Obama seeks new approach in Afghanistan: report

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama plans to try a more regional approach to the war in Afghanistan including possible talks with Iran, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing national security advisers to Obama.

The president-elect also intends to move ahead with a planned deployment of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan and refocus on the hunt for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the newspaper reported.

However, the Obama team is far from working out how to bring bin Laden back to the forefront of the U.S. counter-terrorism agenda, The Washington Post reported. Obama received his first high-level intelligence briefing as president-elect last week.

While emphasizing the importance of continuing U.S. operations against Pakistan-based Taliban fighters who attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the incoming administration intends to remind Americans about the fight against Islamist extremists and the September 11 attacks, the newspaper said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081111/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_afghanistan

[Dover]

1. Still waiting on proof that bin Laden is even the culprit.

9-11 is a can of worms....

And still no discussion of The Silk Road Policy and our business interests in Afghanistan/Pakistan,
among other things that explain our presence there.

[ixion]

2. "the incoming administration intends to remind Americans about...

the fight against Islamist extremists and the September 11 attacks..."

Please don't. I don't want to hear about shadows on the wall. We have far better things to do with our time and money than engage in a never ending religious crusade.

I will be VERY disappointed in the Obama administration if they continue to support the BS 'war on terror' narrative.

[Dover]

3. ...too late. They've already given it lip service. Very disappointing...

When I heard it for the first time (during their acceptance speeches in August) I let out an audible......UGH!


Just once it would be nice to get some straight talk. But I'm afraid the truth might be too unpalatable. If you have to lie (or worse) to get people to follow you, then there must be something
fundamentally wrong or immoral about the plan to begin with.

Must be really fascinating to FINALLY get some of the inside scoop in these briefings when one becomes president, although with Biden in Foreign Relations and Obama with his previous work with NATO, I'm guessing he was already privy to much of the inside truths of our foreign/domestic policy.

[ixion]

7. very sad, indeed

I was greatly disappointed that Clinton continued (and in fact escalated) the so-called 'war' on drugs.

To see this now being extended to the so-called 'war' on terror is disheartening, to say the least.

[Rancid Crabtree]

4. I don't think Radical Islam cares what the polls and...

...public opinion in the United States (or anywhere else in the world) tell them...that faction hasn't given up the idea of jihad, self struggle (mein kamph)...and if true to form, we're due for another wake-up call...we were hit within months of Bill Clinton being sworn into office, and we were hit again in the first year of Bush's time-in-office...not to mention the multitude of other terror acts during the times between...however, maybe as president, Obama can persuade the silent majority of peaceful Muslims to speak out against the hate and indoctrination the radical fringe continues to abuse their children with...maybe the clerics from India who issued the fatwa against terror are a beginning...we'll never see an end to terror until the children of Islam are taught to love life for Allah, instead of being taught to die for Allah...and I'd say let OBL to continue living in whatever hole he's been hiding in as his capture and/or death will only ignite the radical's passion for continued bloodshed...they already desire that, why stoke it?

[ixion]

6. funny... you talk like Islam is the only religion with extremists

there are plenty of those idiots from ALL religions, including, but not limited to, the the Judeo-Christian sects.

Religious extremists are certainly a problem, but not a military one. When they commit acts of terrorism, it is a criminal matter, not a military one.

Using the military to combat religious extremism is insane, and futile, IMO.

[Rancid Crabtree]

9. I thought the point of the thread was extremists...

...the fact that the thread had to so with Islamic extremists may be a minor point, but it was a point of the thread...and the clerics in India who issued the fatwa against terror are in no way connected with the military...they too are connected with religion, in this case, again Islam...and speaking out against terror, as they did, certainly can help to prevent a military matter...and I repeat, maybe president-elect Obama can elicit more help in this regard, and this is not a military solution...speaking out against terror...speaking out against the continued abuse by Radial Islam of their children, persuading them in the way of jihad...maybe the voices can be raised against this...which is certainly not a military solution...it would help prevent a military matter...and I repeat, let OBL continue living in whatever hole he's living in as his capture and/or death will only stoke the radical's fire...fostering and feeding the mindset that contributes to acts of terrorism will guarantee that we will continue to see acts of terror, as we have been seeing for at least three decades now...gaining the support of Muslims...like the clerics in India...and going a step further...getting help from the Muslims who are quiet...and putting an end to Radical Islam's continued child abuse will help...change their ways so that they teach their children to love life for Allah, rather then seeing the ultimate goal of dying for Allah as the road to salvation...that way only leads to more death...and ultimately military matters.

[ixion]

10. hmmmm... well, first off

you should try not to write run-on sentences such as that. I'm not trying to deride you, but it makes it difficult for me to parse your premise.

Just a suggestion. Please don't take it personally.

Okay, now to your response:

We seem to both agree that religious extremism is a problem. That's great. The thing is this: it's really difficult to affect change to the inner core of an extremist group, especially at a distance. "Radical Islam" is certainly a problem, and I certainly don't agree with the way they've chosen to live their life. However, how they live their life is their choice, not mine. How they raise their children is their choice, not mine. That's what Freedom of Religion is all about. People can choose the way they wish to practice it. Now, that said, as soon as folks within ANY religion claim that theirs is the one true religion and that others who don't practice it are heathens or infidels, and so on.

That's where it becomes extremist, or radical.

As I mentioned before, all religions have extremist sects, without exception. And terror is terror no matter what religion a person might be. So it follows that for Christian extremists to pursue a 'war' on terror, which inadvertently creates as much or more terror than it eliminates, how is that better than a Muslim extremist performing a similar horrific act?

This is what I've never been able to reconcile with war in general, and with the so-called 'war' on terror in particular. We have killed far more Muslims (radical and non-radical) executing this 'war' than have been killed by the radical Muslims on the other side. How is that productive? How is that going to make things better? Don't you see that as far as these people are concerned that WE'RE the terrorists? Certainly if the converse were true -- if Muslims we're running all over this country destorying communities in the name of defending themselves from terror -- do you think that we would react passively? Hell no. There would be a counter-insurgence the likes the world has never seen. It would be expected. So why be surprised when we find that these countries don't really like us bombing their civilian populace (a terrorist act in and of itself) in the name of reducing terror?

It simply doesn't make sense.

We are not being the good guys in this situation. We are causing more trouble than we eliminate. Bombing and invading other sovereign nations will not eliminate religious extremists. The converse, in fact, is what happens. Religious extremism flourishes in the face of adversity. And the boming, the raids, the duplicity only make it worse.

[Ian David]

5. What if Bush catches his former business partner before Obama does? n/t

[humbled_opinion]

8. Now, Now...

I think we can all agree that Obama will be much more careful about the expenditure of Human Capital, in these ill conceived, poorly planned, atrocities on Humanity.

[Odin2005]

11. The 9-11 twoofers start bashing Obama in 3... 2.... 1... n/t