the speech obama should give on Afghanistan,but cant.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. the speech obama should give on Afghanistan,but cant. he cant muster the courage.

    The White House

    Office of the Press Secretary

    A New Way Forward:
    The President's Address to the American People on Afghan Strategy

    Oval Office

    For Immediate Release
    December 2nd

    I plan to speak to you tonight with the frankness Americans deserve from their president. I've recently noted a number of pundits who suggest that my task here should be to reassure you about Afghanistan. I don't agree. What you need is the unvarnished truth just as it's been given to me. We all need to face a tough situation, as Americans have done so many times in the past, with our eyes wide open. It doesn't pay for a president or a people to fake it or, for that matter, to kick the can of a difficult decision down the road, especially when the lives of American troops are at stake.

    During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan "the right war." Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case. I know a president isn't supposed to say such things, but he, too, should have the flexibility to change his mind. In fact, more than most people, it's important that he do so based on the best information available. No false pride or political calculation should keep him from that.

    And the best information available to me on the situation in Afghanistan is sobering. It doesn't matter whether you are listening to our war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who, as press reports have indicated, believes that with approximately 80,000 more troops -- which we essentially don't have available -- there would be a reasonable chance of conducting a successful counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, or our ambassador to that country, Karl Eikenberry, a former general with significant experience there, who believes we shouldn't send another soldier at present. All agree on the following seven points:

    1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people.

    2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption. This includes President Karzai's administration up to its highest levels and also the warlords who control various areas and, like the Taliban insurgency, are to some degree dependent for their financing on opium, which the country produces in staggering quantities. Afghanistan, in fact, is not only a narco-state, but the leading narco-state on the planet.

    3. Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously understrength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace.

    4. The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent. Under these circumstances, American and NATO forces increasingly look like an army of occupation, and more of them are only likely to solidify this impression.

    5. Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan. The best intelligence available to me indicates -- and again, whatever their disagreements, all my advisors agree on this -- that there may be perhaps 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and another 300 in neighboring Pakistan. As I said in March, our goal has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on this we have, especially recently, been successful. Osama bin Laden, of course, remains at large, and his terrorist organization is still a danger to us, but not a $100 billion-plus danger.

    6. Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail. Simply to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would, my advisors estimate, cost $40-$54 billion extra dollars; eighty thousand troops, more than $80 billion. Sending more trainers and advisors in an effort to double the size of the Afghan security forces, as many have suggested, would cost another estimated $10 billion a year. These figures are over and above the present projected annual costs of the war -- $65 billion -- and would ensure that the American people will be spending $100 billion a year or more on this war, probably for years to come. Simply put, this is not money we can afford to squander on a failing war thousands of miles from home.

    7. Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we were capable of sending 40,000-80,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they would without question be servicepeople on their second, third, fourth, or even fifth tours of duty. A military, even the best in the world, wears down under this sort of stress and pressure.

    These seven points have been weighing on my mind over the last weeks as we've deliberated on the right course to take. Tonight, in response to the realities of Afghanistan as I've just described them to you, I've put aside all the subjects that ordinarily obsess Washington, especially whether an American president can reverse the direction of a war and still have an electoral future. That's for the American people, and them alone, to decide.

    Given that, let me say as bluntly as I can that I have decided to send no more troops to Afghanistan. Beyond that, I believe it is in the national interest of the American people that this war, like the Iraq War, be drawn down. Over time, our troops and resources will be brought home in an orderly fashion, while we ensure that we provide adequate security for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Ours will be an administration that will stand or fall, as of today, on this essential position: that we ended, rather than extended, two wars.
  2. As things stand today, I agree with every point. Not only should we pull out, we should pull out today, right now! Screw the stability of the region, that's why we have nukes.
    However, I would be remiss if I did not state that all points would be completely irrelevant had both wars been executed the way they should have.
    9/11 happens and we hit Afghanistan. Not to build a nation or make friends, but to punish them for giving safe harbor to terrorists. We kill everything is sight.
    Saddam is talking smack about WMD's and his willingness to use them. We launch a full military strike. 90-120 days pass and no WMD's. Fine, we launch another final air assault destroying every single aspect of the Iraqi infrastructure and we leave with a message to Iraq and the rest of the world. After 9/11 we ain't playin' anymore. You talk shit and we will crush you.
    Our military is not for nation building, it's for nation destroying. Bush and his crew of idiots take the brunt of the blame, but again I would be remiss if I didn't include the perma-pacifists of the left that would have harped either way it went down. While the lefties played a role is shaping opinion, Bush gets no sympathy from me. He should have had the balls to do it right, or not at all. Now it's Obama's turn and he has the same choice. Crush them, or leave.
  3. America should give up on EVERY SINGLE WAR, PERIOD. I am sorry if this offends most americancans but it is a simple point which every single person from every single other country understands, for some reason in the states you guys describe it as "protecting our freedom" well guess what i have lived in half the civilized countries in the world and none of their "FREEDOM was ever in jeopardy the second you guys pull the pin on financing foreign wars, your country will be 20-100 times better off, and it may very well be the only thing which can save you as a naton....
  4. I agree.
    War is not an either/or proposition.

    War is the total and utter destruction of enemy territory and the complete breaking of the enemys' will to continue. Anything else is a waste of human life and treasure, and also inhumane.
  5. Todays headline: Congress wants general to explain war exit plan.

    In other words, General, can you please explain in detail, exactly how do you plan to surrender? How will you keep the troops motivated during this lost cause?

    Get the hell out, NOW! This place isn't worth one more American life. Let the bad guys come in and regroup. That's what bombs are for. They regroup, we bomb them. They hit us on our soil, we bomb them some more.
    As I recall the Japanese were a pretty radical bunch. Had their own brand of suicide bombers. A population ready to fight to the death. A real crazy bunch they were, until one day a plane flew over, blew up an entire city and killed over a hundred thousand in a single blow. Three days later another plane flew over and another city went up in flames. All of the sudden the fanatical, fight to the death, crazy as a loon Japanese commanders became very reasonable people. They surrendered and peace fell upon the land. Imagine that!
  6. CaptainObvious you are so right !

    leave now, they are smart enough to take care of themselves...
  7. Will Team Obama own this, or blame it on someone usual?
    KABUL – U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan doubled in 2009 compared with a year ago as 30,000 additional troops began pouring in for a stepped-up offensive and the Taliban fought back with powerful improvised bombs.

    A tally by The Associated Press shows 304 American service members had died as of Dec. 30, up from 151 in 2008. The count does not include eight U.S. civilians killed by a suicide bomber on a base in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday.