Barack Obama: "My new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan" (July 15, 2008)

[jefferson_dem]

For those who forget ... or weren't paying attention...

VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vpCBpTbEds

Barack Obama's remarks on Iraq and National Security
Published July 15, 2008

Author: Barack Obama

A New Strategy for a New World—as prepared for delivery

Senator Barack Obama

Washington, D.C.

July 15, 2008

...

In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That’s why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made – not just in Kabul – but out in Afghanistan’s provinces. As a part of this program, we’ll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

...

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16791

[tekisui]

1. "I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan"

I'd say! He more than doubled that on the first escalation. Now, he is set to increase that more than 5 fold. But, it is true, that is still at least 2 brigades(10,000). How many more?

[Oregone]

2. A promise fulfilled is not a defining characteristic of good policy

He was wrong then, and wrong now on this

[JuniperLea]

4. did you vote for him anyway?

even though he was wrong?

[Oregone]

6. That is also irrelevant to what is good policy

[jefferson_dem]

8. True.

But this also speaks forcefully to the question of policy integrity, accountability and his foreign policy mandate.

So go ahead and speak out. But don't act all surprised.

[Oregone]

11. I'm not acting surprised. Thats absurd

I realized for some time even the "left" in the US is right of center. The country is a political shit hole with no real hope.

Surprised? Not a bit. I hedged my bets in the right place when I left the idiocracy behind.

[jefferson_dem]

17. I'm sorry...

Smile once in a while. :)

But your siggy line says it all.

Bye.

[Oregone]

19. I smile all the time

I just have to visit a shithole occassionally. I don't have to live there.

:)

[JuniperLea]

13. It's relevant to know if someone will vote for but not support someone...

When they feel a particular statement is wrong.

[Oregone]

18. That has no relevance to the nature of the policy itself

Should someone, because of who they voted for, "support" terrible policy?

I would think, under any and all circumstances, all people should oppose all policy they percieve as wrong (for whatever reasons).

[JuniperLea]

25. sigh...

How about this... a direct question gets a direct answer...

If as you say, and I quote: I would think, under any and all circumstances, all people should oppose all policy they percieve as wrong (for whatever reasons)... why would you vote for them in the first place?

[Oregone]

30. "why would you vote for them in the first place"

What's the alternative? Not voting? Is that what you advocate?

[JuniperLea]

35. And you see no hypocricy in this line of questioning?

Given your statement?

[Oregone]

39. Do you advocate not voting?

There was no viable pro-peace candidate in the general election. What do you recommend doing? Choosing the smallest disaster or sitting at home?

[JuniperLea]

41. I advocate waiting until we hear it from his own lips...

His reasons, etc., before bashing him for something. But I'm like that... I like ALL of the facts in front of me, and I generally eschew assumptions.

All you have right now are assumptions.

[Oregone]

42. Hearing a politician's speech and reasoning isn't equivilent to hearing facts

FYI

"All you have right now are assumptions."

Yep, give me 24 hours. Then maybe you will have to come up with new ways to defend your president no matter what he chooses to do

[JuniperLea]

43. So, your assumptions are better than the non-facts that come from politicians...

Why don't you just whip out your crystal ball and save the world?

:eyes:

And don't bother responding... you're going on ignore... not because I disagree with you, but because you keep moving the goalpost, not fair in any case on any board or blog... I don't like it when Republicans do it either.

"PLOINK!!!"

[Oregone]

44. Im not rich enough to save the world

You gotta have connections and capital, and the ability to scratch a few backs, before you have the opportunity to wield any power.

In the meantime Ill just sit here smirking and watch a burning ship go down

BTW, Im terribly sad you "ignored" me. That just makes my DU experience more enjoyable from this point forward... :)

[Deep13]

9. I did. I should have voted for the socialist-progressive candidate.

Oh that's right, there wasn't one.

[BeFree]

3. Yep

Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

Terra! Terra! Terra!

Now where have we heard that before?

The US's security is not dependent on Afghanistan's security.

Here's the last line:
"We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."

So, Obama's answer is more military? More military is NOT the answer. We must move beyond that, but Obama seems to have forgotten that. And then, there is this again:

"...terror and and radical Islam."
Enough Terra! Terra! Terra! Enough. Just stop it!!

