Obama rules out US troop raids into Pakistan
March 29, 2009
As he carries out a retooled strategy in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's leaders before pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country.
Obama said U.S. ally Pakistan needs to be more accountable, but ruled out deploying U.S. troops there. "Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government," the president told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview broadcast Sunday.
The president also bemoaned the tenuous security situation in Afghanistan, saying, "Unless we get a handle on it now, we're gonna be in trouble." He made clear that his new strategy for the long war is "not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources" from the United States.
In a wide-ranging interview, Obama sought to counter the notion that Afghanistan has become his war. He emphasized that it started on George W. Bush's watch.
"I think it's America's war. And it's the same war that we initiated after 9/11 as a consequence of those attacks," Obama said. "The focus over the last seven years, I think, has been lost."
Obama taped the interview Friday, the same day he launched the fresh effort to defeat al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, widening a war that began after terrorists struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. He set new benchmarks and ordered 4,000 more troops to the war zone as well as hundreds of civilians and increased aid. The plan does not include an exit timeline.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview on "Fox News Sunday," said the short-term objectives for U.S. forces in Afghanistan have narrowed under Obama's new strategy even as a flourishing democracy in Afghanistan remains a long-term goal.
"I think what we need to focus on and focus our efforts is making headway and reversing the Taliban's momentum and strengthening the Afghan army and police, and really going after al-Qaida, as the president said," Gates said.
Al-Qaida terrorists are still a serious threat and retain the ability to plan attacks against the United States even though they have been inhibited over the past several years, Gates said.
Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have praised the new U.S. strategy for dealing with growing violence in the region.
But Obama has irked Pakistan since taking office in January by retaining a powerful but controversial weapon left over from the Bush administration's fight against terrorism: unmanned Predator drone missile strikes on Pakistan along its border with Afghanistan.
Pakistan has urged Obama to halt the strikes. But Gates has signaled to Congress that the U.S. would continue to go after al-Qaida inside Pakistan, and senior Obama administration officials have called the strikes effective.
Without directly referring to the strikes, Obama said: "If we have a high-value target within our sights, after consulting with Pakistan, we're going after them. But our main thrust has to be to help Pakistan defeat these extremists."
Asked if he meant he would put U.S. troops on the ground in Pakistan, Obama said: "No." He noted that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and said: "We need to work with them and through them to deal with al-Qaida. But we have to hold them much more accountable."
"What we wanna do is say to the Pakistani people: You are our friends, you are our allies. We are going to give you the tools to defeat al-Qaida and to root out these safe havens. But we also expect some accountability. And we expect that you understand the severity and the nature of the threat," Obama added.
His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 — and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them — so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.
In the interview, Obama said he won't assume that more troops will result in an improved situation. "There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We've gotta also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts, are just as robustly encouraged."
Obama agreed that things are worse than ever in Afghanistan, and then sought to clarify his point.
"They're not worse than they were when the Taliban was in charge and al-Qaida was operating with impunity," Obama said. But, he added, "We have seen a deterioration over the last several years."
"This is gonna be hard," Obama said. "I'm under no illusions. If it was easy, it would have already been completed." He also stressed the need to be flexible. "We will continue to monitor and adjust our strategies to make sure that we're not just going down blind alleys."
Richard Holbrooke, U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, dismissed comparing the war in Afghanistan to U.S. involvement in Vietnam more than a generation ago.
"The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese never posed any direct threat to the United States and its homeland," Holbrooke, a Vietnam veteran, said on "State of the Union" on CNN.
"The people we are fighting in Afghanistan, and the people they are sheltering in western Pakistan, pose a direct threat. Those are the men of 9/11, the people who killed Benazir Bhutto," Holbrooke said, referring to the slain former Pakistan prime minister. "And you can be sure that, as we sit here today, they are planning further attacks on the United States and our allies."
