| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan |
| 2009-07-24 |
| President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview. "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News. The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained. "We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States." The United States and Afghanistan are struggling to shore up security in the country, amid increasing violence. The Obama administration this year stepped up U.S. military operations in the country as the U.S. military presence begins to wind down in Iraq. "We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical," Obama told ABC News. Rising casualties in Afghanistan are raising doubts among U.S. allies about the conduct of the war, forcing some governments to defend publicly their commitments and foreshadowing possible long-term trouble for the U.S. effort to bring in more resources to defeat the Taliban. Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers' bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan. Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war -- or at least their involvement in combat operations -- even as Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq. The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan -- nearly double the number a year ago -- and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops in the country. The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting -- and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons. Most have been killed in southern Afghanistan, scene of major operations against Taliban fighters in areas that had long been sanctuaries. The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election. They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give Al Qaeda more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #17 Uh, uh, ION "VICTORY" WORLD NEWS > BIDEN: RUSSIA WILL BOW/BEND TO THE USA [due to worsening econ ergo geopol woes]??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-07-24 22:38 |
| #16 OTOH. WORLD NEWS/ISRAEL FORUM > LIEBERMAN: IRAN NUKES COULD SPARK A "WORLD-THREATENING ARMS RACE". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-07-24 22:36 |
| #15 A life and death struggle and he's playing for the draw. I'd expect nothing less from our soccer-mom-in-cheif. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2009-07-24 15:28 |
| #14 Afghanistan is basically feudal, not like the current nation state as we know it. There are lords with private armies with their "commanders" who assemble men under oaths of fealty. Before any "victory" can be won, a nation state must be built. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-07-24 14:35 |
| #13 cleaned cut == clear cut -- sorry |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-07-24 14:27 |
| #12 Well I guess there's 'educated' and then there's 'affirmative-actioned'. As for 'Victory' not being cleaned cut. Didn't Bush say that when this all started? No doubt the fawning media will treat this 'revealation' Zero had as some vast insight. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-07-24 13:56 |
| #11 President Bluto. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-07-24 12:42 |
| #10 Emperor Hirohito signed the surrender at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Gen. MacArthur would not meet him. |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-07-24 12:32 |
| #9 Zero is a narcisist, rather than a communist. He is both, and much more. |
| Posted by: Injun Grinesing9686 2009-07-24 11:53 |
| #8 As I don't have to tell my fellow 'burgers, this sort of jaw-dropping historical illiteracy is not incidental - it reflects a very shallow intellect that is obviously unsuited for its current employment. This one's easier to catch and guffaw at, but the bit about Churchill not using torture was even better in some ways. The familiar slander against the US, using an absurdly inaccurate historical analogy. What our pathetic little affirmative action abandoned child "president" was trying to get at - though it's doubtful he understands it - is that "victory" in A'stan will not be clean, clear, quick, or involve formalities. Lord Garth has it exactly right. It's a bit tricky to explain this somewhat nuanced concept of success to the public - but the failure to even try in the case of Iraq was one of Dubya's worst mistakes (the somewhat nuanced issue there being one about will and perseverance as strategic objectives, not so much explaining a fuzzy victory). The problem isn't the word or concept of "victory," it's properly defining it in the public square as it applies to this operation. Note also how Bambi has ingested the no-military-solutions-to-military-problems silliness that hobbles many in uniform. As if, in A'stan of all places, one is going to make meaningful progress on economic development and such in a relevant time-frame, vs. killing your effing enemies and intimidating their allies. One last thing. If one's goal is to "make sure they can't attack the US," then the proper approach is to exterminate them, and stay on offense. Another thing Dubya got exactly right, but utterly failed to hammer home until even people as dumb as NYT editors or COIN experts got it. Bambi's implied alternative is ridiculous - that somehow bringing cleaner well water to villages changes the power equation that makes/breaks the talibunnies or their creepy foreign friends. Sheesh. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-07-24 11:40 |
| #7 Japanese representatives on board USS Missouri (BB-63) during the surrender ceremonies, 2 September 1945. Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu; General Yoshijiro Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff; Major General Yatsuji Nagai, Army; Katsuo Okazaki, Foreign Ministry; Rear Admiral Tadatoshi Tomioka, Navy; Toshikazu Kase, Foreign Ministry; Lieutenant General Suichi Miyakazi, Army; Rear Admiral Ichiro Yokoyama, Navy; Saburo Ota, Foreign Ministry; Captain Katsuo Shiba, Navy; Colonel Kaziyi Sugita, Army. Hirohito? Nope, not there. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2009-07-24 09:57 |
| #6 "Like when Hitler signed that surrender at Pearl Harbor" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-07-24 09:57 |
| #5 0Bama, you moron, Hirohito never came down and signed a "surrender to MacArthur." I thought this guy was supposed to be educated. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-07-24 09:01 |
| #4 Personally I'd say that a stable, less corrupt than average, more democratic than average, Afghanistan with a stable non opium based economy and a small or zero American troop commi.ttment would be a victory. |
| Posted by: Lord garth 2009-07-24 08:18 |
| #3 If victory is not the goal, defeat will be the result. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-07-24 07:29 |
| #2 Although their not really much different at their core... Zero is a narcisist, rather than a communist. He honestly beleives that he can spend money better than the person who earnt it. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-07-24 06:39 |
| #1 "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News. That would be General MacArthur to you, you communist son of a bitch. A surrender act which probably saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly a million GI's and an untold number of Japanese. Having yet another Jeremiah Wright moment. "Worried" about American success, then and of course now. The poor, helpless bastard. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-07-24 05:59 |