Community | November 18, 2009 | 33 comments

Obama close to Afghan war decision

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19prexy.html

Image
current89
BEIJING — President Obama said Wednesday he was “very close to a decision” on a troop increase for the war in Afghanistan and would make his case to the American people for his Afghan strategy in the next “several weeks.”

“I am very confident that when I announce the decision, the American people will have a lot of clarity about what we’re doing, how we’re going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost,” Mr. Obama told CNN in an interview at his hotel in Beijing. Most important, he said, was that he was asking “what’s the end game on this thing, which I think is something that, unless you impose that kind of discipline, could end up leading to a multiyear occupation that won’t serve the interests of the United States.”

Mr. Obama said that his “preference” on Afghanistan “would be not to hand off anything to the next president,” but did not indicate if that meant he planned to pull out most American troops by 2012. “We have a vital interest in making sure that Afghanistan is sufficiently stable, that it can’t infect the entire region with violent extremism.”

He said that Afghan President Hamid Karzai “has served his country in important ways,” but added that he has some weaknesses.

Mr. Obama’s comments came as part of a series of interviews he conducted with the major American television networks from his hotel in Beijing on his last day in China. He arrived in Seoul, South Korea, the final stop on his Asian trip, on Wednesday afternoon.

Before leaving Beijing, he met with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

Mr. Wen said China did not seek a trade surplus with the United States and wanted to balance flows, striking a conciliatory note but avoiding public comment on currency rifts, Reuters reported. Mr. Wen’s comments during the meeting were posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry Web site.

“China does not pursue a trade surplus,” Mr. Wen said, adding that his government wants “to encourage a steady balancing of bilateral trade,” according to Reuters. “Lively global trade and investment will help to overcome the international financial crisis and accelerate global economic recovery.”

China has come under heavy pressure, not only from the United States but also from Europe and several Asian countries, to revise its policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, pegged at an artificially low value against the dollar to help promote its exports. Some economists say China must take that step to prevent the return of large trade and financial imbalances that may have contributed to the recent financial crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19prexy.html
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   US Politics,   World Politics,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News,  China,  Afghanistan,  President Obama,  1 more
  3.     
    |

33 comments // Obama close to Afghan war decision

  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image

    • WHO'S MAKING A KILLING ?
      Afghanistan’s Oil Binge: 22 Gallons of Fuel Per Soldier Per Day
      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/afghanistans-oil-binge-22-gallons-of-fue....

      Wanna know why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are so expensive? Here’s one big reason: The U.S. military consumes 22 gallons of fuel per soldier, per day. And each gallon costs $45 or more to haul to the battlefield.

      That’s according to a new Deloitte study, flagged by our friend Paul McLeary at Aviation Week.

      Actually, $45 per gallon is a lowball estimate; according to the Navy, it’s more like $300 to $400. (Talk about sticker shock.) But the costs of guzzling that much gas won’t be measured just in dollars, the study warns. Fuel has to be driven in to Afghanistan’s isolated bases. Which opens up U.S. convoy to improvised bomb attacks. Which invariably leads to troops dying. “Absent game-changing shifts, the current Afghan conflict may result in a 124% (17.5% annually) increase in U.S. casualties through 2014,” according to Deliotte.

      The Defense Department has all kinds of isolated initiatives to try to cut down its dependence on fossil fuels: massive solar arrays, hybrid rides, trash-powered generators. But most of these efforts are concentrated on making the Pentagon’s domestic operations more energy efficient. For the troops in the field, it’s still a steady diet of gas.

      But let's never forget our favorite off shore corporation...

      HALLIBURTON / KBR STEALING US BLIND !
      http://current.com/items/89801957_halliburton-kbr-stealing-us-blind.htm

      "The plutocrats believe there are some things worse than war: the confiscation of special privileges; the abolition of unearned income; the overthrow of the economic parasitism; the establishment of industrial democracy. The plutocrats would welcome a war that promised salvation from any such calamities; they would also welcome a war that promised greater foreign markets, the destruction of foreign competition, more security for property rights and a longer lease on life for plutocratic despotism." - Scott Nearing — 1917

    • 2 years ago
  • montesooma
  • WhiteNoise
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • The problem in Afghanistan is not ultimately a military problem. It is a political and social problem. The real threat to stability in Afghanistan is not the Taliban, but widespread hunger and food shortages, crippling poverty, rape, corruption and a staggering rate of unemployment that mounts as foreign companies take jobs away from the local workers and businesses. The corruption and abuse by the Karzai government and the ANA, along with the presence of foreign contractors, are the central impediments to peace. The more we empower these forces, the worse the war will become. The plan to escalate the number of American soldiers and Marines, and to swell the ranks of the Afghan National Army, will not or defeat or pacify the Taliban.

