Post 2- Afghanistan
On 12/1 the president announced he will be sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
You can watch it below. It is on youtube in four parts:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Or you can look at the summary of the main arguments in the speech in the Christian Science Monitor.
And the White House has posted the text of the speech online as well.
What is your reaction to the speech? Do you agree or disagree with the president's decision to go to escalate the occupation and war in Afghanistan? Why?
I know you have a test on Tuesday and I believe that is the priority for this week. So for this post you do not have to do your own original research and can use Mr. Obama's speech as your main source.
Post is due on Wednesday, 12/9 by 7pm. I look forward to reading your responses.
posted by M. Aby @ 12:56 PM
37 Comments:
What was once one of the most influential campaign topics in 2008, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has once again come to the forefront of American debate. President Obama gave his Afghanistan speech on Tuesday December 1st announcing that 30,000 additional troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. I think that Obama’s approach to the war in Afghanistan is not necessarily a new take on an old problem, but I do think it is a reasonable solution for the future. One key point I was particularly happy about was that there is an end point in sight. Obama has tentatively said that the American commitment will end by July 2011 if the conditions he has set are met. Although many Americans were looking for an end to the wars in the Middle East to come sooner, I think that at the present time pulling troops out is unreasonable. Going in to Afghanistan without a carefully formed plan has left a set of problems to be resolved; I feel that if we were to leave now, only corruption and disorder would follow. This is another reason why I like part of Obama’s plan. I think it is important that we teach Afghanis how to sustain the environment we have left for them once our troops are no longer the stabilizing force. Training afghan forces will allow the country to start to get back on its feet and function independently.
Although I like many facets of what Obama has laid out for his plan of action in Afghanistan I can’t help but be a bit skeptical. Obama’s “conditions” that he has set for American troops to be able to start coming home in 2011, could turn out to be somewhat of a curse. What if things don’t turn around in the way that was expected? Or the way it was planned? How much longer will we be obliged to stay and fix the problems? And as for the retraining of many troops, which I think is a necessary part for Afghanistan to function on its own, when will we be able to say that they’ve had enough training? Although I think that additional support is needed in Afghanistan before we decide to leave, I still have my doubts about how long it will take and in what state Afghanistan will be when we leave. Obama has implemented several key factors in what will begin the process of American troops being able to leave and Afghanistan to function independently.
Before hearing President Obama's speech, I was unclear why he decided to send in 30,000 more troops to the Middle East ... wouldn't that contradict what he was promising the American people when he was compaining? That the war would be over once he gained presidency? But Mr. Obama proved me wrong. He told us why he was sending more troops in. He explained exactly what the issue is and how we need to fix it. He mentioned that we were wasting all of our resources and soldiers in Iraq when we need to be focusing on the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He strongly persuaded me. After his speech, I strongly agree with his motives.
Many Americans infer that all Afghanis are corrupt and dangerous. Mr. Obama addressed this problem. What I like about Mr. Obama's speech is when he looked straight into the camera and promised the Afghanis that help and support is on the way. Another issue that Mr. Obama addressed was how we are going to pay for this war. (the later part of video # 3) Lastly, I thought is was really awesome how Mr. Obama referred to human rights many times in his speech ... just like how we talked about John Locke's influence on human rights into the constitution.
... I feel that the best thing we can do (as citizens) is to put our confidence and support in President Obama's decision no matter what side of the political spectrum you may belong to.
I hate violence. I think there is no use for it. I honestly think that world problems CAN be solved peacefully. I just think this entire situation got off to a really bad start. I think that the United States has a shoot first, ask questions later military strategy. They look for a military solution to kick ass and take names and subdue whoever enemy is the enemy of the decade and later look back and point fingers on how they messed up. This is an antagonistic strategy that is arguably fueling the fire of American hatred. If China bombed the United States because we were not running our country the correct way and started sending in troops to train American people in the Chinese way of life and government, I would be compelled to join a militia and fight against them. That’s part of the constitution. A huge part of the reason the Middle East is so emaciated right now is because of the terrible things the United States and the UK have done to it.
