- ‹ previous
- 1778 of 8902
- next ›
White House and NY Times Face Off: Has Obama Opted for Hard Power in Afghanistan?
Those folks who bother to worry about the war in Afghanistan--not a large slice of the population--had reason to fret on Wednesday morning when they picked up (or clicked on) the New York Times and read a front-page story noting that President Barack Obama is adopting a new "approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development." The piece cited unnamed senior administration officials.
At a press briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had said that the administration was in the early stage of reevaluating Afghanistan policy. He had noted that Obama intended to meet with US Army General David McKiernan, the commander of the NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, to discuss the course ahead. It seemed as if no decisions had been rendered about Afghanistan.
Yet the Times indicated key calls have already been made:
[Administration officials] said that the Obama administration would work with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government, and that it would leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces could focus on the fight against insurgents.
Has Obama dumped nation-building for Taliban-fighting? That could be troubling.
But at Wednesday's White House press briefing, Gibbs rained on the Times's scoop. Asked about the article, Gibbs referred to "erroneous reporting" and maintained that the administration's review of its Afghanistan policy is "not yet completed." He pointed out that Obama has emphasized the "importance of long-term development" in Afghanistan and the region and that there is not "simply a military solution" to the problem. He added, "Only through long-term and sustainable development can we hope to turn around" the situation in Afghanistan. He did not, however, address whether Obama was contemplating a division of labor, under which the Europeans would take the high (development) road and the Americans would take the low (counterinsurgency) road. When I asked when Obama would meet with McKiernan to review the policy, Gibbs said that he did not know.
Meanwhile, the International Institute for Strategic Studies released a report this week, saying that Afghanistan is entering its most critical phase since the United States invaded the country. The group's director, John Chipman, noted, "The integrity of the whole international mission in Afghanistan is ... very substantially at stake." The IISS report was bad news: "In the face of a strengthening insurgency in Afghanistan, NATO has increasing problems in forging a common understanding of objectives for its mission."
Gibbs says the policy review is just beginning. The Times reports the deal's done. Who to believe? In any event, Obama ought to publicly address Afghanistan soon. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates on Tuesday said Afghanistan is the "greatest military challenge" facing Obama. That being the case, the new commander in chief ought to tell the rest of us what he intends to do about it.
Someone needs to make sure that Big O has been told (repeatedly) that no one has ever won a war in Afghanistan. Not the British, not the Russians, and so far, not us. And when they fight among themselves it goes on forever with no resolution.
Trust me.. he knows.. probably a whole lot more about that area than you do. Go look at Rachel Maddow's show when she interviewed him in late October or early November.. can't remember just exactly when it was.. he laid out a very detailed plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan then. Much more detailed than you ever heard from McCain, Bush or anyone else, from rebuiding, to the Poppy fields to enlisting the locals to help fight the Taliban. It was a very good talk. Trust me he knows.
Going after Al-Qaeda to Israel having a right to defend themselves (from what is known as legitimate Palestinian resistance), Obama sounds like he is using the same ol' US foreign policy playbook...
The important point about this story is that the NYT might again be spreading mis-information.
Let us never forget about Judith Miller (NYT) and the Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There are other instances of the NYT spreading mis-information.
I agree that Obama should clearly articulate in public his plans for Afghanistan. I also agree that he knows what he's doing.
The NYT and other major media outlets have lost credibility, and that's why they are failing.
The story now is the media's failure. And I think the president is in a good position to shine some sunshine on this negligence and dereliction of the press.
Cannot the numerous alternative news sources get together somehow and build or buy a network -to keep the corporate-media stuff at least honest with real reporting? Real competition?
Some fairness and ownership rules to promote public interest would be welcome in this effort, as well as like lots of investment.
In the present pay to play in the media the businesses are holding the microphones and writing the rulebook, and democracy is staggering something awful.
In interview with Charlie Rose the other night, Lee Hamilton's commentary regarding nation-building in Afghanistan struck me as sane and sober.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10019
President Barack Obama is focusing on major challenges American nation is facing, including financial crisis, Afghanistan and Mideast. During the presidential campaigns he raised fundamental questions in a battlefield where economic success has deteriorated in past few years. The economics team and the appointment of Hillary Clinton as the secretary of State are welcome to overcome the current difficulty in the financial sector and tackle the major foreign policy issues.
Hillary Clinton's commitment to bring change in American foreign policy under the same angle of vision as President Barack Obama is a good asset for the new administration. Besides transparency and accountability as new hallmarks of Obama's administration, Hillary Clinton said: "We will make clear as we go forward that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the U.S"
Economic prosperity is needed at this time. There are immense challenges ahead. But as President Obama said "History shows us that strong American engagement can bridge divides and build the capacity that supports progress." In this perceptive, he included in his administration Democrats and Republicans to brake with the legacy of bipartisan politics. The man of fracture with the fallen system has come to the White house at the right time.
The new leadership is coming to the White House through President Barack Obama who is willing to transform American politics in the most suitable one related to the 21st century's challenges.
The scope of the collective problems domestically, combined with all the ambiguities and expense involved in foreign policy is simply mind-boggling. I hope we are not biting off more than we can chew. Well, actually we are, let's face it.
As the Zen Master seems to say (at least in that Charlie Wilson film), "We'll see". The US whether it is "right" or "left" is very "neoconservative" like when it comes to foreign policy. What does that mean? The idea that the US must sport a global military machine and use a minimum of 300 to 500 hundred billion dollars a year on the death department and 100 billion on the "un-Intelligence Agencies" and then we must add our wars on top of thisthe price of "freedom" or "love us or we'll nuke ya". Why the insane expenditure? Well there's this stupid idea that we must remain beyond all others in terms of military superiority. The F-16 for example has been matched by a number of European countries but the F-16 is a 1970's aircraft. That is it was around 20 years ahead of the rest of the world when it hit the air in 1975 (well the Soviet's were sort of on par with us but not in the electronic side of the gamebut there were some real beautiful Mig's and I suspect that very soon we will be seeing a lot of new ones. Still the doctrine of being militarily beyond approach is a neoconservative idea, and it is an idea ingrained into the American consciousnessperhaps it was a direct consequence of WWII and thus it does carry some realism in it but we are using so much of our national budget on the military that the country is falling apart. (Perhaps we ought to use 20 years and 300 billion a year on perfecting our social disease at home and see to it that every single American is housed, employed and medically cared for and offered top education.)
Or the idea that that Jerusalem is somehow Israel's. Jerusalem has been under Israeli control since the six day war from 1967. For the 1900 years previous it has never been under Israeli controlwell the Israelis did get uppity with the Romansthis is not so long after they tacked Jesus on a cross and said, "Your Crown Sire"and we all know how that turned outit's called diaspora. (I guess the Lord has been on vacation since then (a divine Pass Over lasts a few thousand years before Old Jehovah comes to his senses and says Le'chaimbut if he thinks too hard on the subject he gets pissed off and screams "who's been chowing down on my apples". Yeah it's those SOB's from IsraelZap puff boom and there's an earth quake. So Israelis may well envision themselves as the the chosen peoplebut to God he's already made clear what he values most and that's the garden and them there apples. Apples are not a neoconservative trait because they don't go boom.
Now what was I monologuing about againoh yeah as the Zen master says, We'll See.
Iran may be the only country in the world that may have influence in Afghanistan
First, because we have genuinely helped them
Second, because we speak the same language
(well afghans speak broken Farsi)
Third, they know if they play game with us we know how to deal with them
Remember we had like 2 million of them in our north east of the country for some 30 years
And it looks like the Obama administration knows this.