The War Speech – and Reaction
I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaida can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaida, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al-Qaida a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
[Video to follow]
Senator Feingold opposes.
“I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.”
Earlier today, Senator Feingold was joined by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) in voicing opposition to a troop increase for Afghanistan.
Taegan Goddard gathers some responses from friendly observers of the President.
Andrew Sullivan: “I confess I do not feel those highest hopes. I do not share his confidence in American military and civilian power to turn the roiling region of Afghanistan and Pakistan into something less threatening. I see no reason after the last eight years to see how this can happen, even with these new resources. But if you rule out withdrawal right away, then this seems to me to be about the smartest strategy ahead. But I see absolutely no reason to believe that it will mean withdrawal of any significant amount in Obama’s first term.”
David Kurtz: “I know many progressives are disenchanted with this decision, but I’m struck again by how Obama is crafting a new progressive narrative for foreign policy and national security. Not just reality-based, though it is that. But an affirmative, positive rationale. Not a reaction to the conservative foreign policy orthodoxy, though it certainly acknowledges it.”
John Aravosis: “I think Obama did a good job, especially for a Democrat, on a major military speech. Democrats enter this territory with certain disadvantages. That’s why, I think, that Obama did a great job of using the pomp and circumstance of office, as Bush and other Republicans always do, to lend an air of dignity to the evening.”
Chris Cillizza: “From a political perspective, this decision will be Obama’s alone; members of Congress will use the “defer to the commander in chief” argument if questioned about their support in the coming election year. While Afghanistan will certainly be on the minds of some voters in the midterms, polling suggests that the economy remains the overriding concern for the average American.”
Nate Silver: “Politically, this seems very risky: in the long run, there’s much more downside to breaking the promise than there would be upside to keeping it. If nothing much has changed in Afghanistan and our troops aren’t getting out 20 months hence, we can presumably expect some major blowback, especially from liberals — a primary challenge from Obama’s left flank would not be entirely out of the question.”
Lots of twitters and other responses at HuffPo
Nothing I have found considers the effects of the escalation on the US or world economy, on the burden of over 50 years of supporting the war-damaged, on the likely effect on Muslims (money, manpower) around the world.
PDF No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