Okay, that said, I am not entirely against this strategy. While I wish that things never got messed up to begin with, I’m cognizant of the situation that the country currently faces and at this point the need for military personal. There are some things that I think are missing though. Obama says “We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies” but if this is the strategy that is widely supported, I don’t see why we have so much of the load and not other countries who purportedly think this is the best course of action. I may see why this is a good idea because a lot of the criticism that came originally was that we diverted too much attention away from Afghanistan and towards Iraq. Some good things that President Obama is doing that Bush didn’t do was have a clear exit strategy and clearly be focusing on the places where terrorists actually are. If I was asked why we stayed in Iraq as long as we did I could not honestly tell you, but at least I have some idea why we are sending young boys and girls into Afghanistan.
When I first heard the speech I was at work. A man picking up his food came in and said, "Oh not this idiot..." and continued to babel on about how moronic President Obama's plans are. I on the other hand think that Obama's plans are a step forward towards ending our occupation in the Middle East, securing a democratic and peaceful form of government, and maintaining our relations on an international level. I think that his deliverance was very concise and slow, like he usually does. His speaking dialect is always appealing even when he tackles subjects that aren't always fun or exciting.
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan, I agree with President Obama. We must provide assistance to the Afghani's. The reasoning behind this is a quote that Martin Luther King Jr. said. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This phrase really explains, to me, why President Obama is sending troops to Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan face injustices daily from terrorist organizations. President Obama describes these organizations as cancer to the middle east. Spreading their policies of hatred into the citizens. I agree with this statement because terrorist groups seem to manipulate texts, like the Koran, to bolster their own cause.
I also agree with the president's thoughts on escalating efforts in Afghanistan while depressing efforts in Iraq. President Obama explains that 32000 soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan, while 100000 soldiers were stationed in Iraq. For a war that was supposed to be taking place in Afghanistan the numbers seem to be a little off. As the war progressed, it seemed like America was dabbling in multiple affairs at once, straying away from the real mission; halting the spread of terrorism and establishing a strong Afghanistan. Clearly, the efforts need to be increased. General McChrystal says, "the situation in Afghanistan is more serious than he had expected". This shows the dire need for more troops if someone of great importance is there and thinks there needs to be a greater effort.
I also think that this is a smart move because it will "bring the situation to a responsible end". The president sets a timeline, which is a very good plan because there needs to be some sense of urgency.
There needs to be a larger amount of stationed troops in Afghanistan so that the work done prior to today is not lost. If the government does not send more troops, the work the armed forces has done in the past will deteriorate.
On the other hand, I did have one problem with something President Obama said. I have always had a hard time with the weapons of mass destruction issue. At the end of his speech when he is worried about the use of nuclear weapons, I was confused. I do see the controversy in Pakistan or Iraq having nuclear weapons because terrorists could use them. But I also think that it is quite ironic that we store the largest amount of nuclear weaponry right here in the United States. I do see reasons why, but the whole concept of us not allowing others while we have so many gets on my nerves.
One thing I do not like is the fact that the President used West Point as his stage. President Bush did this many times as well, and I think it is a way to evade tough questions from an audience that isn't as deferential on the subject. It's not like the military soldiers there can oppose his view publicly. I wish he would have chosen another place to deliver the speech, but this is not as important as the context of his plan.
From what I remember and through some research, Obama has been clear through his campaign to now that more troops would be necessary in Afghanistan, and he has always opposed Iraq. I respect that. However, what I do not buy, at all, is that the war will be “won” by 2011 - Obama said he will be pulling troops out by 2011, it could be argued that he doesn’t believe it will actually be won by then but it is just a timetable. Well, the war in Afghanistan is a complex one. Once we pull troops out in 2011, the Taliban will simply move back in (and by move back in I mean pretty much stay where they are, since they are still heavy in Afghanistan). We will need to be a prominent force in Afghanistan for many years to come, many years after 2011, and not just a military force. So, if we stay and fight, lose lives, and then leave in 2011, what will be the purpose? I don’t believe that he will pull troops out in 2011 because if he does he will have extended a war for no reason and result. Does this sound familiar?(Nixon)
I would like to hear Obama tell us that we have two options; we stay in Afghanistan for the long haul, finish the job, and let the military personnel make the call when we should exit, or we can leave what President Bush started immediately. The fact that he is sending more troops now but putting in a three-or-so year exit strategy is not the right call, in my opinion. However, it is coincidental that in three years there will be an election which he will be running for the presidency again.
One thing I do like is the fact that he acknowledged that it will take more than just a military force to win the war. We cannot make the mistake of leaving Afghanistan out to dry, like we did after we funded them to fight off the Soviets. Another thing I like about President Obama is his recognition of where the war should be fought. It’s Afghanistan, not Iraq, that poses the greater danger to America and the world.