© 2009 Associated Press
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MzA1OTM2OA==
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Of course, he has to say no, but his skirting of the question over the last few days tells me more than his actual answer today. I believe that his non-answer answer caught him some heat from Pakistan. So, he had to actually make the statement that he wouldn't invade. In reality, it probably is still on the table. Although, it is thought of only as a last resort.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Obama Won't Confirm Nor Deny Possible Pakistani Invasion Plans
White House Won't Rule Out Troops for Pakistan War (Updated)
By Noah Shachtman
March 27, 2009 | 6:08:00
President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he's made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? "I'm not going to comment on the notions you laid out there," he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers.
But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. "Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy," he said. "We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We're also looking at what we can do on the military side."
Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, "I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this [Afghan-Pakistan] theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well."
Richard Holbrooke, the administration special envoy to the region, said about Pakistan: "of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil." Last week, Holbrooke said "we must respect" that "red line." Yet, when given the opportunity today to state unambiguously that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan, administration officials didn't give a clear answer. If anything, they side-stepped the question.
Draw your own conclusions. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there could well be more forces (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.
UPDATE: In an interview on the Pentagon Channel, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked whether American troops would go after Osama bin Laden or one of his top lieutenants, if they were found in Pakistan. His answer:
"I don't anticipate that U.S. troops would be going into Pakistan in that way. A big part of what the President announced today is a new kind of partnership with Pakistan, including economic assistance. But also a willingness to help train their forces and provide the gear that would allow them to improve their own capabilities in counterinsurgency. What is key here is the regionalization of the problem and getting Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together on both sides of that border to go after al Qaeda and it allies...
"Al Qaeda operates on both sides of that border. And you really have to go after al Qaeda and its allies on both sides of that border. And what's required here is just greater coordination and collaboration -- first of all, between the Afghans and the Pakistanis, but also between each of them and ourselves. Both on a bilateral basis and on a trilateral basis, I think we have to go after these guys on both sides of the border." (emphasis mine)
Later in the blogger conference call, Spencer Ackerman asked McDonough about what the President really means by "disrupting" and "defeating" al Qaeda. His answers were... well, a little unexpected.
McDonough defined "disrupting" as making sure Osama's pals couldn't carry out attacks in Europe or America any more. The terror cell or cells could still be intact - just impotent. Which is different from how I've imagined a "disrupted " al Qaeda before.
But the really interesting answer was about "defeating" the Osama-ites. Sure, there's a harcorde element that "has to be met by force alone." But not everyone has to to be turned into Predator flambe. To make sure new recruits don't take the place of the fried ones, "the violent, hopeless future offered by Al Qaeda is outshone by different opportunities" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As Ackerman points out, "Notice that 'defeat' here is has an ideological meaning, and its primary measurement comes from the perceptions of Afghans and Pakistanis themselves."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/white-house-won.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This could just be posturing by Obama. I find it a little hard to believe that a hardcore anti-Iraq war congressman would turn into a president who is willing to invade another country. That is something he criticized Bush for relentlessly for 2 years on the campaign trail. It could be seen a too big of a flip-flop or hypocritical of Obama to send troops into the Afghan neighbor.
When is Code Pink and the other anti-war protestors going to protest Obama for implementing a surge in Afghanistan and implying that a war with tribal leaders in Pakistan might be possible? Is Ed Schultz going to call Obama a "warmonger" as he did McCain?
By Noah Shachtman
March 27, 2009 | 6:08:00
President Obama has just laid out his new war strategy. And he's made it clear that the fight is both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I asked Dennis McDonough, with the National Security Council: Does that mean U.S. ground forces in Pakistan? Or more drone attacks? "I'm not going to comment on the notions you laid out there," he answered, during a White House conference call with bloggers.
But during a separate press conference, Bruce Reidel, who recently completed a strategy review of the region for the White House, offered some hints. "Thus far, our policy sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but one theater of operations for our diplomacy, and one challenge for our overall policy," he said. "We have very concrete proposals for increasing economic assistance to Pakistan, proposals that have already been put forward by the Congress. We're also looking at what we can do on the military side."
Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, added, "I certainly believe we are going to be increasing our intelligence focus in this [Afghan-Pakistan] theater, and as opportunities arise that may increase the pace of operations, as well."
Richard Holbrooke, the administration special envoy to the region, said about Pakistan: "of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil." Last week, Holbrooke said "we must respect" that "red line." Yet, when given the opportunity today to state unambiguously that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan, administration officials didn't give a clear answer. If anything, they side-stepped the question.
Draw your own conclusions. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there could well be more forces (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.
UPDATE: In an interview on the Pentagon Channel, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked whether American troops would go after Osama bin Laden or one of his top lieutenants, if they were found in Pakistan. His answer:
"I don't anticipate that U.S. troops would be going into Pakistan in that way. A big part of what the President announced today is a new kind of partnership with Pakistan, including economic assistance. But also a willingness to help train their forces and provide the gear that would allow them to improve their own capabilities in counterinsurgency. What is key here is the regionalization of the problem and getting Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together on both sides of that border to go after al Qaeda and it allies...
"Al Qaeda operates on both sides of that border. And you really have to go after al Qaeda and its allies on both sides of that border. And what's required here is just greater coordination and collaboration -- first of all, between the Afghans and the Pakistanis, but also between each of them and ourselves. Both on a bilateral basis and on a trilateral basis, I think we have to go after these guys on both sides of the border." (emphasis mine)
Later in the blogger conference call, Spencer Ackerman asked McDonough about what the President really means by "disrupting" and "defeating" al Qaeda. His answers were... well, a little unexpected.
McDonough defined "disrupting" as making sure Osama's pals couldn't carry out attacks in Europe or America any more. The terror cell or cells could still be intact - just impotent. Which is different from how I've imagined a "disrupted " al Qaeda before.
But the really interesting answer was about "defeating" the Osama-ites. Sure, there's a harcorde element that "has to be met by force alone." But not everyone has to to be turned into Predator flambe. To make sure new recruits don't take the place of the fried ones, "the violent, hopeless future offered by Al Qaeda is outshone by different opportunities" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As Ackerman points out, "Notice that 'defeat' here is has an ideological meaning, and its primary measurement comes from the perceptions of Afghans and Pakistanis themselves."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/white-house-won.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This could just be posturing by Obama. I find it a little hard to believe that a hardcore anti-Iraq war congressman would turn into a president who is willing to invade another country. That is something he criticized Bush for relentlessly for 2 years on the campaign trail. It could be seen a too big of a flip-flop or hypocritical of Obama to send troops into the Afghan neighbor.
When is Code Pink and the other anti-war protestors going to protest Obama for implementing a surge in Afghanistan and implying that a war with tribal leaders in Pakistan might be possible? Is Ed Schultz going to call Obama a "warmonger" as he did McCain?
Obama Sounds Like Bush While Outlining Afghan Strategy, Suggests Possible Offensive in Pakistan
Obama: 'Disrupt, Defeat, Dismantle' Al Qaeda
President Outlines New Afghanistan Strategy; Sends Thousands More Soldiers To Meet 'Increasingly Perilous' Threat
Mar 27, 2009 6:00 pm US/Eastern
Widening war in "the most dangerous place in the world," President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort Friday to defeat al Qaeda terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, defending his strategy with shades of the dire language of George W. Bush.
Stirring echoes of Sept. 11 and making the war his own, Obama warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq but still has no end in sight.
"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."
The president, who declared last weekend an "exit strategy" was needed for Afghanistan, never used those words in announcing his plans on Friday. His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 -- and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them -- so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.
That, he said, is "how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home."
There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.
The essence of Obama's strategy is to set clear goals for a war gone awry, to get the American people behind them, to provide more resources and to make a better case for international support. He is heading next week to a NATO meeting in France and Germany, where he expects allies to pledge more help of their own.
