Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts

Monday, September 01, 2014

A Comprehensive War

In the book, Blair writes that he hoped that G...
In the book, Blair writes that he hoped that George W. Bush would win a second term as President of the United States in 2004. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Russia is unfinished business. Just like George W Bush prematurely declared Mission Accomplished after a few days of airstrikes in Iraq, it can be argued Bush Sr. did the same thing when the Soviet Union collapsed. It was a tectonic milestone, no doubt, but unless Russia becomes a democracy, it will keep causing trouble.

Suddenly there are two broad fronts. There is Russia. And there is ISIS, which is in a stronger shape than the Al Qaeda ever was, with the same ill intentions to match. It would not flinch to unleash a biological attack somewhere, it would detonate a dirty bomb if it could. The dangers are grave. Obama might have similarly prematurely declared the death of Al Qaeda with the death of Bin Laden.

I happen to think the top idea here is what Google has. Beam internet from the skies and flood the earth with cheap Android phones. Google already has the prototype. I think the US government should massively scale it. If Google is thinking one billion, the US government should pump in 100 billion into the same effort. That would go a long way to the spread of democracy.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Hillary's Drastic Move

Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer
Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is like Al Gore breaking up with Bill Clinton in 1999. Bill Clinton's reaction was, I would not do those two things on one day. Al Gore denounced Bill Clinton (reference: Lewinsky) and announced he was running for president the same day.

Hillary has done the exact same thing. She has broken up with Barack Obama. And she also has basically announced she is running for president. This is positioning.

Barack Obama showed plenty of steel on Libya. And he is showing a ton of spine on Putin. So it is hard to throw mud on him on Syria. Syria simply is complex.

Hillary's words come as too strong. Also, were you not the Secretary of State? This is a Foreign Minister criticizing the president's foreign policy from when she was Foreign Minister! Go figure.

This is also a sign Hillary is feeling it that Iraq might end up the reason why she loses in 2016. Poll numbers from before you actually start contesting the primaries are not that relevant.

Without taking sides on Iraq (or thinking that I have a better solution) just on political terms, I think Hillary just made a bad move.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled..... Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”
 
Hillary Clinton takes on Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton criticises Barack Obama's policy on Syria and Israel
Barack Obama rebukes Syrian ‘fantasy’
Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Iraq Could Cost Hillary 2016

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intr...
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton introduces President Barack Obama before he delivered a policy address on events in the Middle East. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It is possible this is a false alarm. This is not the beginning of a new, protracted war. The US sure is not going back. But if the government in Baghdad does not fall, it should not be that bad politically for Hillary. But a bad scenario makes Iraq look bad for Hillary, strictly politically speaking.

But then all of the Middle East is unfinished business. This is like the Cold War in 1977 or 1972. The end is not yet in sight.

There are at least five different scenarios that could unfold, only one of which could cost Hillary 2016. But even the other four make it hard. But then 2016 was always going to be a regular presidential election. It is going to be a very real, contested election should Hillary run, and I never doubted she is going to.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Libya: One Billion, Iraq: Trillion Plus



Barack Obama spent a billion dollars to topple a dictator in Libya. Compare that to the Bush figure of trillion plus to topple Saddam Hussein.


Sunday, September 19, 2010

States Will Interact With Each Other

King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz. (2002 photo)Image via WikipediaStates exist. There is a state in almost every country. There are one or two countries that feel stateless. Even in those countries there are semblances of the entity, the state. A state is a political entity. States interact with each other.

The US state has a close relationship with the Saudi state. A lot of people in the Arab street take that to mean the US is a hypocritical power that talks about democracy but shakes hands with an autocratic state like Saudi Arabia.

I preach governance literacy to the netroots/grassroots that put Barack Obama into power in 2008. They were more excited before Obama got into power than they have been since he has been in power. It is almost as if they miss being in opposition. That comes from a lack of governance literacy.

If America had a declared policy that should Saudi Arabia become a democracy like Turkey, it would impose economic sanctions upon that new democracy, then I would agree that America is an evil power that not so secretly is for autocracy. But America has no such policy.

America was not opposed to the people of Iran coming out into the streets. America is not opposed to the people of Saudi Arabia coming out into the streets. America is not opposed to the people of Egypt and Syria coming out into the streets.

America can not be, is not opposed to democracy movements. America as a country was born with a mission. That mission is a total spread of democracy. But the American state has to deal with states as they exist, not as it wished they were. I am 100% sure President Obama and Secretary Clinton fantasize about Egypt being a democracy, and Saudi Arabia and Syria being democracies, but it is their job to deal with Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Syria as they exist today. They get paid by the American people to deal with those states as they exist today. A soldier gets paid to fight. A president gets paid to run a country.

