Obama: Victory Not Goal in Afghanistan

[publicprotector]

Correction, they don't have to serve its a choice. The only reason why troops are in Afganistan is because the CIA could not do a deal with the Taliban over the oil pipeline and nothing else.

And yes ROBERT your correct, the US started going down the pan when Kennedy was murdered.

 

[elvis]

if victory isn't the goal, no matter how it's defined, what the **** are we doing there and why has Obama increased the troop levels?

This is just outrage pimping by the right.

We can be successful in Afghanistan, but there will be no clear cut decisive point when we achieve a total military victory over the enemy. It's not that kind of war.

That's what Obama meant. It's the same thing George Bush said when he was president. The right didn't have a problem with it then. They do now.

Go figure.

*by "right", I mean talking heads like Limbaugh.

Uh, I don't listen to Limbaugh, so try again.

I don't give a **** who the President is. i care about Americans coming home in bodybags and whether or not there is purpose for such a thing.

 

[Modbert]

Really? How many people in South Vietnam did JFK kill when he started bombing them in 1962? He never would have allowed South Vietnam to go communist.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7jjF6xuKM]YouTube - Cronkite Interview of JFK[/ame]

TheStar.com | entertainment | Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived: Leaves no doubt

Yet Kennedy had committed only to the presence of thousands of U.S. military advisers in Vietnam, not active combatants. He wanted to help teach South Vietnam, a U.S. ally, to fight for itself against Communist-led North Vietnam.

Out of the glare of TV cameras, he repeatedly fought with U.S. generals and other hawks who wanted to replace the advisers with soldiers. He told then-defense secretary Robert McNamara that he wanted to begin withdrawing advisers by the end of 1963, and to be completely out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.

It was NEVER Kennedy's intention to replace those advisors with troops like LBJ did.

 

[geauxtohell]

Uh, I don't listen to Limbaugh, so try again.

Didn't mean to imply you did.

I don't give a **** who the President is. i care about Americans coming home in bodybags and whether or not there is purpose for such a thing.

Again, if we can expand the central government outside of Kabul to its borders in so much as Afghanistan can secure itself, we've been successful. If you want to call that a "victory" than fine.

Obama's point is that there will never be a clear cut moment when we've achieved victory. The enemy is never going to surrender. It's more abstract than this.

I think we can be successful in Afghanistan. I don't think more troops are the solution, but that is what Petraeus thinks, and he's much smarter on this issue than I am.

I see our biggest barrier to success as Afghanistan total lack of economy. I don't have any good answers for that.

 

[MaggieMae]

I still haven't heard how we achieve victory in Afghanistan. Any of you Republicans want to give a simple layout?

How about you Ozz, care to share some insight?

if victory isn't the goal, no matter how it's defined, what the **** are we doing there and why has Obama increased the troop levels?

For decades political powers have wanted to claim Afghanistan as their own just by virtue of its location. Just look at its borders! If the Afghans can stand up on their own, no one will OWN their country by way of a victory in a war against them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If our goal in Afghanistan is to deny that country to al Qaeda and others as a safe base of operations from which to attack the US and our allies, then we must first defeat the military forces of the Taliban and their allies, by one means or another, before economic development can proceed and stable political institutions can take root. Military victory is not a complete solution but it is a necessary part of any solution.

"Deny" is absolutely one of our goals., and we must defeat the Taliban. Defeating them militarily is one piece of the puzzle, but we are never going to have a total military victory over the Taliban.

We have to provide enough breathing room for the central government to expand out of Kabul and to the borders. That requires a degree of stability and economy.

However, direct action against the Taliban is not as effective as trying to interdict them by pulling the population over to the side of the Karzai government. That's why that is the major focus of our military in Afghanistan right now.

The larger problem is how do we create an economy in a nation with no economy and no real prospects for an economy?

I think we must defeat the Taliban and their allies to the point where their activities can be handled as local criminal matters by the Afghan government. Political support and economic development can only take place after we establish a safe environment for them, and that mean, imo, securing areas to the point where local law enforcement can take over.

Afghanistan already has an economy. The question is how can we help Afghanistan to develop a more modern economy and to extend the benefits of it to the rural areas as well as to the cities. Imo, four steps are necessary. First, a safe environment must be established to encourage investment and economic development. Second, stable and honest political institutions must be established to encourage investment and to win the confidence of the people. Three, a bottom up approach to economic development must be applied to help farmers and local industries to become more productive by adopting modern methods; this will make some local economies more prosperous and help win confidence in the government. Fourth, continuing investment in physical infrastructure, transportation and communications, and social infrastructure, education to improve human capital and at least minimal social services to ease the transition to a more modern national economy, so that foreign investment can be attracted to help grow the economy.

