Donald Trump, Uninterrupted

Unfiltered video is a good thing. Everyone deserves to be heard. Everyone has a right to make their case. I don't think I have ever watched Donald Trump speak at this length. The credit goes to Imran.

I am actually for someone like Trump mediating between Modi and Imran. Like, why not? You will not even talk to each other at conferences where you meet.

Trump should mediate between Imran and Modi. Then Modi and Imran together should mediate between Iran and the United States. The idea of squeezing a people economically so they will maybe come out into the streets to throw a regime, I like the other alternative better. The alternative of maximal engagement. Maximal trade. 5G.

Iran and the United States should sit down for unconditional talks, possibly with Modi as mediator. Let the Ayatollah and Trump meet. Maybe Trump will work his charm on the Ayatollah also. North Korean Kim seems to enjoy the photoshoots.

I believe Donald Trump when he says US and Pakistan could be doing 10 times more in trade than what they are doing right now. That is the way to go. Peace is a good thing.

भारत पाकिस्तान वार्ता तीन तह पर करिए
भारतको चाहिए कि इमरान से वार्ता करें
Imran Khan Could Bring Peace
Narendra Modi And Imran Khan Should Solve Kashmir And Bag A Joint Nobel

https://t.co/fSquZnlRcE Donald Trump, Uninterrupted @realDonaldTrump @ImranKhanPTI @narendramodi

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 23, 2019

Afghanistan, Pakistan

The key to solving the puzzle of Afghanistan is Pakistan

Why, after 14 years of American military efforts, is Afghanistan still so fragile? The country has a democratically elected government widely viewed as legitimate. Poll after poll suggests that the Taliban are unpopular. The Afghan army fights fiercely and loyally. And yet, the Taliban always come back. ......... Mansour lives part time in Quetta, the New York Times reports, “in an enclave where he and some other Taliban leaders . . . have built homes.” His predecessor, Mohammad Omar, we now know, died a while ago in Karachi. And of course, we remember that Osama bin Laden lived for many years in a compound in Abbottabad. All three of these cities are in Pakistan. ........ the insurgency against that government is shaped, aided and armed from across the border by one of the world’s most powerful armies. ...... It is fundamental, and unless it is confronted, the Taliban will never be defeated. It is an old adage that no counterinsurgency has ever succeeded when the rebels have had a haven. In this case, the rebels have a nuclear-armed sponsor. ....... Pakistan has mastered the art of pretending to help the United States while actually supporting its most deadly foes. ....... Omar has been dead for two years, while Pakistani officials have been facilitating “contacts” and “talks” with him. ..... young Pashtun jihadis schooled in radical Islam at Pakistani madrasas. (“Talib” means student.) ..... “Pakistan has always worried that the natural order of things would be for Afghanistan to come under the sway of India, the giant of the subcontinent. ....... see reality for what it is: “When you are lied to and you don’t respond, you are encouraging more lies.” ..... Pakistan is a time bomb. It ranks 43rd in the world in terms of its economy, according to the World Bank, but has the sixth-largest armed forces. It has the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, and the most opaque. It maintains close ties with some of the world’s most brutal terrorists. By some estimates, its military consumes 26 percent of all tax receipts, while the country has 5.5 million children who don’t attend school . As long as this military and its mind-set are unchecked and unreformed, the United States will face a strategic collapse as it withdraws its forces from the region.

How To Make Peace With Pakistan

Normalized relations with Pakistan will add 1% to India's growth rate, and Modi is all about economic growth. But that normalization is no easy task since Pakistan is not exactly a democracy. So one has to be careful. One has to be realistic. One can not close the doors of engagement, but one also has to be tough.

The latest salvo from Nawaz Sharif is that there can be no peace talks unless India is willing to talk about Kashmir. That is posturing. He needs to do that to stay credible inside Pakistan. He can not act too eager for peace and still stay viable inside Pakistani politics. Just like Modi had to act tough for a year. He needed to do that. To send a clear message to Pakistan that he means business, but also to send a message to the home audience, that he is tough with Pakistan.

