Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - 5:57 PM

By Matthew Irvine
Best Defense archives bureau chief
Want to know what the president is going to say tonight on Afghanistan? Here's a hint: Check out what he said four years ago.
In one of the first foreign policy speeches of his presidential campaign, delivered at Washington's Woodrow Wilson Center on August 1, 2007, then-candidate Obama outlined his views on Afghanistan and Pakistan and foreshadowed his administration's policy.
"It is time to turn the page," Obama said. "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
On troop numbers: "As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban." Once in office and faced with the realities of a rapidly deteriorating war effort and resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the president deployed not 10,000 additional troops, but more than 60,000. Nonetheless, the policy goal was there.
On the end-game: "We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic." The appointment of the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to the region, the accompanying "civilian surge," and massive increase in development funding to the region all are signs of this being a main point of effort in the Obama strategy.
Back in 2007, the candidate showed the same resolve in accomplishing these goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although not perfectly executed, the outlines of the Obama strategy were all there. These lines of argument are evident in the president's policy and likely will be in his speech tonight.
Then-candidate Obama's concluding statement on the war four years ago is a useful reference for today:
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
One of the big mistakes in Iraq (prior to the surge) was trying to draw down troop levels prematurely. There was a disconnect between conditions on the ground and leadership's desire to reduce force levels, It's hard to say if that is the case in Afghanistan right now. Most of the reporting on the issue is piss poor, at best, and focuses on the human interest side of things. "Mary is forward deployed and misses her child, who misses his mom too. Mary doesn't like Afghanistan because it's dangerous and dirty and the only Starbucks is on base." Another meme is "the war is lost and we must leave no matter the cost."
Not really helpful.
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements?”
Perhaps I’m wrong, but those five elements listed sound more like policies for what needs to be done, as opposed to an overall strategy to be used in accomplishing what's proscribed in the president’s list.
So much for a ‘profile in courage’ displayed by our Commander-in-Chief. Obama whom I found interesting and supported in 2008 rather than vote for a senile old fool paired with a flirtatious nitwit has left me no option than to sit the next one out.
I think I recall Obama saying, “I would rather do the right thing and be a one term President than do the wrong thing and win a second term.” Well, by prolonging this fiasco in Afghanistan with tiny fig leaf incremental troop withdrawal he is doing not only the wrong thing but also likely will still end up being a one termer. Of course, that assumes the GOP doesn’t run one of their endless supply of Neanderthal’s against him. Disgusted.
Didn't Woodrow Wilson force black people out of the federal government?
Walt
Look at his personal attacks.
What makes you a military expert, JPWREL? Oh let me guess, because one summer you read Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz.
You call the Republicans neanderthals. I really can't take you seriously...then again, I never did take you seriously.
There is no proof whatsoever that Senator McCain is senile and yet JPWREL calls him senile anyway. JPWREL shows a fundamental lack of decency. I don't care if your son is a Navy SEAL. You're just a jerk. Being the father of a serviceman doesn't give you carte blanche to spew your vitriol on any forum. You have nothing substantive to contribute to politics and international relations.
Really? Of all the hyperbole on the internet, senility sets you off in a three post Sperg-fest? You need to ditch that hypersensitivity or you'll never be able to yell at people on the internet with the varsity.
At least we are all in agreement that Palin is a flirtatious nitwit.
My hypersensitivity approaches no where near that of JPWREL.
This is standard WashPost hogwash. For those who don't read about sponsors, this blog is paid for by defense contractors to fool fools. Insight from my blog:
Jun 20, 2011 - The War Business
One theme of this blog is to explain how nearly everything our military does is focused on making easy profits for billionaires. Major General Smedly Butler summarized this in 1933: "War is a Racket." American foreign policy is run by a cabal of ultra-wealthy people with the assistance of the "Power Elite", who are the President and his staff, congressmen, senior federal officials, generals and admirals, the CIA, professors, media CEOs, TV hosts and anchormen, and judges. They don't have an official club, but help each other rise to the top, and dispose of troublesome idealists.
Retiring Defense Secretary Bob Gates is a long-time member of the Power Elite. He began with the CIA as a mole wearing a USAF uniform for several years. Few military people realize there are CIA agents working among them and wearing the same uniform. They report all unit activities to Langley and assist CIA efforts when needed. Gates impressed all by doing what he was told, even if illegal. This allowed him to become CIA director, a position equal to that of the U.S. President. Recall that when President Obama was elected, he promised to clean house and undo all the wrongs of the Bush administration. Then why did he retain Bob Gates in a key position? A man from the "evil" Republican party? It is obvious that Obama has always been one of the "Power Elite" with limited power in Washington, who masquerades as a "liberal/progressive" with the help of our media.
Gates recently blurted out the truth about our foreign policy to a New York Times reporter, feeling somewhat guilty about the mess he helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan:
“When I took this job, the United States was fighting two very difficult, very costly wars,” Mr. Gates said. “And it has seemed to me: Let’s get this business wrapped up before we go looking for more opportunities. If we were about to be attacked or had been attacked or something happened that threatened a vital U.S. national interest, I would be the first in line to say, ‘Let’s go,’ ” Mr. Gates said. “I will always be an advocate in terms of wars of necessity. I am just much more cautious on wars of choice.”
So the USA engages in war for "opportunities" unrelated to national defense. And Gates made sure his comment was understood, adding that these are "wars of choice." That is straight talk from a retiring long-time member of the Power Elite. This statement should send shockwaves through America, yet few know because his fellow Power Elite members kept it out of their "news", while more senior members called the editor of the New York Times to complain that story was unfit to print.
They also called up Gates and told him to shut up and get out of Washington ASAP, lest he fall "out of a canoe" and die. That happened to former CIA Director William Colby (pictured) in 1996, shortly after he appeared in a CDI documentary and said now that the Cold War has ended, U.S. military spending should be cut in half. Colby never gave another interview. We now spend more on our military than during the Cold War.
Where's your blog?
This is the first time Cmeyergo has actually indicated that he was referencing his own blog. I have to call that progress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-mccains-neverending-war/2011/06/21/AGlbiSgH_story.html
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE