Obama's speech on Afghanistan - Full Text

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That doesn't say much good about Pakistan, but that is an excellent point. A year ago when Muslims were touting Obama as the greatest thing since sliced bread I was pointing out that his Pakistan policy was far more invasive and militant than that of John McCain, who only wanted to do military interventions on a cooperative basis with the Pakistani government. (Maybe that's because, like me, Obama spent his tender years in the company of Muslims and thus expects a higher standard of conduct from them than previous U.S. Administrations have demanded.)

Nevertheless, Obama is putting you on notice that if the U.S. sees a terrorist target of opportunity in Pakistan, it may strike, via assassination or assault, without Pakistani approval if he so chooses. (And it will be Prez Obama's choice.)

As I said, it is an empty threat, since such a move without Pakistani approval or cooperation will end the possibility of any future Pakistani cooperation and definitely end the recent uptick in collaboration and trust building efforts we have seen on either side, and all for a couple of potential targets whose elimination will not even put a dent in the insurgency.

Obama can barely sell the existing surge to Americans, there will be no stomach for the casualties and resources required in an invasion and occupation of Pakistan.

In support of that, let me point out that the same arguments of 'US is going to expand in Pakistan' were made in Bush's last couple of years in office as well, and certain Westerners on the blogosphere were ecstatic in declaring that 'times up'.

Subsequently there was one SF raid via helicopters carried out in a village in FATA, after which the PA issued a public statement that orders had been issued to shoot down anything violating Pakistani airspace. The US backed down, despite Bush not having any of the qualms and/or political constraints Obama appears to have about expanding wars.

I fail to see how any future incursions will be any different. Quetta Shura? The PA Command and Staff College is in Quetta. I doubt the PA is going to take any incursions there lightly.

These 'getting tough' messages from 'credible anonymous sources' have sort of become par for the course in the Western media - I imagine they serve some sort of machismo propaganda purpose in assuaging the fears of domestic consumers that the US is in charge.

I mean, how comforting, for the American people, would it be if the argument was that as the US commits another 30,000 troops to go into harms way, it is going to ask Pakistan nicely if it could pretty please cooperate?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged

 

[TruthSeeker]

So do you really think that Pakistan could make its way in the axis of evil replacing North-Korea ...?
Frankly i dought this but if thats the scenario than US would deffinately be on a course of starting the third world war .
BTW i think the Pakistan has something to offer and weather the democrats or repubs are sitting in whitehouse they all know what worth is Pakistan off ...

I didn't say Axis of Evil, I said Axis of Terror. By that I mean, in the event of a USA defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan will be blamed for not supporting the USA but, instead, supporting and joining with the Afghan Taliban, hence becoming with them, not us. So yes, if you look at the map, 95% of the Jihadi terror that would be threatening to the USA and its friends would be emanating from the Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan swath of territory. The USA would seek to ring this territory with new "front line" states, including Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"The Obama administration has tried to offset Pakistani concerns with a package of long-term security guarantees, trade benefits, upgraded military equipment and greater regional cooperation with India. But a Pakistani official said details had not been made public because the offer had yet to be accepted.

The Pakistani military sees India as the biggest threat in the region and is frustrated that the United States does not seem to acknowledge that. The disconnect has been a major irritant in relations, particularly as Indian influence in Afghanistan grows.

“This is where Pakistan’s trust of the U.S. could very dramatically increase,” Mr. Rashid said, “if it became known the Americans were trying to get the Indians to become more flexible.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03pstan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[Image]

Pakistan must be very careful in the near future. Should US fail in Afghanistan, it will blame Pakistan for it's failure.

The War have already cost us dearly, daily bombings and drone attacks have drained investment. The estimated economic loss due to the War is $8 billion yearly. The total loss is close to $40 billion. US is providing very little economic aid with conditions which undermine our soverignity. The Jewish controlled media is demonizing Pakistan's Army, ISI and Nuclear Programme with the help of Indians. They are calling us beggers.

What really US can offer us? Weapons, Economic Aid, Fighter Air Crafts, Nuclear Deal, Investment or just lip service, assasinations, bomb blasts, drone attacks and insurgencies. We must also ask ourself what stretegic interest we share with US and what give and takes are possible and how reliable US can be.

As far as I can see, US can't provide us any reasonable military aid that can be used to counter growing Indian threat on our eastern border. They will never supply nuclear fuel to Pakistan as they have already demonized our Nuclear Programme. So what is left is small military arms, night vision goggles, couple of F16's etc. Now on other side they have sold 126 F35 fighters to India. They have started nukes for mango programme with India. Now they are talking of enhancing business relationship with India. That will mean continous reliance on China in the defence department and continous dependence on economic aid from other countries particularly US.

