&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/obama-unveils-strategy-afghanistan/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
Obama unveils his controversial plan on Afghanistan
Published: 02 December, 2009, 15:40
Edited: 05 February, 2010, 14:47
Barack Obama addresses the nation on Afghanistan, December 1, 2009 (AFP Photo /Jim Watson)
(18.3Mb) embed videoTAGS: Military, Obama, Middle East, Politics, USA
US President Obama has unveiled his future strategy for Afghanistan in a keynote address at the West Point Military Academy in New York. 30,000 more troops will be deployed, almost doubling the numbers there already.
“It is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 troops,” he said.
The total number of American troops in the region will now be over 100,000.
The most recent estimates suggest $1 million are spent per soldier per year in Afghanistan. All that cash will be injected into warfare when millions of Americans live without jobs and homes.
But Barack Obama says he is sure of his decision: “I refuse to go beyond goals that would go beyond our means”.
In a speech that echoed the one made by Bush just before kicking off the war in Iraq – only lasting almost twice as long – Barack Obama has outlined the key steps: fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and strengthening Afghanistan’s Government and security forces.
Obama plans to escalate the war to the fastest possible pace, but he has also announced a withdrawal. According to Obama, the US could begin pulling out as early as the middle of 2011.
The efforts of Obama's administration will now be focused on getting the new plans through Congress. Hearings on the new Afghan strategy began on Wednesday.
The President's decision has so far failed to garner much political support, with both Republicans and Democrats expressing grave doubts about the increase in troops.
Meanwhile, around the world there has been a mixed reaction to Obama's plan. NATO says “It's not just America's war,” while the Taliban is vowing to step up its resistance.
Not convincing
Some in the US are also skeptical Obama’s new strategy will work.
Radio host Thom Hartmann sees the move as “terrible”.
“You have a nation that has an overall literacy rate of about 10 percent, you can't conquer a nation like that. You can't deal with a nation like that militarily. I think he is making a terrible mistake,” Hartmann says.
American journalist Jerry Mazza sees the plan as pointless.
“They want to diminish the power of the Taliban, of the insurgency. These guys are not going to go anywhere – they live there! I think it’s insane, quite honestly. As a parent – to know those guys are there to begin with, and that they are sending more of these young people there…” Mazza says.
Financial analyst Max Wolff says nothing is new and the plan is just more of the same.
“We are looking at a $33 billion per year increase. If we are looking at 3 years, we will be seeing $100 billion spending,” Wolff says adding, “Keeping doing the same thing and expect a different outcome – is Einstein’s definition of insanity. I’d like to be given a more qualitative assessment of what we are going to do differently”.
The President wasn’t successful in convincing the majority of Americans who elected him a year ago that the war was necessary and affordable, said Jake Diliberto, an Afghan war veteran and founder of the “Rethink Afghanistan” movement. The plan Obama has sent forward is not going to accomplish the goals he prescribed, Diliberto told RT.
“The reason for that is because an 18-month deployment of 30,000 troops is not a realistic perspective,” Diliberto explained. “It’s going to take these troops at least three months to get comfortable in the country and it’s going to take at least nine months to develop some sort of relationships with Afghan people on the ground.”
Natalia Burlinova from the Historical Perspective Foundation says people need to look beyond the numbers and understand that, in taking this decision, President Obama is keeping in mind the next election.
“Sending more troops to Afghanistan won't bring any crucial changes to the situation in the region. It may help to stabilize, but only until the pullout date that Obama has declared. We have to understand his decision was political,” Burlinova said. “The Afghan issue has split the US establishment, some urging the president to deploy more force, others against. Obama has tried to please both sides, which means he's thinking of the next election. So by that time he'll be able to tell voters: 'I did bring stability to Afghanistan, we're pulling out, so you can vote for me again'.”
Some even say escalating the Afghan war is the biggest decision of the Obama presidency so far. And the pull out date is seen as a sales pitch by many, like Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh.
“I don't give his message about a withdrawal strategy any kind of credence, because we've heard this kind of propaganda before,” Kokesh says.
02.12.2009, 09:12
8 comments
“Moscow will decide what happens to Iran” – Stratfor headGeorge Friedman, an American political scientist and founder of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor shared with RT some of his forecasts of how the century will progress. |
03.12.2009, 01:18
“We stay in Afghanistan to put pressure on fight in Pakistan”US President Obama’s latest speech is still on everyone’s lips, and it might have hinted at the real reason for the troop escalation in Afghanistan, says US radio host Cenk Uygur: the country next door. |
It is time for the U. S. Congress to step up to the plate and perform their constitutional duty. The American congress should decide the outcome of these undeclared wars. America wins declared wars. Reluctant, politically correct, office holders do not serve the interest of America's warriors who are dying and bleeding in these wars. Do right by these young men and women. Declare this war to legitimize it or bring these young warriors home. When war is declared by the American congress it will boost the morale of the troops and remove all doubt about the American government's total commitment to winning the wars. If the American congress chooses not to give total commitment to the young worriers, then congress should declare "peace" and bring the young men and women home. Don't leave these young people in the "TRICK BAG". Reluctant leadership is not real leadership. Either give total commitment to the troops or end this "reluctant warring"..
Global Capitalism is the Problem. Profit is the Center Piece of Capitalism. The Rules of the Capitalist System require over production to make a Profit. The more you produce, the more Fossil Fuel must burn to speed up the production line. The more Fossil fuel you burn the more you pollute the environment. The world is running out of Fossil Fuels, the Planet cannot replace raw material fast enough to keep the Production line going. “Globalization” is the Global Capitalist system. The WTO has allowed Global Capitalism, to have enormous power over governments around the World. Unless there is a competing Organization, that can provide some kind Balance this System Will Fail. The UN must be reformed in ways that allow the Voices of People, who live in third World Country to be heard. Then the Powers that be must really listen. The Poor of the world seek Social Justice. If any government, agrees to allow Foreign Multinational Corporations, to exploit its Resources, Workers must also Benefit from their Labor. How do you force these Corporations to the right thing? Capitalism is all about money. If you have no money, no one listens to you. The UN must be allowed to tax International Corporations directly, and not be required to except hand outs from rich Countries. The UN Security must authorize the UN to impose a 5% transaction on all Multinational Corporations. To repair the Damage caused by Globalization. The UN should License Multinational Corporations, these Corporations Should prove they serve everyone, not just the share holders. I voted For Obama, And I don't think hev listens to me.
To 'No Name': I live in the United States, in the North-East, and have been watching this mess develop over the past 9 years now. My short answer is that I have no idea what we are doing and how we have made it this far. I think it may come down to the 'bubble theory' and the 'too big to fail' mentality. We borrowed and borrowed money from Asia, the Persian Gulf, Russia, and EU to finance what Bush/Cheney & Co thought would be an easy win and mission accomplished in a year or two - we created a big Wall Street 'bubble' to finance a quick win and reap the oil fortunes of these now war-torn countries ... unfortunately, it did not work out that way and we all suffer now from incompetent political leadership, corporate greed, and a US/NATO fools errand to subdue a region in the Middle East and Central/South Asia that no one else in history has ever conquered and held for long. Like a child's hand caught in the cookie-jar, our hand is stuck and we do not have the common sense to release the cookies and free our hand caught in this region now. We think ourselves as 'too big to fail' and we are printing up money like a monopoly game now because other countries see a bad debt-risk. I think the only reason we continue is our lender countries and international bankers have too much good money thrown after bad for the US to fail now. We are 'too big to fail' - we think and hope ... but, what will history and the future do now is the question.