First and foremost, I am terrified of war. I hate the whole idea of it – it seems to totally defeat the purpose of learning the Kindergarten rules like “Be nice,” “Say please and thank you” and “Don’t run with scissors.” Instead of being nice, we’re killing. Instead of saying please and thank you, soldiers go into survival mode: act first, ask questions later. Instead of running with scissors, we’re running with M16 and M4 rifles.
My opinion is in no way meant to disrespect the armed forces. I know that they are a necessity to the survival of a nation and the protection of its citizens, including me. Still, when I’m 18 years old and look around at my friends and classmates and think, “They, we, could be part of war,” I get incredibly freaked out.
As to President Obama’s proposition to send in 30,000 more troops over the next 18 months, I initially don’t know how to take a stand [2]. In my ideal world, soldiers would be brought home because there would be no need for them to fight in war. In reality, I know that the Middle East isn’t stabilized yet. As of right now, I’m not totally clear on why we actually invaded in the first place. Rumors have circulated that it was for National Defense because of 9/11, or that it was for oil profits, or so that Bush Jr. could finish what his dad couldn’t. However, I could have my invasions totally confused: I really don’t enjoy following war stories because they’re incredibly sad and scary. Still, I did some background checking on the war in Afghanistan.
The United States invaded Afghanistan with the United Kingdom under Operation Enduring Freedom in October of 2001 in response to the September 11th attacks. America was [is] specifically looking for Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members, along with any other governments who are safeguarding these terrorists, in order to end the terrorism. Most recently, since 2006, troops have been fighting increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, record-breaking drug trafficking, and working with the local government (that has very limited power) outside of Kabul. However, since the end of 2008, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (now less than 100 members strong) have been working separately [1].
After seeing a rough outline of the facts, I have to agree with President Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and try to start bringing them home in July of 2011 [2]. I would rather troops get in, work hard, get the work done and come home than let them dwindle in the Middle East. It seems to me that President Obama and his top officials have outlined a plan and are moving forward with a clear goal in mind, something that is essential for making smart decisions and being effective. I also agree with President Obama because he is my president. He is the elected Commander in Chief with top-ranking officials and military geniuses to help aid him in his decisions. Yes, I could disagree but at this point in time, I have to trust in my government as the more educated source to do what is right for our country in the best way possible. It is also true that "The president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions." according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on December 2, 2009 [1]. This gives me hope that our government will adjust to do what is right for our country.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
2: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p02s01-usmi.html
The war in Afghanistan has been on the mind of the American people at least in part since 2001. It’s been around longer than World War II. It’s been around longer than the gulf war, and it’s been around longer than the Iraq war. It’s caused thousands of deaths, and it’s caused thousands of families to be broken. I am inclined to agree with Jacob on this one. I hate violence too. I agree that every conflict in the world can be solved peacefully, but I won’t dwell on this for purposes of discussion. After watching the speech in its entirety and reading the commentary provided as further research, I feel generally well educated on President Obama’s objectives and goals.
I find it interesting that the President chose to address this issue in the present moment. During the Obama campaign, I was a die-hard supporter and worked hard to help Obama get elected. I was a fan of his goals and his objectives and his rhetoric. While many people have failed to see the point in Obama’s lofty goals now, I disagree. The ideals and goals that the Obama Administration has set out to achieve are still just as relevant as they ever were, and I don’t feel it’s appropriate to judge a President (Democratic or not) by only a year, especially when they inherited such a deep mess of muddled agendas and internal problems. The President cannot pursue international relations in depth until the country he or she lives in is stable first. However, when the War in Afghanistan is concerned, I begin to lose faith in Obama’s stance.
First of all, war is a waste of more than just lives. War wastes every possible aspect of society. It wastes money and resources that could be spent in other areas. It lays families to waste when their loved ones never come home, and it also wastes the energy and tax dollars of countless citizens. In George Orwell’s novel 1984, war is seen as a purposeful waste that keeps the masses from getting any higher up in society. I agree that war limits human progress and shapes society based on fear and a perception of what evil is. Little do people ever realize, but war is one of the most evil aspects of humanity. When President Obama says that in order to retain security and re-evaluate a timetable as needed, I start to wonder, “does Mr. Obama know what it’s like to be in a war?” Especially a war for a reason that is less clearly defined than it ever was. Of course, not being a soldier myself, I am not 100% positive of what being in Afghanistan is like at the moment, but I’ve done enough research to know that it’s not the same as bumbling over to the mall and watching a movie with some friends.
