Releases related to President Obama and Afghanistan…
Yesterday, before and after President Obama’s speech releases were sent out on the issue of Afghanistan. Rather than put each one on a separate post, I’m including them in the order they were received, who they are from is in bold to ease skimming, releases came from the Brunner for Senate campaign, the Fisher for Senate campaign and Congressman Bob Latta.
From the Brunner for Senate campaign at 3:11 p.m. yesterday:
Dear Friend,
Eight years and nearly a trillion dollars of our tax money-gone. More than 5,200 American lives-also gone. It’s time to say, “Enough.” It’s time to employ more than military and mercantile strategies in Afghanistan and set a timetable to bring our troops home.
As you may be aware, President Obama is scheduled to address the American people tonight about his plans for dealing with the war in Afghanistan, a war he–and our nation–inherited from former President George W. Bush. Neither President Obama nor the American public knew the extent to which conditions had deteriorated in Afghanistan, and those conditions have continued to deteriorate. And now, as nearly all international forces have withdrawn their troops from Iraq, and with the U.S. deployment there expected to wind down in 2011, the monumental task of squarely addressing the complicated problems of Afghanistan confronts our nation.
At the risk of being called a naysayer, a name I’m not often called because of the “can do” attitude I normally adopt, I believe the costs are too great–in human lives and economic resources–to continue along the current path. It is clear to me that America must set a timetable for bringing our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible.
As a nation, we face a horrendous national debt that grew exponentially from the Bush administration’s failure to find an honest way to pay for a war it couldn’t afford. The American public has been fleeced by the Bush administration whose policies not only placed American lives in peril but also stood to profit from them both politically and financially.
Progress in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban has slowed or worsened. We cannot remedy this by simply sending additional troops, given the conditions and corruption in Afghanistan. We cannot continue to justify the expenditure of blood and treasure without defining success for both the conflict and the region.
Our clear goal in Afghanistan should be to prevent Afghanistan and the border areas such as those of northwest Pakistan from serving as a staging area for terrorist attacks against the U.S. and other nations. We must reduce instability that could lead to governmental collapse of Afghanistan and other nations of the region, and use nonmilitary means to accomplish this for long term success. Change is needed, and our nation can help lead the way, but direct responsibility for Afghanistan’s future must be placed with its people and its government. Economic development, building a robust civil society, increasing the transparency and effectiveness of Afghan governmental institutions, and increased regional diplomacy, rather than more troops, must be part of the equation. Our diplomatic and economic support should be collaborative among nations and based on the current strengths of identified Afghan resources.
The aim should be to allow individual communities of Afghanistan, using Afghani resources, to realize greater economic stability–that is, implementing pragmatic, community-oriented strategies that provide incentives for economic alternatives to the oppression of the opium trade. Any counter-insurgency strategy–military and diplomatic–must strengthen this approach rather than weaken it, and this includes a policy on private security firms. Their operations must be subject to ethical standards that promote government trust and that can be enforced by the Afghan government.
Careful planning in U.S. troop reductions can occur while implementing these significant nonmilitary strategies–and the sooner we move our military resources out of Afghanistan, the sooner we can use the resulting cost savings to rebuild our lives at home in these times of great economic and social distress.
For the full text of my statement on Afghanistan published online yesterday, including excerpts of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s inaugural speech, information on private security firms operating in Afghanistan, and concerns about U. S. military leadership in this conflict, please click here.
From the Fisher for Senate campaign at 8:48 p.m. yesterday:
Fisher Statement on President Obama’s Afghanistan Address
Lt. Governor Lee Fisher made the following statement tonight in response to President Obama’s address to the nation regarding the war in Afghanistan.
“Keeping America safe is our most sacred duty. That’s why I believe we must continue to aggressively target al-Qaeda and destroy terrorist networks around the world that threaten our nation.
“But defeating al-Qaeda does not require 30,000 additional troops be sent to Afghanistan. As those on the ground have said, stabilizing Afghanistan and preventing al-Qaeda’s return requires training tens of thousands of additional Afghan forces, building a broad-based, coalition government with the legitimacy to lead and a crackdown on corruption by the Karzai government. Placing more American soldiers in harm’s way will not move us closer to achieving those goals.