[JuniperLea]

5. did you vote for him anyway? eom

[Deep13]

10. Are you suggesting McCain was the better choice?

Wrong is still wrong even if we were cornered into supporting him.

[JuniperLea]

14. No, and your strawman really stinks...

Really.

I'm just wondering how many people voted for Obama knowing his stance, then don't want to support him knowing the same thing. Valid question, and it deserves a hell of a lot better than an lame ass straw man.

[Deep13]

20. hypocrit nt

[Jakes Progress]

22. Did you support the war when bush was president? nt

[JuniperLea]

28. Straw man...

Please, people... you can do a little better than this.

Which war are you talking about? Or is this just a straw man for the sake of hearing your keyboard rattle?

:eyes:

I support no war. But I understand the need to end these things with care to avoid even further casualties.

[Jakes Progress]

33. Not a straw man at all.

The very point of this part of the thread is that many seem to be willing to blindly follow the president wherever. So asking if the war was supported under bush is a legitimate question.

If, as some here do, you defend the war because it is seen as a good thing, then you are intellectually dishonest if you did not defend bush for the war.

Now your argument is somewhat defensible. It is not accurate, but it is more reasoned. Now if you see the need to escalate the war "to avoid even further casualties", you would have logically supported the bush "surge", since that was the reasoning for that action.

(Perhaps you would like to use other wording than your last sentence. It is oxymoronic to escalate a war to avoid casualties. Perhaps you mean to "achieve a better global position" or to "avoid political embarrassment" or to "put as good a face on this travesty as possible". You must admit that more bombing and more troop advancement is not likely to avoid casualties. You might argue that those deaths are worth it, but not that they will not occur.)

[JuniperLea]

37. good god what utter bullshit...

clearly you don't understand, have not been paying attention, and are willfully twisting what i say. that you don't understand the concept of weakened, overworked troops, or the need to exchange them for "fresh" troops in order to skilfully extricate is very telling.


welcome to ignore... yes, i'm lining them up and "ploinking" them left and right... not because i disagree with something they (you) say, but because of the twisting in the breeze and the dismissal of stances and the twisting of same.

life is too short.

[Jakes Progress]

51. Now you label disagreement and logic as bullshit.

Clearly you aren't trying to understand.

You did not address a single point of my thread after I eviscerated you previous post. It is obvious that you do not know what is going on in Afghanistan or what a surge is going to do. Your only knowledge is that Obama might say we will do it and that is all you need. That was the point that you labeled straw man - that many DUers simply base their entire moral and political philosophy on what they think Obama wants. You eloquently prove the point.

Now for your latest attempt to justify sending more troops to their death. You say that I am not "paying attention" and that I don't understand the concept of using fresh troops to help our boys and girls there get home. Now that is utter bullshit. First the troops that we are sending aren't "fresh". They are returning for the fourth or fifth tour. Three months off from hell doesn't make you fresh. Second, they are not going there to cover our soldiers as we exit. They are going there to expand the war. It is indeed very telling that you are willing to use our troops suffering and dying to pathetically throw up a defense of this mistake.

It is also very telling that you put on ignore the many posters who show up your lack of a center and dearth of informed opinion.

It is also telling that you cannot address the issue of how you support this surge but not bush's.

That said. I am happy to be on your ignore list. I will be saved any more of your pathetic attempts to make a point while ignoring the topic and avoiding any responsibility for your mistaken and jumbled positions.

Life is indeed short. People like you help to make it even less so for the thousands that will die because of this escalation. Sleep well.

[BeFree]

36. Did I vote for him? Hell yeah

I campaigned for him. Talked to probably 50 opponents and untold proponents.

I thought he was mainly walking a line that would keep him from losing votes.
I was wrong. He's had the time now to see what has happened and gotten the real story. And I figured he'd not send in more troops, that he'd find a way to not militarize the situation further, like he said. But now he's going the military route and it is the wrong route.

[JuniperLea]

40. I'm willing to wait until I hear these things from his own lips...

I'm so sorry so many of my fellow DUers want to crap on him preemptively.

[BeFree]

45. That's politics

The buck stops there, at the White House.

People here should not take this too personally. But they are.
This 'war' isn't their fault, except that if they support it for the wrong reasons then they do have some responsibility for it.

Most here, including you, I suppose, support it for the right reasons, tho I hardly have read those reasons. Maybe Obama will spell out those reasons?