Second and perhaps most importantly, how does anyone know what will happen from this increase in soldiers? I personally believe that to evacuate all troops would be a more responsible and respectable thing to do. Admit mistake. Show that not all Americans are as self-centered and ignorant as we are cracked up to be. The role of America is not to be a world police power that constantly patrols the earth for signs of any possible enemy. If we continue to do so, not only does our image in the world get worse and worse, but we become stretched thin and risk fragmenting and polarizing our population even more than we already are. I’m not saying everything we’ve done in Afghanistan has been a waste, because that’s as untrue as saying George W. Bush never lied. The point is to reduce the damage and the waste of war, rather than accentuating it and adding a marked increase in the destruction.
Please Mr. Obama, please listen to yourself. Listen to others. And most importantly, don’t do anything to rash. I don’t know how long Afghanistan can stand that. And I don’t know how long the American people can stand it either.
I was rather surprised when I heard President Obama wanted to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Wasn’t this the same guy who got the Nobel Peace Prize just a few weeks ago? Still, I was interested to see what Obama had to say on the war. During his campaign, he gave off the image that he was anti-war and wanted to settle conflicts, not escalate them. Still, I can’t say I’m completely against Obama’s plan in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unlike Iraq, I feel we had a legitimate reason in going to war in Afghanistan. There still exists a threat in the country and I don’t think we should leave without our mission accomplished.
There are a few problems I have with Obama’s plan. First, I think an increase of 30,000 is too great a number to send into hostile territory. The last few troop surges in Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t seem to help the war effort. When fighting a guerilla war, there is only so much military force can do. I think we will be much more successful in defeating terrorist groups by fighting them economically and helping the Afghan government repel the Taliban from their ground. Also, if we are to use our military force to win the war, I don’t think we should advertise official pullout dates. We need to fight this war in whatever manner we choose until we win or lose interest. We can’t just say we’ll fight for a while but then we’re getting the heck out of there. Obama and the military could have a goal date, but it should be flexible depending on the situation at the time.
I did, however, agree with some of Obama’s points in the plan. I like how he emphasized the use of civil workers. He talked about training the Afghan people in skills of economics and government. This seems like a more long-term solution to the problem. Building a strong country will keep the Taliban out more than an army will. I also liked how he appealed to other nations to help with this problem. Obama stressed that this is a world issue and that it will affect every nation. I think our only chance at really defeating the Taliban is to have world support from our allies. Global help and long term solutions will end this war. Mr. Obama is taking a firm stance on the issue, but not necessarily the best one in my opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do not believe in war. Though I support people who wish to represent the United States, I do not believe that the military should be as prominent in our society as it is now. The United States spends more money on our military forces than the rest of the world combined. We are very prone to jump to military action, being extremely paranoid about our national security. I’m unable to comprehend why some people are such military enthusiasts. When I heard on CNN that President Obama planned to deploy more troops to Afghanistan I was extremely dismayed. He had claimed that it was his plan to remove troops from the Middle East, so why was he sending more all of a sudden?
As I watched the President’s speech I learned why he wanted to send more troops. It is still his goal to pull out of the Middle East; it just can’t happen right away. He is approaching this situation carefully and thoroughly, doing his best to make the right decision. He discussed 9/11, explaining what has happened from then until now. This was very informing for me, because like the majority of the American people I was unaware of everything that had happened in the last eight years. People tend to lump all the Middle-Eastern political organizations together into one horrible and despising enemy that needs to be stamped out. I really liked how President Obama discussed each group separately, explaining how the previous administration was focused on Iraq (for reasons people speculate at), and how he plans to work in Afghanistan.
What made a major impression on me was that how Obama stressed that we are going to work with our allies. He mentioned the United Nations, our NATO allies, and our forming partnership with Pakistan. It became clear to me that this is not just a U.S. effort, but an effort that has been discussed with other countries as well. Instead of arrogantly striking out on our own, Obama is willing to work with other countries to solve matters, which is why our image has improved so much in the eyes of the rest of the world. I agree in making a collaborate effort to solve the crisis in the Middle East. I highly approve that we are going to work WITH the Pakistani government, not tell them what to do or treat them like terrorists. They have their set of rules in government, and we will be respecting their beliefs instead of imposing our system on them (oh sorry, we’re “giving them democracy and freedom”). He also mentioned, “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. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development”(1). I am glad that President Obama is trying to form a partnership with other countries that also do not want al Qaeda terrorists disrupting the peace. So although I do not believe in war, I feel that President Obama is making the right decisions.