“Only when Afghans are defending their own nation will we see a stable and secure Afghanistan.”
From the office of Congressman Bob Latta at 9:41 p.m. yesterday:
LATTA STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT’S AFGHANISTAN REMARKS
WASHINGTON- Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green) made the following statement after President Obama’s speech at West Point this evening.
“Now more than ever, our Armed Forces who keep our nation safe need the full support of Congress and the American people. President Obama’s speech tonight outlined a much-needed troop increase in Afghanistan to continue to root out terrorists and train Afghan troops and security forces. This training is crucial, as these troops and forces will eventually succeed United States and Allied forces in keeping Afghanistan safe and prevent the country and region from harboring terrorist organizations.”
“Even with increased troop numbers, questions still linger on whether or not General McChrystal will be provided the resources to accomplish the mission. It is my firm belief that our commanders on the ground have the best insight as to what they need to win the war on terror and it is the responsibility the President and Congress to heed that call and provide those resources.”
Obama seems to be reluctantly doing what he believes to be the right thing, but without the fierce determination of a true leader. Does he want to win, or does he just want to disengage as soon as possible? As an American who lost a grandfather in WWII in the D-Day invasion (82nd Airborne) my family knows the costs of war. Had America retreated before victory was won, my grandpa death would have been in vain. But we persevered, won the war and handed France back to the French, and they’ve been in control of their country ever since.
America should tackle Afghanistan with the same determination for victory as WWII. Unfortunately for us I believe it goes against Obama’s political nature to make decisions that defy his base, and it will cost us all dearly.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 amSo you think we need permanent bases in Afghanistan? I am not saying that is what we should should or should not do but you mentioned WWII and the battles you talked about was us driving the Germans back to thier country. That is a little different than this. If we do what we did in WWII, we will have permanent bases over in the middle east for the next 70 years.
Personally, I don’t like us having troops over seas anymore. I think all our negotiations should be economic and force used as a last resort. That being said, attacks were made against us and that country was their base, so military response was warranted. It would be very irresponsable to just get up and leave now because we are tired of it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 amWe’ve been fighting in Afghanistan twice as long was we fought in WWII.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 pmIf that’s what it takes to ensure stability in the region after victory is achieved, we should have a permanent base in or around Afganastan.
My concern is that Obama is not committed to victory in the battlefield. His committment to winning this war is not as strong as his committment to create government run healthcare and other items on his domestic agenda, and he knows it’s going to be tough to squeeze all of this out of our strapped federal budget. He’s trying to act like a president should act in time of war, but he dosn’t seem to know how. The flaws in his leadership are showing more and more every day.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pmI’m sure a lot of people got use to a President who couldn’t do more than on thing at a time, but the domestic agenda should absolutely not be abandoned because we are at war in Afghanistan.
If we can only do one or the other, then bring the troops home.
BTW – what does victory look like in Afghanistan? The Soviets and British before them had no luck.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pmPoland and France had no luck in WWII either. Did that keep us away?
We’ve been fighting twice as hard but can you honestly say we are as committed there as we were in WWII?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 pmCorrection, I meant twice as long. Mind was moving faster than fingers on that one.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 pmIt’s a completely different kind of war. It was much easier to know you enemy when they wore uniforms and were from a different country.
Once again…what does victory look like?
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pmMy opinion on the victory we should have in order to leave.
-Assurance that they will not be a terrorist safe haven.
-They will not attack us directly.
-They are able to stay in control and not fall to civil war right after we leave
-They are able to defend themselves from thier neighbors
After that, we go.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm“Once again…what does victory look like?”
Seems like a question that President Obama should have answered last night. I don’t think he’s got his eye on victory though, and our country is at greater risk because of that lack of focus.
If we withdraw from Afghanistan without dismantling the Taliban and the terror bases then we can expect the terrorists to regroup and strike the US and our allies again. I’m not a strategic expert on the war, but it seems clear to me that victory would be to eliminate the terror breeding ground and stabilize the region for the Afghan government. When that’s done the Afghan’s can take control of their own country and most of our troops will stand down, with some remaining to measure and defend ongoing success.
