To follow on my Washington Independent colleague Ari Melber’s post about Rachel Maddow’s interview with Obama, Maddow asked a very good question. Obama has consistently argued for a larger troop presence in Afghanistan, but what’s the mission, exactly? And how would more troops help accomplish it?
Obama dodged this one like he was Harry Whittington seeing Dick Cheney cleaning a hunting rifle. He responded with a recitation of the compounded problems U.S. troops face in Afghanistan. Here’s the closest Obama comes to an answer:
The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants. And, we’ve got to say to the Pakistani people, we’re not just going to fund a dictator in order for us to feel comfortable with who we’re dealing with. We’re going to respect democracy. But, we do have expectations in terms of being a partner in its terrorism.
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t have anything to do with a U.S. troop increase. Here’s the video:
Crossposted to The Streak.



7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Like many progressives, Obama’s Afghanistan policy is one of his most worrying. How many major world powers have to fail there, trying to control the uncontrollable, before we learn? For historical perspective, read “The Great Game (The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia)”, by Peter Hopkirk.
Look I hate to be obvious but wouldn’t it be cheaper to just buy the poppy crop, collect and destroy it? Shucks we pay farmers here not to grow certain crops at all.
The real question is how many troops and for how long. Our troops are at the breaking point. Back door drafts and unending rotation into and out of the combat zones in the Middle East is destroying the human portion of our National Defense.
I hope that Barack is planning a whole lot of diplomatic talking out that way. Understanding and dialogue saves lives and an uneasy peace is better then bitter war.
Seems to me that if we can’t draw down our level of troops in harms way that we are going to need a draft soon.
I would think that the reasons for a troop increase are obvious. The initial task is to secure the border with Pakistan. We want to have enough troops so that when attacks are coming they are seen and met at the point most advantageous to us.
We should buy — and process! — the entire poppy crop, and then distribute the products worldwide. Millions of earthlings need palliatives for pain on a daily basis; most go without. The poppy crop could go a long way towards easing pain worldwide.
Why not?
I thought the reasoning behind increasing the number of troops is that it would mean fewer air strikes, and so fewer civilians dead and wounded, and so improve the political climate to the point where you can find a non-military solution. because there is no military “solution” short of the impossibly terrible.
MCCAIN=VOTER FRAUD
Video Evidence of McCain voter fraud
a need to watch for this election… Because this could be you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF-HEd6XnA
One would assume his website would offer an explanation of a policy goal that fundamental, if it wasn’t already obvious.