One thing that worries me is the patience of the American people. Americans are very, very impatient people who want instant gratification. Slow going is not the way our society works. I hope people will have patience.
(1)http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-on-a-new-strategy-for-afghanistan-and-pakistan/
Although a do not like the Presidents views, I do believe he is reenergizing what we should have been doing from the beginning. We need to train their people so they can protect themselves from these radical groups. One aspect I did not agree with was the President's plan to draft a bill to give $1.5 billion to the country. I know this may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I don't believe it is our responsible to build up their economy. Yes some aid is necessary to rebuild what has been destroyed. Our job is not to fix every problem the country has. It is to finish the job and get out of there so our soldiers can come home.
Nobody likes war but it is what is necessary. I doubt in the violent world we live in, we could just discuss things peacefully. Every country does what is best for them. We are aiding the Afghan people to protect their people yes, but it also allows us to protect ourselves. Like it or not this is how we must solve things. I think the President did lay out a clear plan of action. I believe that if executed well, this plan could allow us to pull out of the Middle East.
When I first heard Obama was going to give a speech on the war and was most likely going to be sending more troops, I was very skeptical. I felt like a lot of people had voted for him because he made it clear when running for President that he wanted to get out of the war, at least this was the impression that I was given. He took a clear stance against it from the beginning. After listening to the speech I do see where he makes his point that things are only going to get worse if we don't send these additional 30,000 troops. He gave an end in sight by pledging to begin pulling forces out in July of 2011. I like the accelerated pace that he is presenting but it doesn't seem practical. I'm glad that he gave a specific date, but I still feel uncertainty as to whether this is actually going to follow through considering he made it sound like things were pretty bad over there. If the United States just spent all that time over in the Middle East and didn't really get much accomplished and then we start pulling troops out, it all just kind of seems like a big waste of time. We don't really know what these 30,000 troops are going to do, what if this isn't enough troops to actually get things done?
I like how Obama is planning on helping out by giving aid to the people of Afghanistan. I also like how in the speech he said "It will be clear to the Afghan government, and, more importantly, to the Afghan people, that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country." I thought he he did a good job of making it clear that we were going to help out but we were not solely the one responsible for their country.
I find the fact that he didn't really talk about the Afghan President Hamid Karzai kind of skeptical. This seems as though it could be a problem area when our troops are over in Afghanistan trying to do what their assigned to do. I think overall Obama did the best he could at the present point trying to give Americans certainty, but I still feel a lot of skepticism towards the administration in whether this is actually going to pull through or not. He made a big promise assuring that we will start to pull out in 18 months, this could end up back firing tremendously on him if the “public eye” doesn't feel as though he followed through with this enough.
For my blog post, I would like to comment on the Christian Science Monitor’s five key points on President Obama’s Speech (1).
1. “An End In Sight” It says a lot about the state of a war when a war’s end is defined as when our troops return home, not when we meet our goals. It says that this war is distinctly unpopular, as most of us just want those overseas to come back and for this whole thing to be behind us. More importantly, this indicates how ill defined our end goals are. George Bush has been heavily criticized for his “Mission Accomplished” speech even though our then mission had been accomplished: the ousting of Saddam Hussein, marking the end of conventional warfare in Iraq. The Middle East is still significantly unstable, however, and our continued occupation has been fraught with guerilla warfare.
2. “More Afghan Forces” I’ll be honest: I know little about the situation in Afghanistan. The focus had been on Iraq by the time I was old enough to pay attention. Will deploying more troops improve the situation? I would assume. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? I do not know.
3. “An Accelerated Pace” This surge of forces will be implemented at a fast pace. I would hope that any deployment of troops is as quick as need be, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the quality of deployment.
4. “Hamid Who?” The article notes that President Obama’s speech contained little reference to Hamid Karzai, the current President of Afghanistan. Karzai, apparently reelected fraudulently, is viewed as ineffectual and corrupt. To me, he represents the difficulties of bring democracy to tumultuous societies. A functional democracy requires cooperation from its leaders; it needs them to follow democratic principles. Democracy is not easily nor quickly grown.