The worsening economic situation in Pakistan can create civil unrest which can bring down the Govt and create kios. When you factor in ethinic violence, sectarian violence, imported terrorism, forign agencies and Taliban, the picture looks really bleak. Our Army is really doing great job and it has not let the situation to go out of control yet. But we must prepare for all sort of contengencies plan, as decisive moment is coming close.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is the only guarntee against foreign aggression and it must be protected at all cost, both from extremists and US. Our stretegic interests are more alligned with China and therefore we must consult with China as we deal with US and it's natural ally India. We must work with US in stabilizing Afghanistan and charge right price for our co operation. We must tell US in clear words that we will not allow Afghan territory to be used against Pakistan either by India or by other entity. Should we find any evidence in this regard, we must complain US and stop co operating with US, unless US listens to our concerns and takes concrete action on given leads. In view of the all of the above US must provide a clear plan and package to Pakistan as we are largest stakeholder in Afghanistan.

My personal view is that Obama is making good on his election compaign promises while he notes that US economic situation is worsening and people are more interested in Jobs, Health Care and Domestic Economy. He will find hard in seeking additional funds for War but he will manage it. The ruling elite in US which often makes decisions from behind the scene, is interested in continuing War. The military contractors also love Wars. The American public opinion can change substantially if they don't see any improvement in Afghanistan in couple of years, although the Jewish controlled media will try to keep support for the War in manageable range. If God forbid another terror attack occurs in US, then the support for War may increase. Involvement of US agencies in such attack can't be ruled out. If US fights for another 5 to 10 years in Afghanistan on borrowed money, it may wreck it's economy.

I think in view of the US internal power dynamics and US economic situation, it will be better for US to seek a diplomatic solution for Afghanistan debacle. Obama gave a hint in his speech for such a settlement. Pakistan can and should provide a honorable exit to US from Afghanistan.

Pakistan should prepare for new Afghan stretegy as it can no longer continue to seek ally in the form of Taliban. It is simply too dangerous as another attack on major power from Taliban or any terrorist group will be deverstating for Pakistan and it's reputation. Pakistan must insist on Pashtoon majority Govt with minimum representation of Nothern Alliance and Drug Lords. Pakistan must take guarntees from US that India will not use Afghan territory against Pakistan and it must take all actions and provide guarantees to US that it will not let it's territory to be used against US or it's allies. Pashtoons are usually very good on their promises and Loya Jirga must be called for the same. US must also lay out a stretegy to counter the opium trade problem and Pakistan must help US in this regard. It will only happen when, people will find reasonable alternative source of income and drug lords will be punished. Drug Trade from Afghanistan will haunt US reputation world wide as people will blame US for replacing Taliban with Drug Lords. If Taliban are not acceptable than Drug Lords are not acceptable either.

 

[Developereo]

So that's why you're afraid of Blackwater!

The proper word is aware, not afraid.

My guess is that India, Iraq and Turkey would be a very major beneficiaries of US military assistance as the new USA Republican administration seeks to contain new the Axis of Terror: Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan. F-35's, Patriot anti-missile systems, etc., would be on offer at good prices.

The US does not want to push Pakistan further into the Chinese camp. They will continue to arm India as part of the anti-China strategy, but they will not want to alienate Pakistan too much either.

A year ago when Muslims were touting Obama as the greatest thing since sliced bread I was pointing out that his Pakistan policy was far more invasive and militant than that of John McCain, who only wanted to do military interventions on a cooperative basis with the Pakistani government.

Unlike the rest of the world, most Pakistanis were far less sanguine about Obama's election. I agree about McCain. As an ex-military officer, he had a far more pragmatic approach to this problem than Obama does.

Obama can barely sell the existing surge to Americans, there will be no stomach for the casualties and resources required in an invasion and occupation of Pakistan.

Not to mention China.

Iraq and Afghanistan are one thing, but if anyone thinks China will just sit and watch a US invasion of a Chinese military ally on its very borders, they've got to be dreaming.

The Obama administration has tried to offset Pakistani concerns with a package of long-term security guarantees, trade benefits, upgraded military equipment and greater regional cooperation with India.

That's wrong. We do not need a third party to mediate anything between us and India. Especially not a country like the US, whose pro-India agenda is an open secret.

At some point, we have got to adopt an attitude of self-reliance and strengthening our own capabilties instead of running to the US to help us out.

Pakistan must be very careful in the near future. Should US fail in Afghanistan, it will blame Pakistan for it's failure.

That is exactly right.
Pakistan is being set up as the fall guy for NATO's incompetence in Afghanistan.