Given the right conditions, in a few years when you call for tech support, you might well end up talking with some one in Afghanistan. Companies that offer services to oil producers might well want to set up headquarters in Afghanistan from which to service clients in various countries in the neighborhood. International banking institutions might want to do the same to facilitate transactions in the area and to more closely service client needs in the area. If Indian companies can offer IT services on a global basis, why can't future Afghan companies do the same? Once security and confidence in political institutions are established, there is no reason to doubt that continued investment in physical and social infrastructure will bring economic development and growth.

 

[Bootneck]

Sad that Victory has to be defined.

No my friend. Sad that whilst some of us are fighting that war, people like you extrapolate on what victory is or isn't in order to score points in your political games of ******* ping pong!

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no military solution in Afghanistan. The problem is economic at its heart.

In regards to the insurgency, they are never going to surrender. If we can adequately stymie them, they will simply assimilate into the populace. Thus, there will be no definite "victory" or decisive point where the war was won accompanied by a ticker tape parade.

Only the ignorant in this country, who have no understanding of tactics or our goals in Afghanistan, think otherwise.

Bush said the same thing. They are both right. It's not inherent to the President, it's inherent to the tactics and an insurgency conflict.

If our goal in Afghanistan is to deny that country to al Qaeda and others as a safe base of operations from which to attack the US and our allies, then we must first defeat the military forces of the Taliban and their allies, by one means or another, before economic development can proceed and stable political institutions can take root. Military victory is not a complete solution but it is a necessary part of any solution.

The use of the term "victory" implies an occupation. It's that simple. We are not there to occupy Afghanistan and topple its leadership. Much of the operation involves convincing the Afghan people that the militant arm of The Taliban is working against their interests. It's using the same Patreaus strategy but with different players.

Victory does not imply occupation. In this case it means defeating the Taliban forces so severely that they can no longer cause significant impediments to economic development or the establishment of stable political institutions. You can't expect to win the hearts and minds of the people if they believe the Taliban will cut out those hearts or chop off those heads if they cooperate with you. Victory in the sense in which I have defined it is essential to any other kind of progress in Afghanistan.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think we must defeat the Taliban and their allies to the point where their activities can be handled as local criminal matters by the Afghan government. Political support and economic development can only take place after we establish a safe environment for them, and that mean, imo, securing areas to the point where local law enforcement can take over.

Afghanistan already has an economy. The question is how can we help Afghanistan to develop a more modern economy and to extend the benefits of it to the rural areas as well as to the cities. Imo, four steps are necessary. First, a safe environment must be established to encourage investment and economic development. Second, stable and honest political institutions must be established to encourage investment and to win the confidence of the people. Three, a bottom up approach to economic development must be applied to help farmers and local industries to become more productive by adopting modern methods; this will make some local economies more prosperous and help win confidence in the government. Fourth, continuing investment in physical infrastructure, transportation and communications, and social infrastructure, education to improve human capital and at least minimal social services to ease the transition to a more modern national economy, so that foreign investment can be attracted to help grow the economy.

Given the right conditions, in a few years when you call for tech support, you might well end up talking with some one in Afghanistan. Companies that offer services to oil producers might well want to set up headquarters in Afghanistan from which to service clients in various countries in the neighborhood. International banking institutions might want to do the same to facilitate transactions in the area and to more closely service client needs in the area. If Indian companies can offer IT services on a global basis, why can't future Afghan companies do the same? Once security and confidence in political institutions are established, there is no reason to doubt that continued investment in physical and social infrastructure will bring economic development and growth.

Good post.

I think you are a little more optimistic about the potential for economic growth in Afghanistan than I am, though.

The basic fact is that Afghanistan is a landlocked country whose, historically, main asset has been it's location. In the past, the country derived it's scant wealth from being on the silk route from China and levying tariffs on the goods and extorting the caravans. England and Russia fought over it in the great game, but their eye was always on India, the jewel of the British Empire. Russia again was foolish enough to go in in 1978, but only because they were trying to eventually obtain a warm water port in the Pacific. There is a reason Pakistan was scared and propped up (with our help) the Muhammadan.

