to this blog is based upon the idea that only an ignorant person would believe in the “tongue in cheek” ideas of your “humour” (which is giving it a lot more credit than is due, because you are not funny). And these people must be Southern and they must be uneducated “rednecks”. I was born in the South, have lived all my life in the South and was educated in the South and I will die in the South. Judging from your pathetic condescending dribble, you are some bitter fool who knows nothing of Southern culture and surely don’t know anything about us. There are a lot of people that disagree with your thinly veiled liberal views that are not from the South. Does this make them a different type of “redneck”? If so, then what is the term for them? If you want to critisize conservatives, then critisize conservatives. Come out of your liberal closet but don’t make everyone on here endure your daily trashing of Southern Culture by inferring that Southern people are ignorant, trailer dwelling, beer loving morons. Besides, what is wrong with living in trailers and what is wrong loving beer? Neither of these things certainly are not specific to Southern people. Not everyone can live in a 300K home and drinking beer certainly is not more prevalent in the South than it is in the rest of the country.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
5:10 pm
ByteMe,
War on terriers? LOL!!! Those yippy little b@stards.
About religion? I don’t have issues with what people believe, it’s just when they say I’m wrong that bothers me. I think that mentality crosses over to things like why we should fight AQ and how some view the poor, etc. I think it opens one up to having a too narrow of perspective and realizing that humans are not all the same, nor should be.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
5:17 pm
Corporal,
Let me rephrase something – “in the eyes of God” – I don’t think God is a human kind of creature, so I don’t think God has “eyes” but I hope you get my drift.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
5:18 pm
Pogo,
I personally miss Right Wing Nut Job in Full Glory.
@@
March 27th, 2009
5:25 pm
I know that Bosch won’t read this since it’s me posting it, but if you’re really concerned about the violence in Mexico, this may add to those concerns.
Hezbollah is strengthening its ties to Mexican drug cartels — and using the same routes they do to smuggle narcotics and people into the United States, the Washington Times reported March 27. The Shiite militant group long has been known to fund operations through drugs and other types of criminal activity, and to operate in the tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. But a recently retired U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration operations chief, Michael Braun, has said Hezbollah is working with and relying on the same criminal facilitators as Mexican cartels. Six U.S. officials — including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists — who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed his remarks.
jay has his traveling music upstairs. He blew the link though.
PJ
March 27th, 2009
5:26 pm
To: jon @4:44 pm – My object apologies if I got history wrong but I thought I read somewhere that we attacked Iraq because they were meeting with 9/11 operatives prior to the attack (false), that they had WMD’s (false), they they were an imminent threat to the US and there would be mushroom clouds (false). I know they invaded Kuwait in the 1980’s and that they were ignoring the UN sanctions but I don’t remember being told that is why were invaded a sovereign nation. We were told that Iraq oil would pay for the war (false), that we would be treated like heroes with flower thrown in the streets (false) and loss of live would be at a minimum (also false). We were told we did not and would not torture (false), we were told prisoners of war would be treated fairly (false), we were told that Blackwater could do a good job of security and infrastructure building (false). If I am incorrect in my estimations please advise me for I’d hate to think I misjudged the Bush Administration in any way. After all they have been straight with us on so many issues.
williewonka
March 27th, 2009
5:28 pm
Please, I beg all of you DO NOT get that religious lunatic started. You know the one .. the E-4 who at that lowly rank also fancies hisself as some sort of military tactician.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
March 27th, 2009
5:32 pm
President Obama never serfved in the military; he is just another “chickenhawk” compensating for his own sexual inadequacies.
President Obama just wants to double-down on Afghanistan because the Afghanis did not consider his father to be a real muslim.
President Obama is lying about the inteligence to justify this war he needs to compensate for his sexual inadequacies and avenge his father.
President Obama is taken this action solely to prepare to invade Iran.
President Obama shouldt be impeached.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
5:34 pm
ByteMe:
1) Eternity is no amusement.
2) “Dulce Bellum Inexpertis”
Kamchak
March 27th, 2009
5:40 pm
@ Pogo
I was born on Peachtree Street in 195…something, and I find his wit to be very entertaining. Please do not presume to speak for all southerners.
PJ
March 27th, 2009
5:43 pm
To: Mrs. Godzilla @4:54 pm – Hooray for UPS. Lets see who follows suit.
To: Corporal – It’s still blasphemy no matter how many Bible quotes you post.
To:Wyld Byll Hyltnyr @5:32 pm – OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-K!
Rush Limbaugh for President
March 27th, 2009
5:54 pm
Wild Bill….
You is funny Mr. Rhet.
Pogo, I am a Southerner and I take no offense to RedNeck Convert. I’d say his posts are pretty accurate. I don’t believe he has ever mentioned the South specifically nor has he used the word moron. Lighten up.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
5:54 pm
Williewonka, I’ll take one U.S. Marine corporal over any million liberals any day and twice on Sunday. Especially on military tactics.
You aren’t even in his league.
@@
March 27th, 2009
5:56 pm
PJ:
Are those falsies you’re sporting, dude?
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
5:59 pm
To PJ:
I’ll take Bible quotes over your quotes any day but thanks for your input.
To Bosch:
I hear you but consider this. Jesus did claim to be God in the flesh. That was blasphemy under Jewish law at the time and He was put to death for that. That part is really not in dispute even historically.
Now that said, since He “claimed” to be God He was either:
1) A LIAR: He claimed to be God but KNEW he was not (aka: Jim Jones). He cost a lot of innocent, believing people their lives …. all through history. If this is who He was, He cannot even be a “good” man or a “great” prophet because He was a liar and we should pay no attention to Him.
2) A LUNATIC: He claimed to be God but He was in layman’s terms – crazy (aka: Charles Manson). Sometimes people in history will follow a deranged person (hard to believe but true) but if this is who He was we should pay no attention to Him.