 

[fatman17]

Editorial: Cut and run

US President Barack Obama’s much-awaited announcement of his new Afghan strategy has evoked alarm and disappointment in equal measure. Obama has committed to sending 30,000 additional US troops, but also announced a withdrawal date starting from July 2011. The thrust of his message is that the US cannot fight an unending war in Afghanistan and therefore must seek an honourable exit. How honourable it may turn out to be, given the ground realities, is a moot point. As though the US president’s ‘cut and run’ strategy is not alarming enough, his Nato allies are even less willing to come forward with additional troops, some even a continuing presence. The West as a whole then, led by the US, seems inclined once again to turn its face away from benighted Afghanistan.

The ‘sweetener’ meant to make the virtual surrender, sooner or later, to the Taliban more palatable, trots out the fiction that the period until July 2011 and the additional troops will train an Afghan army and police force capable of holding its own against the tough Taliban. Based on the track record in this respect of the last eight years, this seems unattainable. The numbers targeted have yet to be reached, and the quality of the trainees leaves much to be desired. They are by no stretch of the imagination capable of standing up to the Taliban and defending their country against an extremist takeover a la 1996. Nor are they likely to be, the wishful thinking of Washington notwithstanding (actually, this may also be the attempt at a justification for the impending abandonment of the Afghan people to their fate).

The Pakistani military establishment, which has been working towards some such outcome since 9/11 by attacking al Qaeda and saving the Afghan Taliban for a rainy day (one has just arrived, courtesy Obama), must be laughing all the way to the bank, followed closely by the Afghan Taliban. All Mullah Omar and his fighters now have to do is wait out the US and Nato, and Karzai’s regime will fall to them like an overripe plum.

The implications of such a scenario are scary for the region, the world, and most of all for Pakistan. There is no sign that Mullah Omar, despite keeping his distance publicly from al Qaeda since 9/11, has abandoned his alliance with his ‘guest’ of yore, Osama bin Laden. The Haqqani shura based in North Waziristan is widely believed to be openly working with al Qaeda. That implies that if the Mullah Omars and Haqqanis once again are ensconced in Kabul (even two years from now), you could be excused for thinking that Osama bin Laden would not be too far away. The antediluvian regime of the extremists would once again be foisted by force of arms and with the backing of the Pakistani military establishment on the long-suffering Afghan people.

Such a rejuvenated regime that hosts al Qaeda once again would threaten US and Western interests globally. It may prove too wild a horse for our military establishment to ride, let alone control (remember Mullah Omar’s intransigence in the face of Pakistani advice in 2001 to surrender or at the very least expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan?). Even more worryingly, the restored Taliban rulers in Kabul may find the temptation irresistible to fish in the troubled waters Pakistan finds itself in by backing the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. After all, in comparison with ruined Afghanistan, control over a nuclear-armed Pakistan may be too mouth-watering to ignore.

The US and the West have proved fickle allies. Their public at home has no stomach for foreign wars, especially after the shenanigans of Bush and Blair. Imperialism is passé. Afghanistan is about to be left to its own devices once again. The world may, however, once again live to regret it.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[waraich66]

@s2,

Actually no. We defeated the taliban with about 30 Americans on the ground. That was sometime in November. We had serious issues getting troops in-country in adequate numbers. That's the fact of it. Please reference Sean Naylor's Not A Good Day To Die for an excellent accounting of the battle.

30 American defeated talaban ? it was not defeated it was strategic withdrawal

You have, however, made my ignore list.

After complete defeat of US forces , better also include MO,HAQQANI,OBL,NAZIR,HIKMATYAR in your ignore list

 

[Solomon2]

The ‘sweetener’ meant to make the virtual surrender, sooner or later, to the Taliban more palatable, trots out the fiction that the period until July 2011 and the additional troops will train an Afghan army and police force capable of holding its own against the tough Taliban. Based on the track record in this respect of the last eight years, this seems unattainable.

The problem with this column is that it assumes Obama will really stick to the planned pull-out date. Yet Democrats in the U.S. are not necessarily men of their word. (Republicans get in trouble for telling fibs, Democrats hardly ever do.) So it's a little too early for me to tell whether Obama believes in "cut and run" or to actually leave Afghanistan with a functioning government.

My guess is that Obama has succumbed to the illusion that he is controlling events, or at least wants us Americans to do so. How long before the wake-up call, I don' know.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I didn't say Axis of Evil, I said Axis of Terror. By that I mean, in the event of a USA defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan will be blamed for not supporting the USA but, instead, supporting and joining with the Afghan Taliban, hence becoming with them, not us. So yes, if you look at the map, 95% of the Jihadi terror that would be threatening to the USA and its friends would be emanating from the Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan swath of territory. The USA would seek to ring this territory with new "front line" states, including Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and India.

Ok if Pakistan is being blamed for the US failures or inother words US(New Regime) will try avenge Pakistan for its noncooperation incase US fails to achieve the current mentioned objectives in Afghanistan . If that policy is followed than india will be onboard but i dont know about the central asian repubs . Still i dought this whole to happen . Do you realy think that if US exits Afghanistan by failing to achive its objectives there would be literally no mutual interests btween US and Pakistan like btw Iran and US and North Korea and US...?
The Afghan Taliban have been offered six provinces and still theres alot of backdoor communication going on with ISI acting as the middle entity . US wins or Looses it needs Pakistan in both cases . If it looses it would deffinately not turn to Iran or Russian Influenced central asian repubs(With Russian controll of their airspace) to pull out with a respectable face saving...or would they ..?
However if US is realy on a course of dithching us once again then the whole game changes ..

 

[SSGPA1]

This is the most important part of the speech for me:

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.

I think a deal has been struck between Iran and the US that verbal bashing will continue to take place but Iran will not persue nuclear weapons, in exchange the US will allow Iran to come out of the international isolation. All of the threats etc will be for home audiances.

This leaves Pakistan's nuclear assets as the primary target of the US agenda. US agenda is to see India countring China and a nuclear armed Pakistan is a big rock.

Question is how China is going to react? I don't know the answer or atleast I am not sure as I find many arguments in favor of Chinese support to our Nuclear assets and also against our Nuclear assets.

Most importantly: How should we react?

Well, first of all the PM should appreciate the frankness of the US President and should say that Pakistan would like to further enhance the relationship between the two countries. After that, our PM must say that Pakistan doesn't agree with the approach of looking at Pakistan and Afghanistan through the same lens. The govt. in Pakistan is NOT endangered from Taliban or Al-Qaeda and people of Pakistan have full faith in their govt. PM must clearly state that Pakistan is in a state of war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Pakistanis understand that casualties a part of this war. These caualties don't mean that Pakistanis are endangered by Al-Qaeda but these casualties are showing the frustration of a losing enemy.

Now the PM should continue, Pakistan's nuclear assets are protected by one of the best armed forces in the world and there is absolutely no chance of our nuclear weapons falling in the hand of any terrorist group. Pakistan and Pakistanis don't appreciate this false perception of threat to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

PM should further state, situation in Afghanistan will not improve until attacks are planned against Pakistan from the borders of Afghanistan. On a regular basis Pakistan has provided evidence of anti-Pakistan activities in Afghanistan but there has been no action. This situation has to change so that Pakistan, US and Afghanistan can work together to improve the overall security situation.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

"The Obama administration has tried to offset Pakistani concerns with a package of long-term security guarantees, trade benefits, upgraded military equipment and greater regional cooperation with India. But a Pakistani official said details had not been made public because the offer had yet to be accepted.

The Pakistani military sees India as the biggest threat in the region and is frustrated that the United States does not seem to acknowledge that. The disconnect has been a major irritant in relations, particularly as Indian influence in Afghanistan grows.

“This is where Pakistan’s trust of the U.S. could very dramatically increase,” Mr. Rashid said, “if it became known the Americans were trying to get the Indians to become more flexible.""

In order to get the max out of Pakistan this Indian issue has to be dealt ...or else it would still be shaking the Pak-US ties and people would continue to question suspiciously the US commitment .

 

[XYON]

The irony is;

US refuses to provide SPD with state of the art nuclear assets protection equipment that it uses to protect its own nuke assets. & yet its afraid of Al-Qaeda taking over our nukes.

US refuses to give the PAK ARMY state of the art combat helicopters (such as the Apache) to eliminate the Taliban swines in SWA and other such hilly areas and yet it asks us in a broken record tune to do more.

US refuses to give us the advanced UCAV PREDATOR to carry out search & destroy missions ourselves and yet it babbles on having its own hot pursuits inside Pakistan territory.

US refuses to give us advanced intelligence and eavesdropping equipment to intercept mobile, satellite and land-based telephony systems to detect threats early and yet it thinks we know where OBL is.

US refuses to provide us with advanced intel on Talibaans fearing our adaptation to them in the long run and yet expects us to do its dirty vacuum cleaning in this area

No wonder Pakistanis do not trust the US because its words do not match its deeds when it comes to delivering on goods.

 

[Patriot]

I didn't say Axis of Evil, I said Axis of Terror. By that I mean, in the event of a USA defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan will be blamed for not supporting the USA but, instead, supporting and joining with the Afghan Taliban, hence becoming with them, not us. So yes, if you look at the map, 95% of the Jihadi terror that would be threatening to the USA and its friends would be emanating from the Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan swath of territory. The USA would seek to ring this territory with new "front line" states, including Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and India.

Well, Sure.Did US also ring the territory around Vietnam after the defeat and death of thousands of US soldiers..Did us add Vietnam in Evil Exis of Communism?

 

[Solomon2]

US refuses...US refuses...US refuses...No wonder Pakistanis do not trust...

Huh? If the U.S. is refusing, doesn't that imply the U.S. doesn't trust Pakistanis, rather than the reverse?