Obama Vows Offense In Afghanistan

President Says U.S. Will Be Aggressive In Efforts To Counter Terrorist Threats

(AP)  Nearing completion of a revamped strategy in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama said Tuesday the United States will stay on the offensive in its determination to dismantle terrorist operations in the country even as it rethinks its goals in trying to end the 7-year-old war.

The president did not divulge details of his administration's war review, which he said is not yet complete. It is expected to be unveiled as soon as this week.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House, Mr. Obama said the threat of al Qaeda and its terror affiliates has not gone away. As a consequence, he said, "It's important for us to stay on the offensive." Yet he emphasized that the United States, working with its coalition partners, cannot simply win the war militarily.

"My expectations would be that over the next several years, you are going to see a much more comprehensive strategy, a more focused strategy, and a more disciplined strategy to achieve our common goals," Mr. Obama said after meeting with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Rudd, whose country has roughly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, sounded a similar theme. He said the mission remains to eliminate havens for terrorists.

Mr. Obama has approved an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to go to Afghanistan this year, bolstering 33,000 already there, to counter the Taliban's growing resurgence in recent years in the volatile southern part of the country. He has described that as the most difficult decision of his young presidency.

In the coming days, he is expected to announce his broader rethinking of U.S. strategy and goals in the war, including changed tactics and lowered expectations for the difficult conflict. Top aides to Mr. Obama are recommending that the United States combine a boost in military deployments with a steep increase in civilian experts to combat a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, senior U.S. officials say.

Mr. Obama's top military advisers say the United States is not winning the fight in Afghanistan. The war began in direct response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which were spawned in an Afghanistan then ruled by the Taliban militias.

Mr. Obama said he is aware that the war and its deep sacrifices weigh on the minds of the public.

"But I think that the American and the Australian people also recognize that in order for us to keep our homeland safe, in order to maintain our way of life, in order to ensure order on the international scene, that we can't allow vicious killers to have their way," Mr. Obama said. "And we're going to do what is required to ensure that does not happen."

[batchitcrazy]

Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:33 PM : Mar 24, 2009
----------------------------------
I've posted this comment before and I'll post it again. Google "Bush/BinLaden" and look for the video of a news interview. Less then 1 year after 9/11 he stated that (rough quote here) "... I don't care where he (bin laden) is, he doesn't interest me..."
Ground Zero was a gaping hole in the earth and dubya basically takes a dump on every person who lost their lives there.

[sean1z]

Muslim Clerics of the region should preach fortitude to the People . Why allow Criminals who traffick narcotics and illicit sexuality dictate the war? Felons perpetrate the distribution of child pornography, children as prostitutes, forcible rape, and sexual assault on drugged-women. The military option involves missiles, rockets, and cannons. Afghanistan and Pakistan must practice ethics and law enforcement. The Police have a difficult time without the advantage of the Churches' moral discipline.

[aziridine]

It would have been far easier if Clinton and Sandy Berger had just picked off bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up........

Imagine that, without bin Laden...GOSH.... 9/11 could never have happened! LMAO

[AJMarine12]

Everyone told him we needed more troops for that war from the beginning, but we didn't get them until the,'surge".

Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:39 PM : Mar 24, 2009



Bush and his people were going for the element of surprise.

Saddam thought he had months to get ready while the US took months to build up it's forces before they attacked.

Bush and Cheney thought if they raced to Bagdad with the smaller force they had, that they could take out Saddam and the Iraqi's would take care of the rest.

It didn't work out that way and then Bush didn't have enough troops to do the job that needed to be done.

[aziridine]

Ah...gravy boat sounds like an echo of th old domino theory that the Kennedy brothers used to scare us into their Vietnam debacle. The one that cost 55,000 kids their lives. So lets see...Pakistan goes raggy, they take out India, then combined they take out Aisa and the Middle East......the new union takes out Europe and then they ALL come and carve us up!!! Wow...SIMPLE!!!!

[tincup356]

I wonder if the President is aware of one little item?,,,,,,No one has ever formally charged Osama Bin Laden with ANY crime related to 911.......so why are we spending 10 billion a month looking for him?

[AJMarine12]

Posted by promaclaura

Who was that meant to protect? It sure wasn't NYC or the Pentagon.

Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:33 PM : Mar 24, 2009






Northern and southern no-fly zones were established over Iraq by the United States, Great Britain and France to keep Saddam Hussein's air force in check after a U.N. military coalition ejected his forces from Kuwait in 1991. France withdrew its pilots from no-fly zone operations in 1996.

The United States cited U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 as rationale for establishing the no-fly zones, which protected the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south from Saddam's persecution

[aziridine]

This will be great for Obama's old law firm. With no Guantanamo, any prisoners we take will be tried in the US civilian courts and defended by Obama's old firm at the special governmnt billing rate of only $1200/hr....dropping to only $750/hr after the 17th appeal!!!!


Way cool, that's a coup for prisoner rights!!!!

[promaclaura]

It's funny, GW spent so much more resources going after Saddam then he did going after Osama. When one never posed a threat to us, and the other had already attacked us.
Posted by gravyboat63 at 5:56 PM : Mar 24, 2009

We didn't run a 12 year no-fly zone that cost us billions for nothing.

[AJMarine12]

I only see that happening if the Pakistani govt. completely collapses. Hopefully we can help to prevent that from happening.

Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:16 PM : Mar 24, 2009



I had an Uncle tell me once "Politics are like a pile of cr*p, the more you stir it up, the worse it stinks.


I have a feeling that Pakistan is going to be the same way. If we use drones, you know there are going to be civilian deaths. I can see the dead children being held up high for all the World to see what animals the Americans are.

