Obama's speech on Afghanistan - Full Text

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In case somebody missed it, that's a threat: Obama has declared the U.S. will act unilaterally on Pakistani soil if GoP doesn't adequately cooperate in short order.

It's an empty threat.

The only way the US can act unilaterally in Pakistan to actually affect the course of the insurgency is through an occupation - otherwise, if that unilateral action in Pakistan has no Pakistani support, you won't be getting anywhere in dealing the alleged insurgent leadership or 'havens' - they'll just keep being pushed deeper into Pakistan.

The real 'threat', if you want to call it that, here is more of an argument of shared US-Pak interests (and there may be a lot more substance that will be shared privately) - the shared interest is that both Pakistan and the US recognize the threat from extremists to Pakistan, and both recognize the threat to Pakistan from an unstable Afghanistan.

What might sway Pakistan is how extensive this 'new relationship' with Pakistan ends up being. Obama talked about improving Pakistan's COIN capacity and engaging with Pakistan by investing in the economy, infrastructure and education and making sure its 'security' is not impacted (a reference to holding back Indian transgression perhaps).

The 'threat' here is that a US failure in Afghanistan, and a perceived 'unhelpful Pakistan', would have to face both an unstable Afghanistan for decades and no US assistance or relationship, while the US relationship with India continues to expand (which it would do in any case).

Its a rather rudimentary attempt to put my thoughts into words at this point, but IMO that will be the gist of the US approach with Pakistan.

 

[Barrett]

Obama sending 30,000 more troops to afghanistan is a clear indication to partially satisfy both the army generals in favor of more troops and the people voting against it by giving them an 18 months exit strategy.

I fail to understand that what 100,000 troops have not been able to do in 8 years, 30,000 more troops will do in 18 months.

Is this an "hit and run" strategy being adopted, Obama has clearly stated the PAK-AFGHAN border to be the problem area and the main theater for their battle. This will result in a greater influx of fighters and eventually a substantial increase of insurgency in the Pakistan frontier province and parts of adjoining Baluchistan areas, resulting in anti-insurgency operations increasing PA concentration in these areas and further destabilizing the country.

Since Dec 2001 we have only seen things change for the worse and this will further deteriorate the situation in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[Cheetah786]

In case somebody missed it, that's a threat: Obama has declared the U.S. will act unilaterally on Pakistani soil if GoP doesn't adequately cooperate in short order.

Shouldnt you worry About what lies ahead then to start a new war in case u missed it You already have 2 costly wars Going.your country is in the deepest reccession and deeply in debt are you sure u wanna threatened a another country for a war IN CASE YOU MISSED IT YOU AINT IN KANSAS ANY MORE.

 

[SSGPA1]

Since Dec 2001 we have only seen things change for the worse and this will further deteriorate the situation in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Main reason is the incomptent govt. in Afghanistan which has failed to win local support and also have failed to raise a decent force even with all the help available.

 

[Barrett]

Main reason is the incomptent govt. in Afghanistan which has failed to win local support and also have failed to raise a decent force even with all the help available.

The Afghan Govt has no support of the local population and are only puppets at the hands of the Americans, majority of the Afghans will never support any govt supporting the interests of the Americans.
The help that matters the most is from the Afghans, without their help neither the American supported Afghan govt nor the Talibans will be in a meaningful position.

 

[Rank]

hhahaha WHAT A STUPID SPEECH evaaa!!!

1 Side obama said "30,000 more troops for Afghanistan 2010 on the otherside he said US looking for exit and this process will start from 2011
hahhahahhahahha

What a logic he will spend bn of $$$ first for sending troops and with in year he will call back thr thr forces (Exit) from Afghanistan in 2011

Guyz simple game US and british Govt both fooling thr own people and world. There is no BULLSHIT Usama bin laden style cartoon exsist in Afghanistan.

Pakistan Military 5-6 lacs

4 Lac military right now working on eastren border and rest of on westren border

now Zionist game simple they will first balance military on both sides

India Military in front of Pakistan 4 lac military on eastren side on the otherhand when 30,000 more troops +60,000 troops = 1 lac NATO forces -> Pakistan 1.5 military forces. Now both border balance.