Much like Iraq, the war effort in Afghanistan has been longer and costlier than American leaders expected.
U.S.-led forces toppled the militant Taliban government there after the terrorist attacks on America in 2001, but many militants fled and regrouped in neighboring Pakistan. Obama said that Afghanistan will now get the resources it should have received years ago, "denied because of the war in Iraq."
Since becoming president, Obama has ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, counting 17,000 combat forces who will try to quell surging violence. The Pentagon says that will put the U.S. total there at more than 60,000, the most to date. As the Iraq conflict winds down, the Afghanistan war is growing.
Taking firm control of the war that dominated Bush's presidency, Obama broke with his predecessor in significant ways but also used phrases that sounded strikingly familiar.
He described the ruthlessness of the enemy, the need to take on terrorists, the genesis of the fight. Bush often reminded the nation that terrorists were plotting to kill Americans, even as the public fear dissipated with each passing year after the 9/11 attacks.
"I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives."
He tied Afghanistan and Pakistan together as one conflict, pledging regular three-way diplomacy with both countries and intensive outreach to the world for help in the region. He pledged to send in 4,000 forces to train the Afghan army and police force. He is sending in hundreds of U.S. civilians-agricultural specialists, educators and engineers-to help a poor, broken country try to build itself up from the provincial level.
The president promised that the U.S. will hold itself and others accountable by using benchmarks, although those measures are just starting to be shaped.
And showing the frustration of many in American government, Obama spoke bluntly about the leadership of the government it is trying to help.
He said Pakistan must no longer expect a "blank check" for its U.S. aid and must be willing to take on extremists within its borders. He suggested that the U.S. would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the country did not do so itself, saying he will insist that action be taken "one way or another."
On Afghanistan, he said the U.S. would not "turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in the own leaders."
Obama's review capped two months of extensive consultations between his team, Capitol Hill and foreign governments. He did not call Bush.
The former president often decried what he-called artificial timelines for pulling troops home from Iraq. In this case, Bruce Riedel, who led the Obama review of the Afghanistan-Pakistan plan, said it deliberately does not have timelines, to ensure flexibility. "We're not going to impose artificial constraints," he said.
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai embraced the additional help his country will get to train its army and police force.
Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani said it was "an extraordinarily positive sign that the Obama administration is thoroughly re-examining its policy toward our region."
The reaction from leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill was largely positive, although some lawmakers remain deeply skeptical of Pakistan's cooperation.
The Pakistani government has been more concerned by what it views as a greater threat to its existence, longtime rival India, with which it has fought three wars in the past six decades. And the Pakistani central government has relatively little control in some areas, tolerating or even ignoring Taliban and al Qaeda havens inside Pakistan.
The man Obama defeated for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said he welcomed Obama's revamped strategy as long overdue. "The war there is one that we can and must win, but for years now we have been fighting without a clear strategy and with insufficient resources," McCain said.
But McCain also said the president erred by not committing to sending in additional combat brigades as requested by the military commander on site. He said "we cannot fail in Afghanistan due to a lack of troops" and pushed Obama to be candid to the public that the war will cost more lives and money.
Much of the security build up in Afghanistan this year is meant to provide security for fair, stable elections there in August.
"We've been on a path since 2006, 2007, 2008, where violence has gone up," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We add these troops, violence is going to go up in 2009 because we're engaged more. That said, we've got to have a year this year, I believe, that stems that violence."
Obama, too, warned of tough days ahead. He said al Qaeda, its allies and probably its leader, Osama bin Laden, were plotting in the Pakistani frontier.
"For the American people," Obama said, "this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world."
© 2009 CBS Broadcasting Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://wcbstv.com/national/afghanistan.troop.buildup.2.969254.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is a sound strategy so far. Obama should just go ahead and say that Bush and McCain might have been right about the war on terror. Although, I highly doubt that will ever happen.
