Obama speech: World Reaction

Everybody at once, fingers down throat.

It is not possible to help the Afghans in the short time of 18 months to do what they should have done long ago. This is an exit strategy based on 1) inflicting as much damage as can be on the Taliban, 2) mounting an offensive in Pakistan against the Taliban and rooting out al Qaeda. Then, get out of town with bombs birsting in air in time for the next election. Hoorah.

You.re  welcome

ty for keeping us informed, the updates are useful

The speech was a safe one, but little was said about the responsibility of the Karsai government to uphold their part in efforts to fight corruption.  Also, other than saying the war will cost 30 billion this year, he did not address whether we can afford this war, which is perhaps why he is only giving it until July 2011.  It's possible we don't have the funds to give it any longer, or he knows garnering support from the Congress in election years--or ever-- for an unpopular war that is siphoning precious monies that should be spent here will be an impossible mission.     

I know the speech was for the American public, but it was viewed internationally as well.  If he could have included the responsibility and valued trust of the Afghan people for making a choice between supporting the Taliban or an evolving fair and just government that promises to work for their best interests within thier tribal forms of  government, the U.S. would appear less of an occupier and more as a partner to the Afghan people.

For the hawks it was a great day, and please correct me if I am wrong here.  Nothing was said of counterinsurgency stratedgy advanced in McChrystals reports of winning hearts and minds.  The emphasis seems to have changed to protecting American interests by militarialy suppressing Al Qaeda, all one hundred of them.  Invoking 9-11 in the introduction of his speech suggested the reason for escalation, not about freedom or democracy for Afghanistan.  This is a different message with the focus on the enemy--if we can find them. 

The doves were quasi pleased by the short commitment, and the hawks were served by using military might.   If it works, then we will celebrate their decisions.  If not, I think we know what will happen. 

The hawks got their escalation of 30,000.  The alternative might have been no military escalation, instead it appears that the focus will be totally an immediate influx of troops to engage and secure areas.  This is possible; however, training the necessary Afghani troops to maintain those positions is questionable.  And this is where the July 2011 withdrawl gets murkey.  Even if NATO sends 10,000 requested troops the total troop commitment is less than needed as reported by those who know, not by me. 

I agree with most of your comments.  The portion on the exit strategy was given with the caveat "if the conditions on the ground permit".  Make no mistake, even if they are able to get all the surge forces there by end Jun 2010, that would only allow 12 months to train, equip a non-existent Afghan Army. 

We shall also see how quickly these Marines can be deployed into theater. 

For the most part President Obama went along with General McChrystal's recommendation, but you could tell from this speech that he did not have his heart in it.  He didn't speak with the same vigour he normally does. 

The emphasis on the exit strategy was start to withdraw in July 2011 depending n the conditions on the ground.

The President said there would be a review on the performance of the surge in December 2010, the following year 2011 leads up to an election.  If he succeeds in starting a partial withdrawal and has some success it may just help him get re-elected. 

you could tell from this speech that he did not have his heart in it.  He didn't speak with the same vigour he normally does.

  
Thank you cowpoke!  Thats what I was searching for!  Something was missing, and I sensed a reticence, except for the part that he challenged those who compare Afghanistan to Viet Nam, and he was correct in the points that are different, but there are comparables. 

The timely withdrawl can only be successful if the Afghani troops can step in and there are sufficient numbers of them.  Right now there are from 30-35 thousand Afghan troops, and if they use the "pay to be on our side" method, this can be increased.  But what would be a reasonable number of trained Afghan troops for us to withdrawl and not lose the controlled territories?  If Karsai can win back the trust of Pashtun, they could be a source from which troops can be drawn.  This is an important factor because all the Taliban are Pashtun, and this would automatically shrink their source of support.   

If Karsai can win back the trust of Pashtun, they could be a source from which troops can be drawn.  This is an important factor because all the Taliban are Pashtun, and this would automatically shrink their source of support.  

Good luck with that. 

cowpoke

It's just a thought : (

The Afghanistan Speech – Editorial, New York Times: For far too long — mostly, but not only, under President George W. Bush — Afghanistan policy has had little direction and no accountability.

Mr. Obama started to address those problems at West Point, although the country needs to hear more about how he intends to pay for the war and how he will decide when Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own. The president’s prolonged and leak-ridden policy review had fanned doubts here and abroad about Mr. Obama’s commitment. He showed no reluctance on Tuesday night. Over all, we found the president’s military arguments persuasive. Image from