5. “Listening Only In Part to His Generals” This section just noted that the specific number of deployed troops-30,000-is approximately in the middle of the range suggested by army officials. It also mentions that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was the plan’s primary author.
As for my personal view toward the latest surge, I find myself in this situation: http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ch/1993/ch930606.gif. I am not blind to the pros and cons of President Obama’s decision, but I am not swimming in enough experience with the issues involved to say, with confidence, what the correct course of action is. If I am pressed to choose a side, I will say I support President Obama’s surge, if only because the 2007 surge in the Iraq war seems to have been by and large a success (2).
(1) “Obama’s Afghanistan Speech: Five Key Points” by Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p02s01-usmi.html
(2) “Progress in Iraq Reshapes Debate Over War” By Jewel Samad, USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-17-Iraqcongress_N.htm
At first I was upset when I heard the news that President Obama was going to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. However, my feelings changed after watching his speech and thinking about the issue on a deeper level. I don’t think (hardly) anyone likes war, or likes the idea of putting 30,000 troops’ lives at additional risk. Despite this, I do support Obama’s decision to send the troops. It is important to remember that we do have a reason to be in Afghanistan- it was the Taliban that orchestrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11, an organization rooted in Afghanistan.
Some of the media has already labeled the War on Terror as Obama’s Vietnam. I certainly hope that this will not come to be true, and this latest action assures me that Obama is paying attention to the lessons of history. Regardless of whether we should have gone to war in Afghanistan in the first place, it would be absolutely appalling to abandon the wreck we have helped create in their country, after 8 years of intermittent fighting. The Bush administration made a major mistake in pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, on faulty evidence and under wrongful motivation. The situation in Afghanistan will continue to deteriorate until the United States makes a strong commitment to end the war, successfully. As much as I would love to see that happen within 3 years, under the schedule Obama set, I don’t know how possible it is. Completely pulling out all our troops right now would leave the country extremely unstable, continue a terrible precedent for US politics, and harm our foreign relations image- but it would save lives of United States troops. If we continue the path left by Bush, of leaving varying- but small/middle- amounts of troops there, the violence and devastation will continue, and we will be in the same position in three years from now.
I have to give credit to Obama’s nerve in committing troops to the war, to a cause we should believe in, and to providing the resources for a potential victory. I dislike the concept of the United States playing the “world police” role, but we absolutely are obligated to restore Afghanistan at the least to the condition of the nation pre-invasion. I think that arguing against Obama’s decision on the basis of “I hate war” and “peace, love, & happiness” are too easy, that’s just useless shibboleth. As a world superpower, how on earth can we tell the citizens of Afghanistan, “Oops, we messed up and shouldn’t have come over here after all. Well, have fun trying to fix your country that we’ve destroyed, but we can’t help.” Now, solutions that include funding the rebuilding of schools and hospitals, providing opportunities for education and employment- those are peaceful suggestions I support. Yet rebuilding the country serves no purpose until we can subdue the terrorist factions- which will require more troops than we currently have in Afghanistan.
Obama made a speech last Tuesday announcing a number of things, but most importantly that he is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. I am not a big fan of this new information, however after hearing what he had to say, it makes a little sense.
Firstly, I would like to mention that I am not a fan of war in any way (who is?), and I ultimately think that we should not be over in the Middle East. I have not been a fan of the war since the beginning during Bush’s presidency, and I find it even more upsetting that Obama hasn’t withdrawn troops, even though he had promised too. I know that politicians are notorious for not keeping their word, however I thought Obama would be different. I know I was probably partially caught up in all of the “Yes We Can!” hype, however being young and somewhat optimistic, I did believe him. As much as I may be convinced to lose respect for him, I haven’t. Maybe he made some false promises, but his plan is better than ones have been in the past. I guess in other words, in you are going to go to war, you might as well do it right.
I think it is honorable that he is intending on finishing what was started over there, and help train new troops so they can fight on their own. That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think it makes the pill of sending more troops over there easier to swallow. Hopefully if we can help the Afghan forces, we can get out before we have officially fought in the United States longest war. (Or have we already passed that point?)