Without victory, Obama’s domestic agenda will put all of us at greater risk, and that’s why funding the war should be a priority. With the mountain of debt Obama is building up, another 9/11 would devastate our shaky economy, collapsing it under the enormous weight of government healthcare, higher taxes, mandatory paid sick leave, card check, etc.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pmI agree with Sensor G. These people don’t wear uniforms and they use tactics that no honorable soldier would use. This is a different war than we’ve ever fought.
And what DOES victory look like here? If we get the heads of the terrorist organizations, is that success? If we shove an elected government on a populace suffering from generations of learned helplessness and won’t be able to maintain an honestly elected government – we can’t even manage that here!
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 pmI’ve had mixed emotions on this war for many years now. One thing remains firmly stuck in my mind.
I met a guy in July, just 2 months before he died. He worked as a greeter on the observation floor of the twin towers. He had the personality and smile to great thousands of people from all over the world every day. He was a young guy, 25ish with his entire life ahead of him. As it turned out that terrible September morning, just 2 months after I spoke with him, he died as a result of an airplane slamming into his office building. I will remember his face for as long as I live.
This war has gotten mucky, lengthy and it’s my opinion that it’s a result of Americans, both public and private, losing their resolve and their ability to comprehend the total cost. Not only are the victims of Sept. 11th casualties, so are all that have been lost fighting to remove the threat. We’ve been in it far too long to just up and walk away. We’ve paid a steep price to seek out and destroy the people responsible. For all of this cost, what have we to show for it?
Binladen is still at large for lack of proof of death, and his zealots are everywhere. You can’t scare a snake to death, you have to cut it’s head off. Him and his organization are still thriving.
The original goal to get him and his followers is a goal lost..even before the current President took office. The political machine’s fiscal stupidity combined with the public’s lack of stomach and fortitude have allowed this war to drag. The cost is outrageous!
For that young man who’s life was taken from him and all that have gone with or since him from the same story…whatever it takes, no matter how long it takes, no matter what the financial costs…
We must attain the original goal and we must destroy the people who’ve struck at us, or we must accept that it’s only a matter of time before we are struck again, with a vengence.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 pmIt seems to me that people forget that we were attacked. You say it’s different. Planes crashed into boats in Hawaii, planes crashed into buildings in New York. We go to War. So what that they don’t wear uniforms, does that mean we should just whimper and hide? I’m tired of hearing that it’s a different kind of war. We get attacked, we respond.
You ask what does victory look like? The fact is, we won the war. Victory is achieved. We are just dithering over what our responsabilities are now to Afghanastan and what impact it will have on our future security. We and our allies destroyed Germany and for years afterward we, with our allies, occupied it until it could slowly build itself back up again. What is it now? A fast and valued ally. Maybe we should stop considering our destructive Middle Eastern foreign policy of the 80’s. You know, were we just run in, blow stuff up, and leave a giant mess behind. If memory serves me correctly, that is what put a man like Bin Laden in power.
Remember people, this is Afghanastan not Iraq. Please try to seperate those two in your heads when you formulate your opinions. It is too easy to lump them together as both being a mistake. Afghanastan was not a mistake.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 pmHad we directed our efforts from the get-go towards hunting Bin Laden down in Afganistan, which was the intended goal, instead of wasting men and machine dealing with some personal vendetta from our last President, things would be much better in Afganistan today.
Because from all the media reports I’ve ever read, Bin Laden nor Omar never stepped foot in Iraq.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:04 amAmazingly MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said that President Barack Obama had traveled to an “enemy camp” at West Point to address the nation on the war in Afghanistan. Why, I wonder does Matthews hate our military? Are all progressives this way?
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:38 amthe world is a small place, a few people can and are developing bigger weapons and more evil plans , we can be sure of that . It will take another , bigger attack on the U.S. to build up our fortitude and desire to wipe out safe havens and enemies of freedom. Look at other countries who don’t go on the offensive- I have friends in the Philippines. Their large southern island of Mindanao near Indonesia is slowly being taken over by Muslim extremists. You can read about their attacks if you follow it carefully. They could / should go on the offensive to secure their freedom.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 amMatthews did apologize for the remark and stated it was inappropriate.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 am