Peace with Pakistan is hard because Pakistan is not a democracy. The army is not subservient to the Pakistani parliament. The ISI is a three headed hydra. Only one of the heads might be answerable to the parliament. The hardliners inside the ISI and the army need to keep the conflict going. If there is peace, they become irrelevant. And so they seek for opportunities to stoke the fire. When peace attempts are made, they feel the need to scuttle the efforts. Nawaz, frankly, does not have the power to make peace. He can not give you what he does not have.

Any genuine peace effort from India's side has to be multi-dimensional. When Modi meets and talk to Nawaz, high ranked army people on both sides also should meet and talk. The army people should try to set up things like hotlines. Both are nuclear powers after all. Seeking to establish hotlines might be one way to stoke Pakistan's nuclear ego.

Another place where Nawaz is powerless is Pakistan truly has a major domestic terrorism problem. The Pakistani people are at the receiving end of it, the Pakistani army is, the Pakistani establishment is. And it does not help that some elements of both the ISI and the army nurture, aid and abet some or many of those same terrorists. Nawaz could not halt domestic terrorism inside Pakistan even if he wanted to, and he is trying his best, or as much as his limited powers allow. Pakistan can not help India with something it can not help itself with.

There is no state that America can expect will take care of either the ISIS or the Al Qaeda. These are not state actors. And they have to be dealt with directly. Similarly, India has to do the best it can to stay one step ahead of the various terror outfits. You try to prevent attacks, you nab them when you can, you try to infiltrate them, you hit back when you can, you cooperate with powers like America on things like intelligence sharing. Pakistan can not help you with something that it can not help itself with.

Having said that, it is an open secret that the inferior Pakistani army relies on terror groups to make its point when it feels the need. You can not ignore that.

Peace with Pakistan is not like Reagan meeting Gorbachev. Nawaz has parallel power centers all around him, several of whom don't think of him as their superior or boss. India has to move ahead with that knowledge.

• Moving from a position of strength is key. There are elements on the Pakistani side, many of them not in Nawaz' control, that simply do not talk the language of reason. 
• Not engaging is not an option. 
• A multi-pronged approach to peace talks is key. The parallel power centers will only respond to direct engagement, and even then they will play hard to get. Think about it. Why will they negotiate away their central place in Pakistani society? 
• Because there is no immediate solution to terrorism, one has to keep expectations low. Peace with Pakistan will be a slow process. Larger tectonic forces are at play. Think of it as Climate Change. It is complex, and Nawaz can not help you. So suggesting he does not want to is a lame excuse. Maybe so. Maybe he does not want to help. But he can't even if he wants to. 

In the short term I am pessimistic about the prospects. Larger global forces are at play. And those forces will have to align in a certain way for India and Pakistan to see genuine peace. Scapegoating Kashmir is one way to go about it. But it really is about the terrorists. Kashmir is not why they exist. And Modi-Nawaz handshakes will not make them go away. 

A sophisticated engagement where you are plain realistic is perhaps the way to go. Keep expectations low, but stay engaged at multiple levels. And seek small areas of cooperation like, hotlines between the two armies, perhaps even information sharing on terrorists, and there the US might have a role. 

Like Yaser Arafat said about Israelis, "We are practically cousins!" 

India succeeding to make peace with Pakistan is about if Pakistan can become a full democracy where the army and the ISI come completely under the Pakistani parliament, and if the world makes progress with dealing with terrorism, whose only solution I think is a total spread of democracy across the Muslims world, where, ironically, both India and Pakistan are in a very good position to play a decisive role. 

Maybe that higher purpose will bring Modi and Nawaz closer together. 

Curiously India has excellent relations with Afghanistan, Iran and several other states in the region. 

Does it help to realize that the partition was Britain's fault? No? 

Boots On The Ground?

My blog post on February 2: Boots On The Ground?

News today, February 11: Obama opens door to 'limited' ground combat operations against ISIS.

"If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said. ........ Obama is offering to limit authorization to three years, extending to the next president the powers and the debate over renewal for what he envisions as a long-range battle.