I also like that there is an ending date set. Although this may tell insurgents that they can wait out American troops, like some conservatives have commented, I think it is smart and incredibly necessary. In my mind, even if the conservatives are right, it is still honorable to have a stop time. If we leave and the insurgents take over again, then I think we have done what we can do and that's just how the situation will be. I think we are already fighting another country’s war, and if their country gets worse after we leave, it’s not like we didn’t try. I know this may sound harsh, but America has problems of its own, and if Afghanistan is a lost cause, then it is time to leave. My only worry about this is that if we don’t succeed in what we hope to do, that the deadline will again be extended. I would again like to think that Obama would not do this, however I also hoped that he wouldn’t send anymore troops to the Middle East, so I guess I never know.
On December 1st President Obama announced he will be sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. His plan is to deploy 30,000 additional troops but he also promises to start removing troops in the summer of 2011. I liked the fact that Obama was clear and to the point and explained the issue in a way I could also understand and also expressed his idea for the solution. I agree with him that the situation in Afghanistan is bad and has not been receiving the support from troops that were necessary for us to accomplish our goal there. However, I am a little skeptical about how this huge group of soldiers is going to get into Afghanistan. The article highlighting the main points of the speech said it took five months to move the same number of troops into Iraq and Iraq had better road and a port. Also, the US had some help form the surrounding countries in Iraq. This is not the case in Afghanistan. Also, with Obama giving such a relatively clear time line as to the vents in Afghanistan, can't the Tali ban just wait until Us troops pull out? It also wasn't very clear to me that exact steps Obama plants to take to remove troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011 or what will happen if these steps aren't completed in that time line. In the third video of Obama's speech he briefly mentions how much this war will cast us. $30 billion dollars. That seems like a lot to be spending especially now with our current economic conditions. It disappoints me that Obama doesn't really address these costs extensively. It seems to me that he just sort of skips over it. In general, I think President Obama did a nice job in his speech but it still leaves me a few concerns.
When I first heard “30,000 additional troops” I was at first very put off from this plan. I wanted the war to end, and adding MORE troops to the struggle just didn’t seem like the path to ending this war once and for all. But then came the magic words that helped to open my mind, the promise to start withdrawing the troops in 18 months. For a moment it seemed like I could see the end of the war! July 2011, that was only a year away right? I would have finished my first year of college, and the war would start to really come to a close! But then the number dawned on me again, 30,000 troops...That was a lot of people, was I really sure I agreed with Obama’s plan?
After some thinking I realized that the 30,000 troops is sort of necessary. The conflict in the Middle East has been going on for hundreds of years, and we, the United States, thought that we could just come in shoot our guns a couple of times and the whole thing would stop? I don’t think that even Jesus could make it stop that easily! I think our problem is that we underestimated the problem we were going to face. By underestimating we thought we could just do this half heartedly, send a couple thousand troops here, a couple thousand troops there and then one day it would just work itself out. Big Mistake. I think that the only way we could have truly “won” this is if we gave this conflict at the beginning a thousand percent of our focus. I mean the works: a draft, turning the whole economy toward military manufacture, and dumping a majority of our budget into the war. Do I want any of this to happen? NO!! I’m I counting my lucky stars that it didn’t? Yes. But I do think that that was the only way we could have gotten this stupid war over with quickly. Granted this approach could have turned around pretty quickly and bitten us in the butt, but we’ll never truly know.
So to sum up, I do agree with President Obama’s plan to increase the number of troops, but only if there is a deadline. A deadline gives me hope that there is an actual plan to get this whole thing over with. With the new plan at least when we finally leave we can say “we tried”. The increased number of troops will hopefully increase the speed/successfulness of our time in this conflict. I also hope that everything that Obama is planning with the increases in Afghanistan forces means that even if the problem isn’t completely solved when we leave the Afghans can take care of themselves. Besides I think we’ve got a lot of stuff to work out in the United States that the funding that’s going to the war could really help with. So I say let’s do what we have to to get our troops (and money) home!
Although I have a different political ideology than President Obama, I do agree with some points of his speech given at West Point Military Academy. I believe sending an addition 30,000 troops is justified by the fact that large populations of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other members of terrorist organizations still reside there, compromising the safety of not only Americans but other countries around the world. I think it is one of the most sensible plans of action to assist the Afghan people in rebuilding their government and military for protection, enabling them to stand on their own and possibly be free from corruption. Although many would argue that this is not our job nor our place to be intervening in other countries I think it is part of our duty to help others in need, especially when it benefits the good of all. I also respect President Obama for having a clear goal: to defeat these terrorist groups using a well-planned strategy.
