Reply #23: Which is why he said.....

[Clio the Leo]

Technically, Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan...

Which is precisely why he said....

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan . In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

And that doesn't even address the fact that Pakistan has....



.... I'm sorry, but the notion that al Qaeda suddenly has the ability to start producing dirty bombs is not something that brings me joy.

If you must bomb though, bomb them with rice and such, IMO. That's how you put an end to it.

To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul , but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers. That is how we can help the Afghan government serve its people, and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. That is why I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. And that is why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations - an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in the Hague .

At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort. But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

(above is excerpted from....
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12515 )

Without fanfare, Obama signs Pakistan aid bill
Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:48pm EDT

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama quietly signed a $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan on Thursday that drew criticism in the nuclear-armed South Asian country because of conditions linked to the assistance.

Obama signed the bill behind closed doors at the White House without a public ceremony before leaving on a trip to New Orleans. The law provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over five years.

Pakistan's military had complained because the legislation ties some funds to fighting militants and is seen by critics as violating sovereignty.

The United States is the biggest aid donor to Pakistan and needs its help in hunting al Qaeda leaders and stopping Islamist militants from crossing the border into Afghanistan to fight U.S.-led forces there.

The aid is designed to fund projects in Pakistan that include schools and roads, agricultural development, energy generation, water resource management and the judicial system.

The funding must still be allotted by Congress and the law must be renewed each year. The White House must certify that "reasonable progress" is being made to meet the objectives of the aid and give lists of recipients to Congress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Afghanistan-Pakistan/idUSTRE59E6XL20091015

Obama Boosts Aid, Troops for Afghanistan, Pakistan
FrontLines - May 2009
By Ben Barber

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Barack Obama laid out a new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on March 27, increasing military force and civilian aid to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

“Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy,” Obama said in Washington. “Our civilians have made great sacrifices.” He pledged increased aid.

The president ordered an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, “and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” and 4,000 troops to train an Afghan army and police. “This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort,” said the president. U.S. specialists in agriculture, education, engineering, and government would help Afghanistan’s government eliminate corruption and win Afghans away from Taliban recruitment.

USAID will be growing to carry out parts of the new strategy.

“This is the biggest recruitment for USAID since the Vietnam War,” said Jim Bever, head of the Agency’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force.

Some 450 people are to be hired.

Obama backed increasing aid to Pakistan from $600 million to $1.5 billion each year for five years as proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

The money will go to build schools, roads, hospitals, and democracy. He also backed creation of industrial parks known as reconstruction opportunity zones along the violent Afghan-Pakistan border region to develop the economy.


FIRST SCHOO L: Pakistani boys attend their first school, set up by USAID beside the Indus River in a camp for people displaced by an earthquake in 2005. Classes included basic hygiene and Urdu language. The United States is strengthening aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_may09/p1_obama050901.html