His outline includes a surge and is lacking a timetable for withdrawl. Isn't this the kind of military policy that Obama chastised during the campaign? I guess reality hit him in the face during the meetings with military leaders, CIA, and Homeland Security.
This is what I found to be the most eye-opening quote: "(Obama) suggested that the U.S. would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the country did not do so itself, saying he will insist that action be taken 'one way or another.'"
Does this mean that we might be starting another war in Pakistan, too?
President Outlines New Afghanistan Strategy; Sends Thousands More Soldiers To Meet 'Increasingly Perilous' Threat
Mar 27, 2009 6:00 pm US/Eastern
Widening war in "the most dangerous place in the world," President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort Friday to defeat al Qaeda terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, defending his strategy with shades of the dire language of George W. Bush.
Stirring echoes of Sept. 11 and making the war his own, Obama warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq but still has no end in sight.
"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."
The president, who declared last weekend an "exit strategy" was needed for Afghanistan, never used those words in announcing his plans on Friday. His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 -- and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them -- so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.
That, he said, is "how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home."
There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.
The essence of Obama's strategy is to set clear goals for a war gone awry, to get the American people behind them, to provide more resources and to make a better case for international support. He is heading next week to a NATO meeting in France and Germany, where he expects allies to pledge more help of their own.
Much like Iraq, the war effort in Afghanistan has been longer and costlier than American leaders expected.
U.S.-led forces toppled the militant Taliban government there after the terrorist attacks on America in 2001, but many militants fled and regrouped in neighboring Pakistan. Obama said that Afghanistan will now get the resources it should have received years ago, "denied because of the war in Iraq."
Since becoming president, Obama has ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, counting 17,000 combat forces who will try to quell surging violence. The Pentagon says that will put the U.S. total there at more than 60,000, the most to date. As the Iraq conflict winds down, the Afghanistan war is growing.
Taking firm control of the war that dominated Bush's presidency, Obama broke with his predecessor in significant ways but also used phrases that sounded strikingly familiar.
He described the ruthlessness of the enemy, the need to take on terrorists, the genesis of the fight. Bush often reminded the nation that terrorists were plotting to kill Americans, even as the public fear dissipated with each passing year after the 9/11 attacks.
"I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives."
He tied Afghanistan and Pakistan together as one conflict, pledging regular three-way diplomacy with both countries and intensive outreach to the world for help in the region. He pledged to send in 4,000 forces to train the Afghan army and police force. He is sending in hundreds of U.S. civilians-agricultural specialists, educators and engineers-to help a poor, broken country try to build itself up from the provincial level.
The president promised that the U.S. will hold itself and others accountable by using benchmarks, although those measures are just starting to be shaped.
And showing the frustration of many in American government, Obama spoke bluntly about the leadership of the government it is trying to help.
He said Pakistan must no longer expect a "blank check" for its U.S. aid and must be willing to take on extremists within its borders. He suggested that the U.S. would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the country did not do so itself, saying he will insist that action be taken "one way or another."
On Afghanistan, he said the U.S. would not "turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in the own leaders."
Obama's review capped two months of extensive consultations between his team, Capitol Hill and foreign governments. He did not call Bush.
The former president often decried what he-called artificial timelines for pulling troops home from Iraq. In this case, Bruce Riedel, who led the Obama review of the Afghanistan-Pakistan plan, said it deliberately does not have timelines, to ensure flexibility. "We're not going to impose artificial constraints," he said.
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai embraced the additional help his country will get to train its army and police force.
Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani said it was "an extraordinarily positive sign that the Obama administration is thoroughly re-examining its policy toward our region."
The reaction from leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill was largely positive, although some lawmakers remain deeply skeptical of Pakistan's cooperation.