Then there is the other side..... the warmongers who we will have to face again and who will belittle us for our Obama support and our distaste for more troops. Have some feeling for us because in the days to come we will have a hard time keeping our support for Obama on that higher level and badgering us isn't gonna help. I guess one could summarize it as STFU about more military?

Thanks, I knew you'd understand.

[JuniperLea]

46. This is interesting...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x26740

If this pans out, it confirms my thoughts exactly.

[jefferson_dem]

7. This speech is from last summer, during the campaign...

Like it or not...

If the President does call for a troop increase, he is following through on his campaign promise.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Silly.

[JuniperLea]

16. I wonder how many voted for him "knowing" his campaign promise was a bad idea...

And now don't want to support him in the action.

[tekisui]

23. I did.

What the hell. I had a choice between him and the more hawkish Hillary, and then between him and the insane-war-monger mcPOW. I made the right choice both times, I think.

But, I never once thought he was right on Afghanistan. It is a foolish policy to increase again. We had an escalation, and the death count reached a record level. Enough is enough. Let's quit throwing bodies in an unwinnable war.

[JuniperLea]

27. I'll wait until I hear his reasons...

If this is to support a withdrawal, and to get troops out that have already been there too long, I'm ok with it. No one but the prez and his court know this today.

[KansasVoter]

12. He was wrong then and is wrong now. But I still voted and campaigned for him!

And in 2012 we will all need to decide if we still want to.

Democracy in action!

[FrenchieCat]

15. I think you have already decided......

and that's cool.

But know that there are many of us who will sit on our hands
if he's not the nominee.....

cause everyone can play that game.

[tekisui]

24. He won't get primaried out.

Don't worry.

[KansasVoter]

47. What post have I said I would not vote Obama in 2012?

As of this point I am 95% sure I'll vote for Obama. But I would be an idiot to decide 100% now.

There are many things I am disappointed in Obama about. But I have no doubt three years will help me decide.

[backscatter712]

21. Most people don't care that Obama's being consistent here.

Because he's being consistently wrong.

We really need to bring our troops home and put an end to the fucktarded wars we've been stuck in for the past decade.

[LooseWilly]

26. In July '08 the Karzai government hadn't yet committed election fraud.

Now we're looking at a deteriorating military situation and defending a corrupt government. If Karzai can't keep his government under control enough to keep them from committing election fraud (hell, Karzai himself has a job waiting with Unocal, so he has no personal need to hold onto power)... then why should I have any faith that they'll expend any particular effort to assure progress on human rights (especially for women), education, or any other efforts... rather than just lining their pockets while US troops defend the crooks?

The situation has changed... for some of us that has an influence on our opinions regarding policy.

[impik]

29. People knew *exactly* where he stand when they voted for him

Next time, just listen to what he say.

[optimator]

31. al-qaeda boogeymen

sorry, but I didn't believe Bush's bullshit.
I'm open minded and will listen to any proof with facts that dirt poor af/pak muslims attacked us and/or have the means to do so.
Motive is not a justified reason to kill people.

[girl gone mad]

32. The one major campaign promise he decides to keep..

is the one few Democrats even support.

Ironic.

[truedelphi]

34. It's not that we forgot - it's that he already threw more troops into the mix six months

Ago. And that McChrystal himself said that the Al Queda presence in Afghanistan was not significant this past Sept 11th 2009!

So don't say we aren't paying attention.
And Bill Moyers was paying attention too. Two weeks ago Friday, he did an entire program of taped material revealing how LBJ came to the (Wrong!) decision on why and how we needed to be in Vietnam.

And please do not forget that the most awful and least intended side effects of our decades long quest (or Quagmire) in Vietnam was the Cambodian holocaust. Which would never have happened if we had not de-stabilized that area of the world for so long!

[knightinwhitesatin]

38. It's too bad Al qaeda is in Pakistan now

but hey I am just the cannon fodder, all you armchair generals know so much more sitting on your sofas.......

[jefferson_dem]

48. "All you armchair generals"... Who the fuck are you talking to?

Better yet, who the fuck are YOU?

Not a very cordial way to introduce yourself, now is it?

[AVID]

49. hand tossed

[ShortnFiery]

50. But even General "Peaches" Petraeus admits that al Qaeda has FULLY re-settled in Pakistan ...

Er, Mission Accomplished! :thumbsup: