When the US President spoke, it was 2am over here, therefore, if there are errors in judgement on one's behalf, please put it down to sleep deprivation, and NO, the speech wasn't enlightening enough to get me out of my stupor. Anyway, President Obama didn't say, that the surge of 30,000 troops has brought the number of US personell in Afghanistan to 100,00; if I am not mistaken. Without calling upon omens, that was actually the number reached by the Soviets before they withdrew from Afghanistan.

Then, the US President didn't say that there is a civil war going on in Afghanistan, probably because everyone knows that already, between a dispicably corrupt regime, and equally dispicable extreme organisation. Since President Obama said bluntly that, the surge is to stop al Qaeda returning into the country; meaning that it is no longer there, then one can only conclude that, the US President intends to align his country with the dispicable corrupt regime, to fight the dispicable extremist organisation, so that he can prop up the former and bend rather than break the latter, in order to achieve eventually, a power-sharing arrangement between two dispicable partners. The common-denominator word here, is, dispicable. Of course one is not using the term in regrad to President Obama's decision; perish the thought.

I don't recall the Presidnet saying how he intends to finance the war, remember I was in a state of stupor, but since he said that it is not only an American war, could he be thinking of passing the hat, among his friends and allies outside NATO, to dip their hands deeper into their pockets?. It would actually make sense. If there is more, well, one is no Marc Lynch.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Key Accomplishments in Obama’s Afghan Policy Review:

1) The President told the American people why we are in Afghanistan: With flagging domestic support for the war, it was especially important for the President to stress the reasons why American soldiers are in Afghanistan in the first place. Obama mentioned the tragedy of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the basis for his argument, as well as the valuable role Afghanistan played in Al’Qaeda’s capabilities. Considering the fact that many American citizens have become confused over the Afghan conflict, detailing the Taliban-Al’Qaeda connection was a fresh reminder for the increasingly skeptical American public. The 9/11 reference gives the public a key message; the U.S. is in Afghanistan for justifiable objectives.

2)Outlined Strategy: The new strategy for Afghanistan calls for an increased military, civilian, and diplomatic commitment. The plan follows several basic guidelines;
1)30,000 additional U.S. troops to the fight

2)A revamped civilian strategy concentrating on
reconstruction and development

3)An enhanced effort to draw low-level Taliban
fighters onto the Afghan Government’s

4)More cooperation with Pakistan in its battle
against Islamic extremism

3)Why the New Strategy Will Work: As expected, lawmakers and the general public expected President Obama to explain why his new counterinsurgency approach would work. Thankfully, he answered this question with accuracy and conviction. Not only will the “Afghanistan rollout” keep pressure on Al’Qaeda…it will also lay the foundation for the quick improvement in Afghan institutions. Reversing Taliban gains were also discussed.

4)Points He Addressed: Afghanistan’s corruption must be tamed, and NATO must be willing to take a greater share of the burden- both in soldiers and in dollars.

Despite all of the successes in his speech overall, he neglected to persuade me on some other issues. Here are a few of (what I view as) blunders in the address.

5)Established A Concrete Timeline: To the surprise of many in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Military establishment, the President announced that all American combat troops would be out of the country by July of 2011. This withdrawal date is not only impractical- boosting the Afghan Security Forces and reforming Afghan institutions will take much longer than 18 months- but it gives the Taliban insurgency a new blueprint for success. All the Taliban essentially needs to do now is keep the insurgency running until the summer of 2011, in which American forces will inevitably have to withdraw with their tales between their legs. Symbolically, creating an official benchmark provides Islamic extremists in the region with a reason to celebrate; they can now add the United States in their list of superpower defeats (after Great Britain in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th century).

The President’s timeline may also conflict with his goal to increase Pakistani cooperation against Al’Qaeda and the Taliban. If American troops are departing from the scene within a period of 18 months, the Pakistani Government simply has no alternative to aid the U.S. Military in counterterrorism operations. With a Taliban takeover of Kabul imminent after a U.S. withdrawal, the Pakistani Military may find it worthwhile to look after their futures by backing the winning side. After all, the Pakistanis have not necessarily viewed the Afghan Taliban in a threatening light to begin with.

There is one more development that is worth nothing in the President’s address. For some reason in which I have yet to understand, the President decided to briefly discuss nuclear nonproliferation, as if this was a major step in pacifying Afghanistan’s tumultuous environment. Why he included preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is beyond me, but I suppose this may have been a direct reference to Iran’s increasingly defiant stance on the nuclear issue. In fact, with Iran’s nuclear program rising on the world’s agenda, President Obama may have found it necessary to use a nationally-publicized forum to bolster his case for more sanctions. But again, this has nothing to do with sending 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. Does anyone else have any plausible ideas?

http://depetris.wordpress.com

Generating domestic pressure to make his commitments on a time horizon and this not becoming an endless series of futile escalations credible will be one of the most important things which Obama's skeptical supporters can do over the next year.

I accept your call.

Generating domestic pressure to make his commitments on a time horizon and this not becoming an endless series of futile escalations credible will be one of the most important things which Obama's skeptical supporters can do over the next year. And Obama clearly understands that.

Wow. If Obama really does "understand that", then one has to worry that there is an extremely cynical and criminally creepy political strategy behind this move. The cynical interpretation: Obama dearly wants to get out of Afghanistan, but doesn't have the political guts to do it now. So he has pooch-punted the ball 20 months down the field, and hopes to win a battle of political field position. He has designed a phony-baloney quickie surge that he doesn't expect will work, and is betting that after 20 more months of ambivalent results, the war-exhausted American public - including many more Republicans than now - will be positively demanding he get out of the country. That will give him the political cover he needs to get out without being accused of cutting and running.

One can only hope that this is not his thinking. Because if it is, the only conclusion to be drawn is that Obama is a feckless and amoral pol, and that a substantial number of American troops will die between now and July 2011 because our president is too much of a coward to tell the American people the hard truths that they need to hear now.

The less cynical interpretation: Obama's generals have assured him they can turn Afghanistan around in 20 months. So he has given them that amount of time to prove it. In the interim, he sincerely hopes to put together some workable coalition force with more troops from other countries and a rapidly stood-up Afghan security force that will allow the US to begin drawing down without undermining whatever security gains have been achieved in 20 months.

In any case, I don't believe Obama has yet succeeded in explaining to the American people what "success" or "victory" is supposed to look like, and how we will know whether it has been achieved.

Not heading into Yemen and Somalia once AlQ is driven out of Afpak?

You gotta be kidding.

Still, probably won't be Obama's problem but the next CoC's.

It takes either great courage, or great folly, to expect to turn the situation around by the next US presidnetial elections.
khairi janbek.paris/france

It is a height of sheer absurdity for US government to claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic extremists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistan’s current democratic as well as previous military governments are sheltering and protecting the leaders of that very Taliban Afghan insurgency in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan.

General McChrystal clearly laid out in his assessment to President Obama that:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

Pakistan is sheltering and protecting these Afghan insurgent groups to reestablish its writ in Afghanistan as and when US leaves.

As Times of London reported on 9/28/09, Pakistani government started to relocate Afghan Taliban’s QST leaders to Karachi to protect them from impending US drone attacks on Quetta after the submittal of General McChrystal’s assessment.

With an ally like Pakistan, US has NO chance of winning in Afghanistan no matter how much military efforts or aid US pours there.