As it stands, you have a nation that is utterly destroyed and has been in a state of continual conflict for forty years. Now consider this: the average life expectancy of an Afghan is 44 years old. That means you essentially have a country of people who know nothing but war and conflict. Expanding IT jobs sounds great, but the illiteracy rate is so high it's not practical. Low skill manufacturing sounds good as well, but they have no access to a port to ship it. The best way for the country to quickly obtain an economy is through natural resources, and there seem to be none. It's a huge problem.

We aren't really disagreeing, except for one thing. In the current situation, where is the center of gravity (that is, what is the most important thing to take care of?). You seem to think it's the Taliban. I propose to you that it's the people, and I would further say that is also the sentiments of the military leadership in Afghanistan.

We can only inflict so much damage on the Taliban (not that we shouldn't try). It's like chasing ghosts. And the more we put our eye on the Taliban, the more we take it off the ball, which is trying to establish a strong central government. (Another tough task: Selling a tribal culture on the merits of federalism).

We've had success in doing this. However, underlying all of this is the fact that government has to be able to support itself. There is no economy in Afghanistan that can support the massive governmental infrastructure we've built.

 

[MaggieMae]

If our goal in Afghanistan is to deny that country to al Qaeda and others as a safe base of operations from which to attack the US and our allies, then we must first defeat the military forces of the Taliban and their allies, by one means or another, before economic development can proceed and stable political institutions can take root. Military victory is not a complete solution but it is a necessary part of any solution.

The use of the term "victory" implies an occupation. It's that simple. We are not there to occupy Afghanistan and topple its leadership. Much of the operation involves convincing the Afghan people that the militant arm of The Taliban is working against their interests. It's using the same Patreaus strategy but with different players.

Victory does not imply occupation. In this case it means defeating the Taliban forces so severely that they can no longer cause significant impediments to economic development or the establishment of stable political institutions. You can't expect to win the hearts and minds of the people if they believe the Taliban will cut out those hearts or chop off those heads if they cooperate with you. Victory in the sense in which I have defined it is essential to any other kind of progress in Afghanistan.

My point was the word "victory" itself is being misunderstoodand misapplied. Just like the financial "bailout" where overuse of the word has given the wrong impression. It implies that taxpayers just gave money away, when in fact TARP is a series of loans to be repaid (as is currently happening).

I *get* your analysis, but many people don't.

 

[Old Rocks]

Obama added a historically ignorant and otherwise troublesome statement when he went on to say:......American Thinker- Print Article

Bush had a lot of years to achieve this "victory" that you are braying about. Why wasn't it achieved? And, since you supported him, why in hell should we consider your opinions of any value at present?

 

[MaggieMae]

Transcript of an interview reported yesterday on CNN with General Patreaus on this subject:

ARWA DAMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even though the U.S. is reducing its combat role in Iraq, the American general in charge of both Iraq and Afghanistan told us in an exclusive interview that Iraq is still the center of the fight against international terrorism.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND COMMANDER: You have the al Qaeda connections, of course, with the senior leadership, and the federally administered tribal areas of western Pakistan extend into Afghanistan, threaten Pakistan, and then very much threaten the rest of the world. There are links from there to al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, which has reestablished itself in South Yemen. And then, certainly, Iraq is in the center of all of this. It's very, very important geostrategically.

DAMON: That is mainly because of its location, but also because control of Iraq's natural resources, oil and gas, is so strategically important. The general, who served nearly four years as a commander in Iraq, was one of the main orchestrators of America's surge strategy there. He says there are Iraq lessons that apply to Afghanistan.

PETRAEUS: Some of the lessons are very obvious. Again, you shouldn't start clearing until you have your plan to hold and build. It wasn't just the surge. It wasn't just 30,000 more forces here. It was the employment of those forces in a manner that focused on security of the people and did it by living with the people, and then also sought to help the process of reconciliation because you cannot kill or capture your way out of this kind of endeavor.

DAMON: And that realization is why America implemented another strategy in Iraq it wants to carry over, reaching out its enemies. In Afghanistan's case, the Taliban.

PETRAEUS: There is -- there has always been activity at local levels which one would characterize as reaching out to elements that were willing to be part of the solution instead of a continuing part of problem.

DAMON: Those efforts, though, not yet on the scale of what they were in Iraq. There is the realization that when it comes to combating global terror, brute force is not the solution.

PETRAEUS: Well, this is not the kind of struggle where you kill or capture the bad guys, take the hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade. At end of the day, it is about education. It is about, in a sense, accepting modernity, pragmatic, progressive leadership of countries. And that's the ultimate solution. And that's why, again, I mentioned that this takes a whole of government approach. Again, you just can't kill or capture everybody. You have to kill or capture the condition.

 

[Xenophon]

This thread is filled with UN speak.

I love that new one, you can't 'win' a war!

Of course you can, it all depends on how far you are willing to go to win.

Only an idiot fights a war if he has no intention of winning, victory is ALWAYS the goal in war.

The USA should never have enetered shitghanistan, once the NA had overrun the AQ camps we should have said adios to that place.

 

[concept]

This thread is filled with UN speak.

I love that new one, you can't 'win' a war!

Of course you can, it all depends on how far you are willing to go to win.

Only an idiot fights a war if he has no intention of winning, victory is ALWAYS the goal in war.

The USA should never have enetered shitghanistan, once the NA had overrun the AQ camps we should have said adios to that place.

And AQ ran from us in ass-stan. They didn't run from the fight in Iraq though. Iraq was more important to their plans of establishing a caliphate but that goal has been denied them.

We should be done in ass-stan, why are we even there now?

Bin Laden? Is he even alive? His network has been destroyed and he is no longer a force, if he is even alive.

 

[MaggieMae]

This thread is filled with UN speak.

I love that new one, you can't 'win' a war!

Of course you can, it all depends on how far you are willing to go to win.

Only an idiot fights a war if he has no intention of winning, victory is ALWAYS the goal in war.

The USA should never have enetered shitghanistan, once the NA had overrun the AQ camps we should have said adios to that place.

"War" today doesn't mean cowboys and indians, friend. Go back to your video games and stay happy.

 

[MaggieMae]

This thread is filled with UN speak.

I love that new one, you can't 'win' a war!

Of course you can, it all depends on how far you are willing to go to win.

Only an idiot fights a war if he has no intention of winning, victory is ALWAYS the goal in war.

The USA should never have enetered shitghanistan, once the NA had overrun the AQ camps we should have said adios to that place.

And AQ ran from us in ass-stan. They didn't run from the fight in Iraq though. Iraq was more important to their plans of establishing a caliphate but that goal has been denied them.

We should be done in ass-stan, why are we even there now?

Bin Laden? Is he even alive? His network has been destroyed and he is no longer a force, if he is even alive.

Because it would be repeating the mistake of leaving once The Taliban had been forced over the border to Pakistan in 2002; once troops were reduced, they just walked right back over and reestablished themselves even stronger. Hello? Do you not bother to even read RECENT history?

 

[Xenophon]

"War" today doesn't mean cowboys and indians, friend. Go back to your video games and stay happy.

Learn how to comprehend what people say simpleton.

Its assfucks like you that made Vietnam possible, because you thought you could just **** around while coming up with a some plan of action.

You see, unlike your childish view of the world, I understand what war is, if you aern't in it to win it, don't be in it.

 

[Xenophon]

Bin Laden? Is he even alive? His network has been destroyed and he is no longer a force, if he is even alive.
George W is that you???

Watch your quotes Suuni, I didn't say that.

 

[MaggieMae]

"War" today doesn't mean cowboys and indians, friend. Go back to your video games and stay happy.

Learn how to comprehend what people say simpleton.

Its assfucks like you that made Vietnam possible, because you thought you could just **** around while coming up with a some plan of action.

You see, unlike your childish view of the world, I understand what war is, if you aern't in it to win it, don't be in it.

Sure, okay. I guess you know more than the top generals do. Fine. Now run along and go shoot something.

 

[Xenophon]

This thread is filled with UN speak.

I love that new one, you can't 'win' a war!

Of course you can, it all depends on how far you are willing to go to win.

Only an idiot fights a war if he has no intention of winning, victory is ALWAYS the goal in war.

The USA should never have enetered shitghanistan, once the NA had overrun the AQ camps we should have said adios to that place.

And AQ ran from us in ass-stan. They didn't run from the fight in Iraq though. Iraq was more important to their plans of establishing a caliphate but that goal has been denied them.

We should be done in ass-stan, why are we even there now?

Bin Laden? Is he even alive? His network has been destroyed and he is no longer a force, if he is even alive.

Because it would be repeating the mistake of leaving once The Taliban had been forced over the border to Pakistan in 2002; once troops were reduced, they just walked right back over and reestablished themselves even stronger. Hello? Do you not bother to even read RECENT history?

See the Vietnam mentality of this idiot?

Never ending war, no goal in sight, no thought of how to win.

Just 'stay the course'.