I BET ON THIS TODAY NATO forces will violate Pakistan BORDER soon i was also heared that Obama offical send report "for increasing Drone attacks inside pakistan". When they will see GOP just react like before on drone attacks just "Condem" they will start this routine "border violation" everyday. later on you will see what will happen....

You willl see in future with in 1 year!!

 

[Barrett]

hhahaha WHAT A STUPID SPEECH evaaa!!!

1 Side obama said "30,000 more troops for Afghanistan 2010 on the otherside he said US looking for exit and this process will start from 2011
hahhahahhahahha

What a logic he will spend bn of $$$ first for sending troops and with in year he will call back thr thr forces (Exit) from Afghanistan in 2011

Guyz simple game US and british Govt both fooling thr own people and world. There is no BULLSHIT Usama bin laden style cartoon exsist in Afghanistan.

Pakistan Military 5-6 lacs

4 Lac military right now working on eastren border and rest of on westren border

now Zionist game simple they will first balance military on both sides

India Military in front of Pakistan 4 lac military on eastren side on the otherhand when 30,000 more troops +60,000 troops = 1 lac NATO forces -> Pakistan 1.5 military forces. Now both border balance.

I BET ON THIS TODAY NATO forces will violate Pakistan BORDER soon i was also heared that Obama offical send report "for increasing Drone attacks inside pakistan". When they will see GOP just react like before on drone attacks just "Condem" they will start this routine "border violation" everyday. later on you will see what will happen....

You willl see in future with in 1 year!!

First I would like to correct you on the current numbers of NATO forces in Afghanistan, it is 100,000 and with 30,000 more it will be 130,000.

The idea of Hot pursuits will open another front for the Americans which they can not afford and if they think they will be confronted by an army of 600,000, they are badly mistaken, the numbers will be in millions.

An Army of people is invincible

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Obama talked about improving Pakistan's COIN capacity and engaging with Pakistan by investing in the economy, infrastructure and education and making sure its 'security' is not impacted (a reference to holding back Indian transgression perhaps).

Obviously this recent development would bring some side-on Packages and certinly they would hold their reigns over the Indians a bit tighter in afghanistan but i m still not sure that Obama Admin would do that .
If you follow the past developments with Mcchrystal making noise about the growing Indian influence in afghanistan in his report followed by the withdrawing of a Pro Indian Abdullah Abdullah from the Afghan Election and Now Obama saying that he would make sure Pakistan's security i think that US prespective of involving India as a major player in Afghanistan is changing or am i getting it all wrong..?

Recently India has moved Some Part of forces out of Kashmir . Can this be corelated with recent developements in the Washington...?

 

[BlackenTheSky]

US TROOPS WILL BE BACK HOME BY JULY 2011.
Will be interesting to see..

 

[TruthSeeker]

The 'threat' here is that a US failure in Afghanistan, and a perceived 'unhelpful Pakistan', would have to face both an unstable Afghanistan for decades and no US assistance or relationship, while the US relationship with India continues to expand (which it would do in any case).

I think you are "about right" in your above take. In addition, though, one has to consider the affect on US domestic politics of this scenario. If the USA has to withdraw from Afghanistan in failure and perceived defeat, then the Democrats will surely pay the price in the 2012 US Presidential elections. So, goodbye to Obama and the "soft" Democrats, and hello to the next Republican "patriot" as President. Pakistan would, in all probability, be viewed as an enemy. My guess is that India, Iraq and Turkey would be a very major beneficiaries of US military assistance as the new USA Republican administration seeks to contain new the Axis of Terror: Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan. F-35's, Patriot anti-missile systems, etc., would be on offer at good prices.

 

[iPhone]

I think Obama’s strategy is sound. I dont think announcing the time table of possible troop withdrawal will play into Al Queda’s favor. A lot has changed, too many things have changed since 9/11. As of late American’s troops moral in Afghanistan is very low, the suicide rate among the troops is alarming, economic crisis at home is making people and politicians cringe at the idea of a prolonged war. With that in mind announcing a withdrawal schedule can give people and troops hope which will help in winning this war.