LORD: He was Who He claimed to be …. and we had better pay attention to what He said.
williewonka
March 27th, 2009
6:11 pm
Dave R .. You wanna bet? You don’t know my military record, nor do you know I’m a liberal…In fact you know nothing of me!
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
6:13 pm
To Dave R:
Regarding General Williewonka and his viewpoint (it’s a free country) have you ever noticed that liberal/non-military people make “tactics” much bigger than it really is? It’s not that complicated ……
Let me explain (Williewonka are you listening):
1) At the squad level of say 12 men (three fireteams of 4 each) you are ordered to attack a position (a trenchline/bunker complex). Basically, two fire teams attack frontally/pin the enemy down while the other fire team envelops/outflanks them – thereby taking the position. This is what Corporal and Sergeants do.
2) Now – go back to the first Gulf War.
At the “Army level” (multi-divisions) you are ordered to attack a position (in this case Kuwait/Iraq). About two thirds of the divisions involved attacked frontally/pinned down the enemy while about one third of the divisions enveloped/outflanked the Iraqi Army from the west (along with a Marine “feint” from the ocean). This is what Generals do.
This is not brain surgery. Tactics are like football plays. There are only so many things you can do. The difference between a squad attack and an “Army” attack is the amount of troops and logistics involved.
And in the second Iraq war Bush/Rumsfield screwed it up initially simply because they didn’t have enough troops …. something most of us who have been in combat knew from day one.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
6:21 pm
To @@:
That was a good one.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
7:07 pm
Williewonka, I don’t know you or your military record. What does that have to do with my earlier statement?
The mere fact that you post nothing of substance and berates an E-4 as being lowly says that you aren’t in Corp’s league.
Copyleft
March 27th, 2009
8:00 pm
Corporal’s confusion stems from the fact that he HONESTLY BELIEVES liberals have no interest in fighting al-Qaeda or defending America. It’s funny, but he really believes that!
So when liberals are on board with taking _actual effective steps_ to fight terrorism, he gets all stymied and worked up. “But–but that don’t make SENSE! Liberals want to hold hands with terrorists and sing Kumbaya, I just KNOW it!”
Silly, silly man, that Corporal…..
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
8:32 pm
Copyleft:
Here is the problem I have with posts like the one you just did.
Most (but not all) of you liberals go after me personally instead of just the message. If you don’t agree with the message fine …. debate ….
Now, if you will go back and review my posts I do not believe you will find where I said “every” last liberal for anything. If I did it was in error.
There are always exceptions but “in general” liberals are usually not into a strong defense, etc. They may use that “verbage” but boiled down to its core …….. liberals and conservatives are as different on a strong defense, or fighting terrorism as they are the 2nd Amendment.
It is obvious that Obama was much softer on all of this until he got a few briefings. I would have loved to have been there.
Now, if you are into fighting terrorism “physically”, then as I told someone else earlier today:
Welcome aboard ! Standby to repel boarders !
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
8:34 pm
Mr. williewonka:
I am awaiting your response to my 6:13. I don’t think we have ever debated before so let’s be polite and have at it ………………
jon
March 27th, 2009
10:14 pm
PJ at 5:26 My object apologies if I got history wrong
You did.
The Professor
March 27th, 2009
10:57 pm
Was it not Mr.Obama who stated in 2007 the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. I am pretty sure this was before he got to see any briefings.
jon
March 27th, 2009
11:03 pm
For more entertainment how this statement from Janet Napolitano, director of Homeland Security about flooding on the high plains. “You have a number of us who have been through different types of emergencies, but similar in the sense of having to make decisions about opening shelters, evacuating people, keeping track of special needs populations, making sure that highways are closed to one-way direction, making sure that shelters have food, baby food, places for pets, all the rest,” she said. “I certainly have been through that quite a bit.”
The funny part is to go read this hack’s biography.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
11:25 pm
The Professor:
He said so many weird things and changed his mind on so many issues during the campaign it would be impossible for anyone to really know what he said or let alone meant. Don’t get me wrong …. 95% of politicians are that way ….. he is just better than most ….
)
Copyleft
March 28th, 2009
11:27 am
I know you’re still confused, Corporal, so I’ll try to clear it up for you:
“There are always exceptions but “in general” liberals are usually not into a strong defense, etc.”
100% wrong. Point to any evidence of such a thing.
“liberals and conservatives are as different on a strong defense, or fighting terrorism as they are the 2nd Amendment.”
Again, 100% wrong. Where’s your evidence for such an absurd claim?
“It is obvious that Obama was much softer on all of this until he got a few briefings.”
And again, wrong. As has already been demonstrated, Obama was always in favor of going after Al Qaeda.
What threw the far-right neonuts off course was when liberals opposed a SPECIFIC military action (invading Iraq) that made no sense and had nothing to do with the attacks on America. In their little black-or-white minds, that meant “Liberals don’t really want to fight terrorism.” Of course, all it really meant that liberals wanted to fight ACTUAL threats, rather than inventing new ones.
But the chickenhawks couldn’t process such a complicated concept. It was easier to claim “liberals want to be friends with the terrorists and hold hands and sing.”
Liberals have never been soft on defense… we’ve just been SMARTER about it, which includes using every available method, not just the guns and bombs that make the conservative children squeal and wet their pants.
Joe Matarotz
March 28th, 2009
3:11 pm
Interesting addendum to this story is the backstory regarding the debate which took place at the White House. Joe Biden argued that this could become a quagmire. Military personnel argued for more troop. Since Joe Biden is the intellectual equivalent of Sarah Palin, the choice was made to increase troops.
Henceforth, on questions of policy, Obama should ask Biden what to do, and then to the opposite. That would work.