The Pakistani government has been more concerned by what it views as a greater threat to its existence, longtime rival India, with which it has fought three wars in the past six decades. And the Pakistani central government has relatively little control in some areas, tolerating or even ignoring Taliban and al Qaeda havens inside Pakistan.
The man Obama defeated for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said he welcomed Obama's revamped strategy as long overdue. "The war there is one that we can and must win, but for years now we have been fighting without a clear strategy and with insufficient resources," McCain said.
But McCain also said the president erred by not committing to sending in additional combat brigades as requested by the military commander on site. He said "we cannot fail in Afghanistan due to a lack of troops" and pushed Obama to be candid to the public that the war will cost more lives and money.
Much of the security build up in Afghanistan this year is meant to provide security for fair, stable elections there in August.
"We've been on a path since 2006, 2007, 2008, where violence has gone up," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We add these troops, violence is going to go up in 2009 because we're engaged more. That said, we've got to have a year this year, I believe, that stems that violence."
Obama, too, warned of tough days ahead. He said al Qaeda, its allies and probably its leader, Osama bin Laden, were plotting in the Pakistani frontier.
"For the American people," Obama said, "this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world."
© 2009 CBS Broadcasting Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://wcbstv.com/national/afghanistan.troop.buildup.2.969254.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is a sound strategy so far. Obama should just go ahead and say that Bush and McCain might have been right about the war on terror. Although, I highly doubt that will ever happen.
His outline includes a surge and is lacking a timetable for withdrawl. Isn't this the kind of military policy that Obama chastised during the campaign? I guess reality hit him in the face during the meetings with military leaders, CIA, and Homeland Security.
This is what I found to be the most eye-opening quote: "(Obama) suggested that the U.S. would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the country did not do so itself, saying he will insist that action be taken 'one way or another.'"
Does this mean that we might be starting another war in Pakistan, too?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sen. Feinstein Embarrasses Pakastani Government
Feinstein's remarks on Predator likely to embarrass Pakistan
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, likely made Pakistan squirm by indicating that the armed, unmanned U.S. drones operating in Pakistan are based there, the Los Angeles Times reports.
For months, Pakistani leaders have criticized the use of Predator-launched CIA missiles against Islamic extremists along the northwest border.
The California Democrat's remarks came during a Congressional hearing in which she expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the use of the missiles.
"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.
Philip J. LaVelle, a spokesman for Feinstein, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad, the newspaper reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/feinsteins-rema.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
For being on the Intelligence Committee, what Sen. Feinstein said wasn't that intelligent.
How could she not realize that saying that could cause turmoil and embarrassment in the always volatile Pakistani government? Wouldn't being the leader of the "Intelligence" committee allow her access to that kind of information?
She endangered our relationship with an important ally in the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The mood in the country is difficult because there are many Islamic fundamentalists in the country that would not take kindly to their government helping the "Great Satan". It could lower the chances that the Pakistani government will help us in the future with fighting them, if they thought that it would be blabbed by someone in our government.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, likely made Pakistan squirm by indicating that the armed, unmanned U.S. drones operating in Pakistan are based there, the Los Angeles Times reports.
For months, Pakistani leaders have criticized the use of Predator-launched CIA missiles against Islamic extremists along the northwest border.
The California Democrat's remarks came during a Congressional hearing in which she expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the use of the missiles.
"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.
Philip J. LaVelle, a spokesman for Feinstein, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad, the newspaper reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/feinsteins-rema.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
For being on the Intelligence Committee, what Sen. Feinstein said wasn't that intelligent.
How could she not realize that saying that could cause turmoil and embarrassment in the always volatile Pakistani government? Wouldn't being the leader of the "Intelligence" committee allow her access to that kind of information?
She endangered our relationship with an important ally in the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The mood in the country is difficult because there are many Islamic fundamentalists in the country that would not take kindly to their government helping the "Great Satan". It could lower the chances that the Pakistani government will help us in the future with fighting them, if they thought that it would be blabbed by someone in our government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)