These ISIS folks are not exactly people you have the option to invite to the debate table. The hard nosed truth is force is necessary. Terror attacks in Australia and Paris are all emanating from there. It is only a matter of time before something happens in the United States. They sure have the intention. These people would let go off a dirty bomb the first chance they got at any location of convenience.

The Al Qaeda never had territory. The Taliban had territory, and the Al Qaeda used it like a parasite. These guys are worse than the Al Qaeda, if that is possible, and they command a bigger territory than the Taliban, more strategic, and have robust revenue streams.

Waiting for them to strike when they have a clear intention to do so is like waiting for them to build up their capabilities. It does not take much to blow up one cafe, but the incident scares an entire nation.

The ISIS running a state is not something that can be tolerated.

The Middle East is not some problem that will simply go away if you will ignore it. And it is not an easy problem.

This is the right move by the president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Sometimes you need boots on the ground to keep the peace. It is in his job description.

As to the details, I am no military expert. But it makes political sense to build a large coalition of countries. Because every democracy is a target. It makes sense to have a limited, well defined ground operation where you try and work with local allies. The ISIS offends pretty much everybody in that neighborhood. Air power would play the decisive role. Intelligence would play a big role. But there is no avoiding firefights. That is the sad truth.

I still think beaming internet from the sky and flooding the land with cheap Android phones is the best way to make progress in that part of the world. You want hundreds of millions of Muslims sharing cat videos. That is cheaper, better, and it minimizes the violence.

Obama seeks sweeping Isis authority amid infighting over open-ended war
Obama Sends Letter to Congress Seeking Authorization of ISIS Fight

Related articles

• Obama officially kicks off first new Middle East war in 13 years against ISIS
• Former Defense Sec. Robert Gates: 'Unrealistic' To Say We Will 'Destroy' Al Qaeda, The Taliban
• Viewpoint: Can China bring peace to Afghanistan?

Boots On The Ground?

If ISIS is going to target "soft" targets anywhere and everywhere, I think the western powers might be forced to think in terms of boots on the ground. We might be about to enter a bloody, violent, expensive phase of the War On Terror. There is obviously no easy way out. Bush II stands validated a little.

If the Taliban in power in Afghanistan is a no no, why is ISIS in power anywhere an option, right? ISIS commands a territory, it commands major revenue streams. It has a global reach the likes of which the Taliban or the Al Qaeda never did. And its intentions are clear and apocalyptic.

But even the boots on the ground idea could come with major aerial moves. It does not have to be a major operation like Bush II going into Iraq. I don't know. I am no military expert.

Related articles

• U.S. to begin to train and equip moderate Syria rebels
• ISIS appoints former Taliban commander as its Afghanistan-Pakistan chief
• What will France do about AQAP link?

Reshma's Afghanistan Remark And The Wise Guys/Gals At FireDogLake

Image via Wikipedia

New York Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Who Thinks “Afghanistan Attacked Us” By Jane Hamsher, FireDogLake

The insinuation here is that Reshma Saujani is a green horn, especially on foreign policy, and does that not make the New York Daily News an ignorant little newspaper to have endorsed Reshma Saujani in the hottest primary in America?

First thing first, the New York Daily News is not some ignorant little newspaper. It is the most widely circulated newspaper in New York City. Or maybe the FireDogLake people are based out of Utah, and they don't know that little fact.

As for Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden - or maybe the FireDogLake people think it was Saddam - masterminded and funded the most vicious attack on US territory since Pearl Harbor. Not even Pearl Harbor itself compares to 9/11. No attack on US soil compares to 9/11. 9/11 was the first attack of its kind on US territory.

The Al Qaeda did it. Osama Bin Laden was and is the chief of that organization. He was living in Afghanistan and might still be. At the time he was living under the direct protection of Mullah Omar, who was and is the head of the Taliban, and is also on the run. Osama Bin Laden played a key role in bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were blood relatives in 2001. The Taliban was and is a regional organization. The Al Qaeda was and is global. The Al Qaeda continues to actively plot against the US. If they have not succeeded on a second attack, it has not been for lack of trying.