      “What good are a quarter-million well-trained Afghan troops to a nation slipping into famine?” the officer asked. “What purpose does a strong military serve with a corrupt and inept government in place? What hope do we have for peace if the best jobs for the Afghans involve working for the military? What is the point of getting rid of the Taliban if it means killing civilians with airstrikes and supporting a government of misogynist warlords and criminals?

      “We as Americans do not help the Afghans by sending in more troops, by increasing military spending, by adding chaos to disorder,” he said. “What little help we do provide is only useful in the short term and is clearly unsustainable in the face of our own economic crisis. In the end, no one benefits from this war, not America, not Afghans. Only the CEOs and executive officers of war-profiteering corporations find satisfactory returns on their investments.”

      Chris Hedges, whose column is published on Truthdig every Monday, spent two decades as a foreign reporter covering wars in Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. He has written nine books, including “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” (2009) and “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” (2003).

      Peace, if it really arrived, would upset things. At present, arms expenditure and (military) aid to other countries are bolstering business. U.S. News and World Report, December 31, 1948

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image

    • Question is how long can Obama resist its generals or the military industrial complex ;)

      Afghanistan’s Sham Army
      http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091109_afghanistans_sham_army/
      Posted on Nov 9, 2009
      By Chris Hedges
      EXCERPT

      We have pumped billions of dollars into Afghanistan and occupied the country for eight years. We currently spend some $4 billion a month on Afghanistan. But we are unable to pay for whiteboards and markers for instructors at the Kabul Military Training Center. Afghan soldiers lack winter jackets. Kabul is still in ruins. Unemployment is estimated at about 40 percent. And Afghanistan is one of the most food-insecure countries on the planet.

      What are we doing?
      Where is this money going?

      There are a ton of corporations in Afghanistan performing labor that was once exclusively in the realm of the military. If you’re a [military] cook, someone from Kellogg Brown & Root has taken your spot. If you’re a logistician or military adviser, someone from MPRI, Military Professional Resources Inc., will probably take over your job soon. If you’re a technician or a mechanic, there are civilians from Harris Corp. and other companies there who are taking over more and more of your responsibilities.”

      “When we arrived in Afghanistan, nearly half our unit had to be reassigned because their jobs had been taken over by civilians from MPRI. It seems that even in a war zone, soldiers are at risk of losing their jobs to outsourcing.
      The American military has been largely privatized, although Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has still recommended a 40,000-troop increase.

      The Army’s basic functions have been outsourced to no-bid contractors. What was once done by the military with concern for tactical and strategic advancement is done by war profiteers concerned solely about profit. The aims of the military and the contractors are in conflict. A scaling down of the war or a withdrawal is viewed by these corporations as bad for business. But expansion of the war, as many veterans will attest, is only making the situation more precarious.

      “American and Afghan soldiers are putting their lives at risk, Afghan civilians are dying, and yet there’s this underlying system in place that gains more from keeping all of them in harm’s way rather than taking them out of it,” the officer complained. “If we bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, we may profit morally, we might make gains for humanity, but moral profits and human gains do not contribute to the bottom line. Peace and profit are ultimately contradictory forces at work in Afghanistan.”

      “It is this system that has broken the logistics of Afghanistan,” the officer said. “It is this system of waste and private profit from public funds that keeps Kabul in ruins. It is this system that manages to feed Westerners all across the country steak and lobster once a week while an estimated 8.4 million Afghans—the entire population of New York City, the five boroughs—suffer from chronic food insecurity and starvation every day. When you go to Bagram Air Base, or Camp Phoenix, or Camp Eggers, it’s clear to see that the problem does not lie in getting supplies into the country. The question becomes who gets them. And we wonder why there’s an insurgency.”

    • 2 years ago
  • HellastOne
    • 0
      HellastOne  

    • The World Needs to Realize War is a Waste of Time and Lives for the Cost of no Reason... im Sure SomeOne Somewheres making all the loot but at what cost?.. what Does anyOne Ever gain from Violence, Murder, Destruction and Fear thats imposed on the barely living... for the Satisfaction of Whom?.. for the Glory of Many?.. oR is it Really that our Enemy oR we as their Enemy cant look past our truths and all of our Tellings to Modernize and fix all our Dwellings so tomorrow be Cleaner and Safer for Any who wishes only to Breath in for the Day and live Love and Enjoy it with his oR her Any so those of you Few who Have Many give to the Many who Havent got any because only when we are willing and Ready to Change the Way the World works do we have a chance of Meeting the Aliens since the World May oR may very Well not be, but could plausibly be "Changing" on 2012 and oR Ending...