Obama has set clear and achievable goals. As I said before, too many things have changed, unlike the last time there is a huge Pakistani operation being conducted in the tribal belt, public for the most part has turned against the extremists, both in the cities and tribes, people want to see an end to violence at the hands of extremists. Now it’s up to the armies of Pak and America and Nato. Pakistan is doing it’s part very well and the results are in front of the world, no one is questioning Pakistan and it’s armies’ effort. US and allied forces can achieve the same success if they keep their eyes on the ball and advance with clear goals and objective. As long as there is no misadventure from American side i.e. Iraq the last time and this time Iran comes to mind or North Korea then I believe it is very possible that within the next few years the menace of al queda can be uprooted giving both the Afghani and Pakistani people a terrorist free region to live in. Best of luck to American and Pakistani forces.

 

[S-2]

"Pakistanis are paying the price of your SHEER INCOMPETENCY (Deliberate or Inadvertent, ask CIA) in 2002, Tora Bora."

Actually no. We defeated the taliban with about 30 Americans on the ground. That was sometime in November. We had serious issues getting troops in-country in adequate numbers. That's the fact of it. Please reference Sean Naylor's Not A Good Day To Die for an excellent accounting of the battle.

The battle itself, like all battles, was difficult and didn't survive contact. Could we have done better or done more? Perhaps better but unlikely more. Better means the perfect plan for what was a fleeting target of opportunity.

"Perfect" is the enemy of "good enough".

"OBL is still your problem not ours!"

No. He is, foremost, your problem if on Pakistani soil. That's likely been the case for eight years. That means that since our ineptitude, you've displayed more than your own fair share. Again, to what purpose is the world's seventh largest army but to secure your borders? Did they? No.

Have they secured your borders against Haqqani? No. Hekmatyar? No. Omar? No. Even your own citizens like Nazir and Bahadur? No. The last two are MOST IMPORTANT because Pakistani duplicity can hide behind such notions that OBL, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, etc may be elsewhere but there's no denying both Nazir/Bahadur's intent to wage war on Afghanistan and that they do so from their tribal lands on your soil.

"Your are occupying Afghanistan as a foreign force."

The president made clear that's not the case. Forty other nations aren't doing so either. You are wrong. Any rational Pakistani could have told you that. There, evidently, are none here.

"OBL, Mullah Omer have the right to kick your butt outta there!"

I'd ban you for that. You assign RIGHTS to A.Q. and their afghan taliban minions. I did't believe that irhabists were accepted here but I suppose that those who'd make war on Afghans but not on Pakistanis is acceptable.

You have, however, made my ignore list.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Pakistan would, in all probability, be viewed as an enemy. My guess is that India, Iraq and Turkey would be a very major beneficiaries of US military assistance as the new USA Republican administration seeks to contain new the Axis of Terror: Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan. F-35's, Patriot anti-missile systems, etc., would be on offer at good prices

So do you really think that Pakistan could make its way in the axis of evil replacing North-Korea ...?
Frankly i dought this but if thats the scenario than US would deffinately be on a course of starting the third world war .
BTW i think the Pakistan has something to offer and weather the democrats or repubs are sitting in whitehouse they all know what worth is Pakistan off ...

 

[devd]

I guess these 30000 troops are not to fight TTP but instead a part of big game, I guess after the manmohan and obama team meet, they decide their cold war strategy and denuke pak, in my thinking this 30k troop is part of that game.

 

[Solomon2]

It's an empty threat.

The only way the US can act unilaterally in Pakistan to actually affect the course of the insurgency is through an occupation - otherwise, if that unilateral action in Pakistan has no Pakistani support, you won't be getting anywhere in dealing the alleged insurgent leadership or 'havens' - they'll just keep being pushed deeper into Pakistan.

That doesn't say much good about Pakistan, but that is an excellent point. A year ago when Muslims were touting Obama as the greatest thing since sliced bread I was pointing out that his Pakistan policy was far more invasive and militant than that of John McCain, who only wanted to do military interventions on a cooperative basis with the Pakistani government. (Maybe that's because, like me, Obama spent his tender years in the company of Muslims and thus expects a higher standard of conduct from them than previous U.S. Administrations have demanded.)

Nevertheless, Obama is putting you on notice that if the U.S. sees a terrorist target of opportunity in Pakistan, it may strike, via assassination or assault, without Pakistani approval if he so chooses. (And it will be Prez Obama's choice.)