After 9/11 happened, the US asked Mullah Omar, the head of state of Afghanistan at the time - today it is Hamid Karzai - to hand over Osama Bin Laden. If he refused, that would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Mullah Omar refused. He claimed he had no knowledge of the 9/11 plot and that the US needed to submit proof that Osama Bin Laden had something to do with it in the first place. Maybe the blog FireDogLake is interested in that parsing of words, but my candidate is not.

It was Afghanistan, it was not Iraq. That was the whole Obama 08 plank, that the US needed to stay focused on Afghanistan and the Afghan-Pak border, that to go into Iraq was to take eyes off the Al Qaeda that never stopped plotting against the US in the first place.

That is why President Obama has increased military presence in Afghanistan but has pulled out of Iraq.

Are you still going to tell me Afghanistan did not attack the US? If the people in power at the time in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it before or after 9/11, they would have handed over Bin Laden. Instead they ran away with him and are perhaps hiding together as we speak. Why?

In The News

Russell Simmons Backs Maloney Foe New York Daily News (blog) (AllVoices.com)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Reshma Saujani and Me Clyde Fitch Report (blog)
The Main Street-Wall Street Battle: When Will It End? Wall Street Journal (blog)
Hip-Hop Mogul Russell Simmons For Reshma Saujani In NY-14 Primary Brawl By Celeste Katz
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Reshma Saujani have raised more than $4.1M in East Side race for House seat New York Daily News
Economy tops issues in Maloney race YourNabe.com
Scoopy's Notebook The Villager
Incumbents Have Edge In Most Races Western Queens Gazette
Custom Shirts, GPS Dating and Hyperlocal News at the NY Tech Meetup NY Convergence (blog)
Congressional hopeful Reshma Saujani: 'I might not vote' on Election Day if I lose primary New York Daily News
An Insider Running as an Outsider New York Times (blog)
The New York Observer's Primary Choices New York Observer
Murkowski Not Done Yet, Political Mudslinging on Twitter and More in Capital Eye Opener: September 8 Center for Responsive Politics
New York Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Who Thinks “Afghanistan Attacked Us” By Jane Hamsher, FireDogLake
Saujani Harshly Criticizes Maloney in Radio Debate | The Lo-Down NY
Maloney, Saujani Spar in Radio Debate | OurTownNY
Links to Wall St. Become Liability in Primary Races - NYTimes.com By DealBook
Maloney, Saujani Spar in Radio Debate By Our Town
Reshma Saujani Calls Carolyn Maloney a Liar During Radio Debate DNAinfo
The Big Debate: Rep. Carolyn Maloney Vs. Reshma Saujani - Liveblog New York Daily News (blog)
Before Debate, Maloney, Saujani Get Dueling Endorsements | OurTownNY
Good Morning! | The Lo-Down : News from the Lower East Side By ed, The Lo Down NY
The Big Debate: Rep. Carolyn Maloney Vs. Reshma Saujani – Liveblog By admin, Colocation Hosting Pricing
Reshma Saujani: "Afghanistan Attacked Us" Video
RESHMA SAUJANI: YOU GO GIRL! Janet Hanson · 85Broads.com
New York Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Who Thinks "Afghanistan Attacked Us"
Battle For NY-14: Maloney, Saujani Each Get Big Endorsements Gothamist
For Indian-American pols, the “What are you?” test | Gauhar.com By sarmad
YouTube - Reshma Saujani on Israel
Reshma Saujani Vs. Carolyn Maloney On Debating... Again - New York
Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Francisco Moya, Lynn Nunes New York Daily News (blog)
Daily News Endorses Saujani | The Lo-Down : News from the Lower East Side
DN For Saujani To Bring 'New Blood' To NY Delegation By Liz Benjamin, Capital Tonight
Mayor Graham's View: DN For Saujani To Bring 'New Blood' To NY Delegation By Jeff Graham
THE N.Y. TIMES ENDORSEMENT EDITION: AGAINST RANGEL, FOR LAZIO AND MALONEY.. Florida Latin Connection
Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Francisco Moya, Lynn Nunes Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles
Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Francisco Moya, Lynn Nunes