    • 2 years ago
  • montesooma
  • curtisreed
  • TheOuroborus
  • thewarnerla
    • 0
      thewarnerla  

    • Please be aware that if you think Biden is a democrat againt war, then you may as well believe that Lincoln was for pro-slavery.

      please wiki Biden--you will find out that Joe Biden has been on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for over 30 years now. He has single handedly been involved in every war effort the US has been involved in. He has vote for WAR EVERY time without fail.

      Who was the chair of that committee in 2001--Joe Biden. How about when we decide to get out of Iraq and head back east to Afghanistan in 2007--Joe Biden.

      I beg you citizens on current.com to email your congress people and tell them you are not down for and war spending. Keeping the money on US soil will increase jobs and decrease the need for this massive health care takeover.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • brit50
  • thewarnerla
    • 0
      thewarnerla  
    • brit50:

      lame response. you know that we need to pull out. would you want a bunch of afghans in tanks rolling through your hood in texas telling you how you are supposed to have elections.

      i didn't think so.

    • 2 years ago
  • karenazimi
  • thewarnerla
  • curtisreed
  • urbanwolf
    • 0
      urbanwolf  

    • Either 2 things could happen because of this:
      1. Obama decides to "stay the course" in Afghanistan, forcing the military industrial complex to kick into overdrive. This jump starts the American Economy quickly but lacks a long term economic solution. Possibly forcing the US into a Police State.

      2. He sets a specific set of goals surrounding either the short term or long term idea of pulling out of Afghanistan. Which will not put a larger strain on the Military Complex. Helping to ease public concern.

      Either way, I honestly do not see him pulling out the troops anytime soon.

      I'm not for war, but if he pulled out of Afghanistan now the entire country would collapse. And that would look really, really bad for us if that happened. The government of Afghanistan needs to be set up properly, secured properly, and IN PLACE. Before we can ever hope for a secure recovery.

      Idk, maybe we could just dose the whole country and solve alot of hate problems. "Give Peace a Chance"

    • 2 years ago
  • Constitution
  • JohnA
  • ChristopherX
  • H3ADLINE
    • 0
      H3ADLINE  

    • More meat for the grinder. The world will be better off when we stop playing empire, but with war this profitable, I don't see it happening. What a wonderful system we have.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • the guy in suffering analysis-paralysis. I think his key problem is that he has drunk the "Obama's IQ is off the charts" Kool-Aid and feels the need to prove he's smarter than Bush. Just adding more troops (as requested by his hand-picked General) looks too Bush-like. I envision Obama sitting on the toilet scratching his nuts in a quandry and waiting for inspiration. "I have to prove I'm smarter than W"

    • 2 years ago
  • dabne
    • 0
      dabne  

    • Obama is still picking out his toilet paper? He needs to shit or get off the pot.

      I guess the troops in battle need to wait several more weeks.

      I love how Obama uses the word "violent extremism." It begs the question, "What kind of violent extremism?" And why won't he say it? He wouldn't say it at Fort Hood and he won't say it now. Why?

    • 2 years ago
  • clownpuncher
  • vans1170
  • montesooma
  • dabne
  • PirateSauce
  • ZeldaMasterZapp
  • thewarnerla
    • 0
      thewarnerla  
    • ZeldaMasterZapp:

      hahhahaha, very nice. Then he would go to court to say that they aren't his. After DNA testing they find that the kids are hybrids from the Bush 'coalition of the willing' to gang bang the poor afghans.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  

    • This should be interesting. He either needs to give a significant increase, or yank everyone out of there and let SO do their jobs.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewarnerla
    • 0
      thewarnerla  
    • Ares:

      well you almost got it right. just stick to the get the troops home factor. that will equal jobs, us domestic spending can therefore be increased. there's to much good that would happen if we brought them home.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • Ares:

      I'm not following you. You want to bring the troops home... for job creation? What do you think they're doing in the military? It's their job. Even if we did bring home every single American troop overseas, it's not like every single one of them is going to be immediately discharged and join the workforce. Inflated labor markets are just as dangerous as deficit labor markets.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos