Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
1 comment

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Line Between Our Grudging Military Mission in Afghanistan and Our Nation-Building Goals

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H3 3/27/09

opednews.com

It was disappointing, as President Obama outlined his administration's plan for Afghanistan, to hear him reaffirm that the seven-year-plus military response to the 9-11 killings in America would be his main justification for continuing and escalating that grudging mission abroad. It was little comfort that the defense of the government in Kabul represented the bulk of the diplomacy and humanitarian initiatives he outlined in his address.

In the preceding weeks, the administration and the Pentagon have made extraordinary efforts to emphasize the limits of our military forces in achieving the diplomacy and nation-building they've defined as critical to any long-term success in reversing the influence and activity of the resistant, militarized elements in Afghanistan who've identified and aligned their violent opposition to NATO's military occupation of their country with America's 'al-Qaeda' nemesis.

In the president's presentation, however, he defined that stalemated military mission as his "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."

"That is the goal that must be achieved," he said. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."

"What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer," the president asserted.

"So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks - are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can," he said.



Making his presentation, flanked on both sides by Sec. of State Clinton and Sec. of Defense Gates, the president presented a comprehensive set of goals and alongside a familiar and predictable reading of his principles of engagement:

" . . . enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . marshal international support . . . make indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs . . . recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . a new sense of shared responsibility - a standing, trilateral dialog among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . to advance security, opportunity, and justice."

To accomplish these 'goals' and initiatives, Pres. Obama called for a reciprocal contribution from "friends and allies to do their part" in providing troops and resources to complement America's growing commitment. Declaring that the mission in Afghanistan is "not simply an American problem," the president pointed to violent attacks around the world which he said were were "tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan."

He promised to work with the United Nations to create a "Contact Group for Afghanistan" to strike closer partnerships with NATO allies, Central Asian states, Gulf nations, Iran, Russia, India and China.

Leading the way in committing the humanitarian aid and economic development the president insists is integral to the stability in the region, Mr. Obama highlighted an effort in Congress to provide "$1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years - resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy" - and money for economic "opportunity zones". He asserted that, despite challenging times and "stretched resources . . . the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future."

As the backdrop for that international appeal, the president relied on familiar, fearmongering rhetoric to try and compel those nations to rally behind America's grudging military mission; describing a "shared responsibility" to "project power" for "our own peace and security."

"If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it - too - is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake," Pres. Obama said. "What's at stake now is not just our own security - it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago. That must be our common purpose today," he said.

If America was attacked again, would Pres. Obama consider Pakistan responsible and then posture to invade and occupy their nation?

To be fair, President Obama echoed the recent statements of his generals and diplomats (as well as the key NATO allies) in their acknowledgments that military force will not be sufficient in achieving the stability and security the administration insists is critical to any end to our engagement in Afghanistan. "A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone," he said.

"That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility," the president said.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

John McCain Stands With Bigots and Racists

Further Down That Bloody Path In Iraq

Calling the Bluff on the Limits of American Power and Influence

What's Really Going On In Space?

Allowing China a Dominant Role in Afghanistan's Future

Bush's Enduring Militarism in Iraq

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

    The President continues to lie ... by mary sunshine on Sunday, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:48:25 AM