It won't go smooth whatever we do.

But like I said gravey, if you want to go and do things right and act like we are fighting a real war, I am with you.

If we are going to keep doing what we are doing, then count me out.

[aziridine]

There was a funny article on that back in maybe early January in the WSJ. It talked at length about how the troops were "itching to get to the action in Afghanistan". The funny part was that they talked to some of the officers, they said: "Yep, they're all gungho to get to Afghanistan. Once they get a taste of it most don't like it so much"......

[aziridine]

Pakistan as the Govt. has notified the Taliban that they can rule the region via Islamic law. That makes it open season on Al Queda and Taliban assets in the region. Posted by Gravyboat
____________________________________________________________________________

So you feel that simply adopting Islamic Law makes it open season on a country or region? Whoopee, lets shoot anything Islamic.......heeehaaaawwww!!! ***!

...or is any country or region that is so notified?

[aziridine]

If it were a real war there would be a real coalition or at least a majority of the G-20. There is no such coalition, same as there was no meaningful coalition in Iraq.

[promaclaura]

And I don't buy your argument that more troops in Afghanistan wouldn't have helped. Less of our troops in Afghanistan meant that the Taliban and Al Queda could regain their foothold in Afghanistan, as they've done.

Going into Iraq and ignoring the REAL war made the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan what it is today.
Posted by gravyboat63

More troops at the border would have kept the Taliban in Pakistan, and our troops would still be there today even if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Who knows, maybe Bush would have invaded Pakistan and finished the job if they hadn't already had "nukes" (no cat and mouse there, like Saddam's Iraq).

I'll re post what I said earlier, Obama is going to come to the same point Bush reached when the Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan the first time around. Obama's troop surge will chase out the Taliban again, the tribes will be protected, and then what? Like Bush, Obama will need to decide if he is going to invade Pakistan or leave our troops on the border indefinitely. What will he do? The answer isn't any easier for Obama than it was for Bush.

Also, I believe ousting Saddam was the right thing to do, another form of evil (different than Al Qaeda), but evil is evil no matter where it comes from. I place honor on our men and women, and for their accomplishments in Iraq. ps I don't think we will enjoy any accomplishment in Afghanistan, they are too tribal and set in their ways.

[AJMarine12]

Bush even used the term," Crusades", playing right into OBL's hands, and recruiting efforts.

Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:00 PM : Mar 24, 2009



Yes, the dumb bast*rd did.


All you say could be true, but I'm just saying, if we go into Pakistan hot and heavy, you better be ready to hear the same things they said when Bush went into Iraq.

[aziridine]

I didn't see it, that's just the point! Did you honesty believe I would "commend" this knucklehead!
Obama wants to put this entirely on or kid''s shoulder's. That's what I showed you in that video link I posted. The military dislikes this creep greatly.

[AJMarine12]

However, this is the real war, these are our real enemies. And we don't want them to get the Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Posted by gravyboat63 at 5:34 PM : Mar 24, 2009



Some would say that would be playing into Osama hands and giving him a "recruiting" tool for more recruits into Al Qaeda. The US attacking another Muslim Country don't you know.

I do believe however, if we are going to be over there, either get serious and do something, or get the heck out.

[aziridine]

Agreed promalaura,

Halliburton has always been the most capable resource for the job. That's how I know Obama will keep them onboard. It will be fun to see how Obama justifies this after he spent two years telling us that they were incompetent and crooked and only engaged because of Cheney.

Obama will either lose massive capability by dismissing Halliburton or face the fire for his earlier assertions. Obama has neer had any problem blowing off previous statements!

[aziridine]

poor Gravyboat has fallen victim to the Obama administrations FEAR MONGERING by Obama's administration. It's funny that the Euros feel no such fear, the Asians feel no such fear,otherwise they would have huge contingions in the field. They don't.

Capturing Osama would be a minor symbolic feat, but i certainly nothing worth 10,000 American kids dying or trillions in monetary outlays.It certainly doesn't reduce the risk from that theatre. We have much better uses for the cash.

It wonder how the government contractors that Diane Feinstein's husband's controls, Perini and URS, will make out with their "no-bid" contracts.

[promaclaura]

Are you fully aware of the consequences of leaving Al Queda and the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, and halfway to being in charge of Pakistan? A nuclear Pakistan?
Posted by gravyboat63 at 5:09 PM : Mar 24, 2009

Yes, I'm fully aware and agree with you, but I had felt that Pakistan was the bigger can of worms (more than Iraq) if opened up and wasn't eager to take them on back in 2001. I had hoped that Pakistan would fight the war on terror with us, they did to an extent as we nabbed some high profile Al Qaeda in Pakistan. I place more blame on Pakistan letting us down than Bush, we honored their request to not enter their territory and counted on their already nuclear armed help. Back in 2001, people weren't making the "heavy" connection of Pakistan Taliban and Afghan Taliban. Pakistan appeared to be more stable than Iraq, and Musharraf (sp?) wasn't saber rattling or under a no-fly zone. I believe that people would have given Bush a hard time if he had gone into Pakistan back in 2001, it probably would have been a harder sell than Iraq (especially already being nuclear armed), meaning we were too late in preventing Pakistan from anything. Pakistan scares me more than Iraq ever did, and remember many people out there failed to recognize that Afghanistan hinged on Pakistan. I'm glad you post about Pakistan being the problem, because I recognize and believe this as well, I'm just overwhelmed by what needs to be done and wish we (and Bush) would have recognized the "iceberg" sooner. This does not excuse those people who blame Bush about Afghanistan and spout that more troops would make it a done deal, that's foolish because Pakistan is the problem and the bigger mistake would be to continue to pretend otherwise.