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bill Clinton Just Endorsed Reshma Saujani (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Reshma Saujani On NY1: The Big Moment (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Hillary Clinton Just Endorsed Reshma Saujani (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Debating Is Not About Media Attention To Reshma Saujani (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Carolyn Maloney Is No Mother Teresa (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Yes, Maloney Is A Crook (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Okay, So Maloney Has Been A Democrat, And A Woman (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• New York Daily News Endorses Reshma Saujani, Who Thinks "Afghanistan Attacked Us" (fdlaction.firedoglake.com)
• The Brian Lehrer Show: Reshma Saujani, Carolyn Maloney (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Radio Debate: Reshma Saujani, Carolyn Maloney (democracyforum.blogspot.com)

Bush: Genius? Visionary?

Image via Wikipedia

New York Times: U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan: The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan ..... huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium ..... Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys. ..... could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war. ..... Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion. ........ charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House. .... the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country. ..... Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced. ..... officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth ..... mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country ....... In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989. ...... using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country. ...... the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted. ..... iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both

Bush spent over a trillion dollars for his wars. Is this news the guy getting validation after all? The Afghans were just sitting on top of it, and did not even know it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pentagon 'Discovers' Huge Lithium Deposit in Afganistan (treehugger.com)
• Report: US Finds Mineral Riches in Afghanistan (abcnews.go.com)
• Hints of riches were hidden during decades of conflict (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• NYT: Vast mineral deposits found in Afghanistan (msnbc.msn.com)
• War + Lithium = Democracy. The Aristocrats! (sometimesright.com)
• U.S. Discovers Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan (nytimes.com)
• Afghanistan Mineral Deposit Discovery: Afghan Economy, War Could Be Altered By Nearly $1 Trillion In Iron, Copper, Cobalt, Gold, Lithium (huffingtonpost.com)
• U.S. Finds Mineral Riches in Afghanistan (abcnews.go.com)
• Report: US finds mineral riches in Afghanistan (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan (miningne.ws)

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

Image via Wikipedia

Good evening. 

To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here — at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more. 

As we know, these men belonged to al-Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al-Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. 

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al-Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al-Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security. 

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al-Qaeda was scattered, and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. 

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. 

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 

Image via Wikipedia

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al-Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an underdeveloped economy and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al-Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people. 

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the re-emergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. 

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al-Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. 

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al-Qaeda has not re-emerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable. 

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander in Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less. 

This review is now complete. And as Commander in Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. 

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. 

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al-Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al-Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. 

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. 

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. 

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility — what's at stake is the security of our Allies and the common security of the world. 

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the U.N. and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. 

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. 

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron. 

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. 

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. 

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. 

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. 

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

Image by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff via Flickr

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard and which I take very seriously. 

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. 

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. 

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." 

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. 

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. 

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own. 

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies. 

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. 

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. 

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them. 

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. 

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. 

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. 

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — and what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. 

As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy, from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries, from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home, from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad, and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. 

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. 

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops and may God bless the United States of America.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Speech and a Poll (dailykos.com)
• Prepared Text of President Obama's Address (blogs.wsj.com)
• U.S. asks: Which enemy is higher priority? (msnbc.msn.com)
• Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan - TIME (time.com)
• Barack Obama's speech - the full text (guardian.co.uk)
• Obama speaks about Afghanistan open thread (americablog.com)
• Talking with the Taliban: Easier Said Than Done (time.com)
• Rory O'Connor: To the "Kabul Class of 2009" (huffingtonpost.com)
• U.S. Officials Get a Taste of Pakistanis' Anger at America (nytimes.com)
• Liveblogging the President's Afghanistan Speech (seminal.firedoglake.com)
• U.S. asks: Which enemy is higher priority? (msnbc.msn.com)
• Barack Obama's speech - the full text (guardian.co.uk)
• Let Afghans solve Afghan problems | Caroline Lucas (guardian.co.uk)