The vast, mysterious apathy of the Saudi masses is the reason there is no democracy in Saudi Arabia. The US is not to be blamed.

As for the global arms trade, I have my thoughts and feelings about that, and drug trafficking and human trafficking. I have my thoughts and feelings about a world free of nuclear weapons. President Obama also wants a world free of nuclear weapons. He said that in a speech early as president. But then there is the goal and there is the road map to that goal. I do think his road map takes too long. But I am glad for the shared goal.

One big reason I feel strongly about democracy in Iran is because I hope Iran will set an example, and people will flood the streets also in Cairo, in Riyadh down the line. I am hoping for a domino effect.

What excites me is that I think the global netroots/grassroots is sufficient unto itself to bring about fundamental political change in these countries.

But I am pragmatic about getting help from any and all actors. There can be no room for violence. Other than that I am for raising a lot of money. I want money from private individuals, from NGOs, from states, if possible. Heck, I will take money from the CIA, as necessary. As long as the basic goals and methods are not compromised, I do envision a resource rich movement for Iran.

Actually that has been one of my consternations. The US executed a trillion dollar military plan to bring democracy to Iraq. Why will it not think of a billion dollar grassroots/netroots non violent plan to bring democracy to Iran? I'd help shape that. I have done this before for Nepal. I can do this again for Iran.

Eisenhower talked of a "military industrial complex" as did Gorbachev. There are powerful people who stand to make a lot of money when weapons are sold to the Saudi state. That geopolitical detail does not take away from the democracy movement in Iran. The grassroots work for democracy must go on.

In The News

New Turkey Huffington Post (blog) While European societies are mired in recession, paralyzed by self-doubt and divided by rising social conflicts, Turkey is hurtling toward the future. ..... This year Turkey's economy is projected to grow by more than 11 percent, second only to China. ..... Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb of Finland saluted Turkey as "a truly global player" and "one of the top five countries in the world today."

Jewish Minority Influential In Iran NPR the country's estimated 25,000 Jews. .... They feel very Iranian. They've been there longer than anyone else, really, going back 2,800 years. .... there are minorities in Iran and the fact that it is not a monolithic society. ..... Iran is 97 percent Shia-Muslim .... there is a Jewish member of parliament. There's a Zoroastrian member of parliament. There's a Christian member - two Christian members of parliament..... Jews are free, yes. ... They're allowed to drink, for example, in a country where alcohol is banned. ....... They can have a member of parliament, but they can't become a minister, for example. You have to be a Muslim. That's part of the constitution. ....... when it comes to expressing any kind of sympathy for Israel or the idea of a Jewish homeland, no, they are not free to do that. ...... It is a perfectly democratic system, so long as everyone does what they're told. .... if you're a Muslim who decides to convert - well, that's punishable by death. ..... the whole idea behind the challenge to Ahmadinejad and the challenge to the system subsequent to the election was that the experiment has gone wrong.

$60 billion arms deal between United States and Saudi Arabia Party for Socialism and Liberation . Under secret negotiation since 2007 .... the largest arms deal in U.S, history. .... up to 84 Boeing F-15 fighters and upgrade 70 others .... 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks, and 36 Little Birds. ..... the U.S. military-industrial complex has increased its share to more than two-thirds of all foreign armaments deals ... No elections have ever been held in Saudi Arabia, and the country has a horrendous human rights record.

Did Iran really do so well out of the Iraq war? The Guardian The Americans ... spent over a trillion dollars, lost more than 4,000 people, tarnished their reputation in the region and failed to control Iraq's oil wealth...... Iran can arm and fund militias till kingdom come, but at the end of the day, in Iraq, it is ballot papers, not bullets, that decide who stays in power and who gets the boot. .... When Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's highest-ranking Shia scholar, fell ill during the summer of 2004, he tactically avoided travelling to Iran for treatment. ...... The Iraqi army continues to go from strength to strength, the Iraqi intelligence is ever more capable of gathering information and Iraq will soon catch up with the region in oil exports

Only Democracy For Iran calls the International Criminal Court to action. Iran Press Watch

What the Hiker Release Says About Iran's Internal Power Struggle TIME a level of chaos and political infighting inside the regime ..... what was most notable about Shourd's release was the rebuke it involved for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the hands of his own judiciary..... Iran's judiciary — controlled by rival conservatives who are loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei but antagonistic to Ahmadinejad ...... insisted on the bail payment of $500,000 .... . The infighting in Tehran is really vicious right now, and more publicly visible than it's ever been..... a degree of chaos in the regime rather than easily defined factional battles ...... There have even been signs of open conflict between the President and the Supreme Leader ...... a system that puts final executive authority in the hands of an unelected clergy ..... "Ahmadinejad is asserting the autonomous powers of the presidency in a way we haven't seen before, even pushing back against the Supreme Leader. And some see that as heresy."

