Obama says after the election it was important to reassess the situation in Afghanistan. That's what's going on now with the deliberations. The main mission is to root out Al Qaeda, Obama says. The U.S. is also interested in stabilizing the region, including Pakistan, and helping achieve peace and prosperity.
Showing posts with label obama pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama pakistan. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
The Problem With Surging in Afghanistan
Richard Engel explains that that the Afghani people just aren't that into us. They don't feel threatened by the Taliban.
Engel meets with Taliban leaders:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Engel meets with Taliban leaders:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Obama Focused on Al Qaeda in Pakistan?
Everyone is trying to figure out what Obama's new strategy will be, but I think they're all guessing at this point. If this is the strategy, it won't make the war mongers happy:
Monday, October 05, 2009
McChrystal's Foot Soldiers
I remember when no one was minding Afghanistan, including the media. About a month ago, I could barely find a story on Afghanistan, except in a publication such as Foreign Policy.
Now, Afghanistan has become a political football. Republicans don't miss a beat when it comes to exploitation.
Something's definitely awry with Stanley McChrystal, who seems like a decent guy but somehow thinks he landed the job as Commander in Chief.
Morally speaking, I think we've done too much damage in Afghanistan to leave the people behind. That would be my only argument for staying. But there are the moral implications of war itself and more troops in Afghanistan is going to equal more death.
Read McChrystal's assessment on Afghanistan here (the so-called leaked document). It's actually different than what you might expect. He's all about helping the people. He also writes things like "resources won't win this war but under-resourcing will lose it." What's that supposed to mean? That the war is never winnable? What is a "winnable" war anyway?
Meanwhile, the naysayers and critics will keep yapping until Obama announces the new strategy for the region.
Here's Rep. Bill Shuster, a republican, who's promoting McChrystal in an interview with BBC.
McChrystal promoted his plan in London:
Now, Afghanistan has become a political football. Republicans don't miss a beat when it comes to exploitation.
Something's definitely awry with Stanley McChrystal, who seems like a decent guy but somehow thinks he landed the job as Commander in Chief.
Morally speaking, I think we've done too much damage in Afghanistan to leave the people behind. That would be my only argument for staying. But there are the moral implications of war itself and more troops in Afghanistan is going to equal more death.
Read McChrystal's assessment on Afghanistan here (the so-called leaked document). It's actually different than what you might expect. He's all about helping the people. He also writes things like "resources won't win this war but under-resourcing will lose it." What's that supposed to mean? That the war is never winnable? What is a "winnable" war anyway?
Meanwhile, the naysayers and critics will keep yapping until Obama announces the new strategy for the region.
Here's Rep. Bill Shuster, a republican, who's promoting McChrystal in an interview with BBC.
McChrystal promoted his plan in London:
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)