Reaction to President Obama's Afghanistan roadmap

The Coffee Shop
1

In summary:

“The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked,” Obama said, stressing that stabilizing Afghanistan required an international effort, not just an American one.

He said the U.S. military in Afghanistan would shift the emphasis of its mission to training and expanding the Afghan army so that it could take the lead in counter-insurgency operations and allow U.S. troops to eventually return home.

Obama plans to send 4,000 more U.S. troops to train the army, along with hundreds of civilian personnel to improve the Afghan government’s delivery of basic services. The force will be in addition to the 17,000 combat troops Obama has already ordered sent to Afghanistan ahead of elections in August.

The 17,000 will reinforce 38,000 U.S. troops and 32,000 from some 40 NATO allies and other nations in Afghanistan.

The new strategy also calls for the United States to reach out to Afghanistan’s neighbors, including U.S. foe Iran, step up military and economic aid for Pakistan, and ask NATO to send more troops for the election and to train the army and police.

Obama set no timetable for the strategy, but he said the United States would not “blindly stay the course” and would set benchmarks for the Afghan government to crack down on corruption and ensure it used foreign aid to help its people.

He said key to defeating al Qaeda was strengthening the weak civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari in Pakistan, where he said al Qaeda and its allies were a “cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.”

The United States would give economic and military aid to Pakistan to help it root out al Qaeda from the tribal areas, but, he added: “After years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check.”…

http://www.reuters.com/...irtualBrandChannel=0

Early reaction:

AFGHANISTAN
PRESIDENTIAL SPOKESMAN HUMAYUN HAMIDZADA

“We welcome the announcement made by President Obama, agree with all major conclusions and the main outline of the strategic review.”

“We particularly welcome the recognition of the regional aspect of the problem in Afghanistan and specifically recognition that the al Qaeda threat is mainly emanating from Pakistan.”

PAKISTAN
HUSAIN HAQQANI, PAKISTAN’S AMBASSADOR TO UNITED STATES

“The government of Pakistan … believes that it is an extraordinarily positive sign that the Obama administration is thoroughly re-examining its policy toward our region, re-evaluating and reinvigorating our common efforts to contain terrorism and extremism.”

“We have been especially pleased by the new level of consultation and partnership … It bodes well not only for a stronger regional approach to a clearly regional problem, but to a more mature bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan.”

UNITED STATES
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JOHN KERRY

“President Obama’s new strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan is realistic and bold in a critical region where our policy needs rescuing.”

“Many of us have long advocated more troops for training Afghan security forces and a clear mission for our forces that are risking their lives, and this new policy is a downpayment in that direction.”

SENATOR DICK LUGAR, SENIOR REPUBLICAN ON FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

“The importance of the tasks in Afghanistan, and severity of the threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan, unites our sometimes fractious political debate.”

“The emergent Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy properly directs the deployment of substantial additional civilian capacity.”

“There should be no doubt that Afghanistan is a crucial test for NATO and the international community.”

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

“I support the president’s comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president’s plan is the result of a detailed study and is wisely centered on dismantling al Qaeda and denying safe havens in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to those who would attack the United States.”

NATO
NATO SPOKESMAN JAMES APPATHURAI

“The announcement of substantial new resources for this international effort is very welcome. This will be an important contribution to the discussion at the NATO summit on NATO’s overall approach to helping build security in Afghanistan.”

http://www.reuters.com/...el=10112&sp=true

I’m starting to see the wisdom in former President Bush’s back-burner approach to this particular quagmire. I am not optimistic.

What say you?

2

More from Reuters’ Factbox:

Here are the highlights of his speech outlining the policy:

“PERILOUS” SITUATION

“The situation (in Afghanistan) is increasingly perilous. It’s been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON AL QAEDA

“Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.”

FOCUS ON PAKISTAN

“The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan … For the American people, this border region (in Pakistan) has become the most dangerous place in the world.”

GOALS IN AFGHANISTAN

“We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States … We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

U.S. WON’T “BLINDLY STAY THE COURSE”

“I want to be clear: We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.”

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE A STAKE

“And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region – our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China.”

3

Considering my daughter is heading there next month, I pay close attention to what is going on in Afghanistan.
As long as DoD and the State Dept. (Petraeus, Clinton et al) support the plan, then there is a chance for some success. We also need NATO and other allies to play a role (thanks again to Canada).
We will never “win” in Afghanistan, but we need to at least try to diminish the resurgency of the Taliban which has regained more power in the last few years. We also need to continue to fight al Queda along the boarder with Pakistan to the south.

Afghanistan needs the very basics for their people to include security, schools, roads, hospitals, electricity and other basic infrastructure. The military can help with security and some infrastructure, but it takes many others to “nation build”.

4 
**Ambitious, sounds much like what would have come out of a pub presidency.  I think one of the keys will be the continued forward motion toward these same goals in Iraq.  So many there believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is an attack on their religion, and therefore on them and their innermost person/beliefs.  I think that as we ratchet up pressure for them to change, there will be more, and more violent, response.  Bad situation all around, and I don't know that Obama can do much better than this plan.  I AM a little unnerved by the inclusion of Russia and China in the mix, as both of these guys are generally more interested in making things difficult for us than helping us.  We'll have to watch our "allies" as closely as our enemies...**

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/26/inside-the-ring-23718486/

"On the one side were Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, who argued in closed-door meetings for a minimal strategy of stabilizing Afghanistan that one source described as a “lowest common denominator” approach.
The goal of these advocates was to limit civilian and other nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan and focus on a main military objective of denying safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.
The other side of the debate was led by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for the region, who along with U.S. Central Command leader Gen. David H. Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for a major nation-building effort.
The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state.
According to one defense official close to the debate, the key to success in Afghanistan remains eliminating terrorist safe havens and training camps, which are no longer in Afghanistan but in Pakistan.
“However, all of our actions are oriented on four lines of operation - security to set conditions for governance, development, rule of law with information operations and counternarcotics cross-cutting efforts,” the official said. "