India develops a new axis with Iran and Russia Daily News & Analysis

Why Ayad Allawi is Iraq's greatest political survivor Telegraph.co.uk a land where a politician's status can often be measured by often someone has tried to kill them ..... Despite general improvements since the US-led troop surge in 2007, he feels the country is still teetering on the edge of the abyss. ..... London, where he spent decades as an opposition leader after defecting from Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party during the 1970s. ..... still maintains strong links with the British govermen and spent part of last week meeting the new Foreign Secretary William Hague ...... Sectarianism, he claims, is still rife in Iraq, within both the security forces and the political establishment. ....... His party has a strong following among Iraq's Sunni minority, although he himself is from a wealthy Shia family ..... His grandfather helped to negotiate Iraq's independence from Britain ...... the fears voiced recently by the Iraqi military chief of staff, General Babakir Zebari, that its armed forces will not be fully ready until 2020 .... the West should begin talking to the Taliban and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, just as Britain and America ended up talking to Shia and Sunni insurgents in Iraq

Freedom, democracy and human rights in Syria Independent A country cannot be built on past grudges. We have to forgive – I don't know about forget – and we have to live together, all Syrians who believe in democracy and human rights, to have a new era. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed. Syria will change." ..... he wants Syria to break its relations with Iran ..... Damascus is the West's gate to Iran, Bashar is the middle-man between Washington and Tehran. ..... We are campaigning internationally for a new Syria.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 18, 2010

Iran: An Opportunity

Right-to-left: Barack Obama and half-sister Ma...Image via Wikipedia
A lot of progressives - Barack Obama included - dislike the Bush phrase War On Terror, but what I like about it is that it seems to rhyme with the Cold War phrase. 9/11 launched an era. It will conclude with all Arab countries having turned into democracies. The Berlin Wall will fall all over again. Israel has built one. Israel is what South Africa was.

I have been disgusted with all the innocent lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some specific examples stand out, like blowing up a wedding party from the sky, but the numbers are out and out outrageous. Bush killed more than 100,000 Iraqis. That is not okay.

The Al Qaeda is not a state. But America the superpower was only prepared to go after a state. The US military might had not prepared to go after an organization like the Al Qaeda. So the medicine looked for a disease and found Saddam instead (I don't miss the guy).

I don't have firsthand memory of the 1979 Iran revolution, I don't remember following it in the news. But when the people of Iran came out into the streets last year, I fell in love with the country. Iran has firmly established itself as the Arab solution to the War On Terror. America invading one Arab country after another is a recipe for bankruptcy for America, not a recipe for spreading democracy in the Arab world.



We did this in Nepal in 2006. In 2006 for democracy - the king of Nepal had issued a shoot at sight order at one point in April 2006, so just because we succeeded does not mean it was easy - and again in 2007 and 2008 for social justice for the Madhesi in Nepal. It can be done in Iran.

The First Major Revolution Of The 21st Century Happened In Nepal

One of my regrets of 2009 is to not have given enough time to Iran. The resiliency of the Iranian protesters inspires me.

Iran: Yes, We Can
How We Have Failed Iran
Dumb White People (DWPs) And Iran
The Fraud In Iran
Iran: This Is What I Am Talking About

Just like America as a country at some point is going to have to apologize for slavery, America as a country at some point is going to have to apologize for what it did in Iran in the 1950s.

I am a firm believer is democracy and social justice. That does not make an American stooge. I want Iran to become a full-fledged democracy (even as a half baked one it is ahead of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) and ask America a question: Why does America have nuclear weapons? Good thing Barack Obama asked that question early in his presidency. I am glad I was one of his earliest supporters in New York City.

As long as the Iranian reformers keep asking the regime to redo the election, the movement will be a waste. As long as Iran's global grassroots supporters keep extending only moral support, the movement will have a tough time. The Iranians have to come out into the streets to shut the country down completely for as long as it takes to ask for an interim caretaker government that will conduct elections to a constituent assembly that will give Iran a new constitution. And the global grassroots will have to become more sophisticated. We need to offer detailed logistical support. We have to out organize the mullahs.






Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

A still of 2004 Osama bin Laden videoImage 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. 
At the UN, Colin Powell holds a model vial of ...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. 

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.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]