Although I agreed with many of the arguments and reasoning the President offered, I also disagreed with him on a few specifics. Stating there is an end in site gives hope to the American people and soldiers and clearly defines the parameters of our goal, but it is not entirely realistic. Withdrawing all troops by summer of 2011 is extremely ambitious and may cause haste in rebuilding Afghanistan. It would be a tragedy to spend so much manpower and resources trying to make progress only to put time before quality and have it collapse immediately after the American withdrawal. It is likely the work in the Middle East will not be completed by 2011, possibly causing outrage in the American public similar to the situation in Iraq. Also, it can be argued that if terrorists hiding in Afghanistan learned of this withdrawal they could just remain in hiding until all Americans were gone. Therefore, I agree with Obama’s ideas of sending more Americans to help the situation and finish what we started for the benefit of all countries, but I believe a better strategy must be developed. It is not the kind of task that should be accomplished with haste, but with careful planning and dedicated work and time.
Obama’s plan to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan is not necessary in my opinion, nor is it going to make a difference in Afghanistan at this point. Mr. Obama stated that he has a plan in mind to bring the troops back home by mid 2011, making it a reasonably short stay for them. I think this is great for the troops, but I also think, “what’s the point?” We already have troops serving in Afghanistan and training the Afghans to maintain a stable government for themselves, when we really should be building schools and helping them in various other ways. I don’t believe that it will be beneficial to send more forces (doing the same work as the current troops are) for another 18 months; it will only create 30,000 more stressed out families with relatives serving in Afghanistan and increase the danger for those troops entering Afghanistan. While discussing the entrance to Afghanistan versus the entrance to Iraq, Mr. Obama stated that, “we do not have the same kind of transportation access to Afghanistan that we did in Iraq.” It is obviously much harder and much more violent for us to enter into Afghanistan, which is another reason I disagree with Mr. Obama’s plan. I think that a better course of action for the U.S troops would either be to: a. change the way we are helping the Afghan people by being more active in their government or b. pull out troops completely. Since it is not in Obama’s plan to change our course of action in Afghanistan, I strongly believe that he should start pulling troops out as soon as possible, without sending more in.
After watching Obama’s speech I must say that, overall, I do agree with Obama in that sending more troops to Afghanistan will be necessary in order for the US to complete the objectives we went there to do. I also believe it is important to have a timeline so we know we are there to complete specific objectives. As Obama said in his speech, “The sense of urgency goes down with more time.” I completely agree with this because if a timeline is not put in place, there is nothing pushing you to get those objectives done now. However, I find Obama’s idea of starting to pull troops out in 18 months illogical. I think by setting an 18 month timeline rushes the military objectives that are set in Afghanistan. I believe that by telling everyone that the US will start pulling troops out in 18 months will cause the military to feel they need to speed quickly through objectives and this may cause them to overlook some things. Because of this, Afghanistan might not get all the help they need. Also during the speech Obama says, “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly.” Al Qaeda is a clear example of violent extremism, and to me an 18 month timeline to bring down a group as violent as Al Qaeda seems contradictory to what Obama is saying. I do think that it is necessary to get the US out of Afghanistan as quickly as we can. However, to set a timeline now, when we really don’t know what kind of reaction we will receive when 30,000 more troops are sent to Afghanistan, does not make sense to me. I think that Obama should have waited until the additional troops had arrived in Afghanistan to figure out how long the US will need to complete their objectives. At this point I can only see this 18 month timeline hurting the US later. I think that not many troops will be pulled out and Obama will be criticized, or too many troops will be pulled out too soon which would not only hurt Afghanistan, but the US as well.
I think that all of us can agree that this war has gone on long enough and the government should do what they feel is necessary to get us out of Afghanistan while still completing our objectives and helping Afghanistan. I feel that deciding how many troops to send in now and when the US will start to pull out troops are decisions not to be made at the same time. Once our additional troops are in Afghanistan and we see how Afghanistan and Al Qaeda reacts, I think, would give us a better idea of how long it will take us to be able to pull out of Afghanistan. However for our soldiers and our countries sake, I hope Obama is able to get our troops out of Afghanistan quickly, but only after we finish our objectives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sending increased numbers of American troops overseas is never easy. The troops themselves, their families, and the risks vs. the benefits must be thoroughly considered. This being said, I think that President Obama proved, in his December 1 speech, that he and his advisers had studied the situation, and he was able to provide many facts to justify his decision. In my opinion, this was a necessary attempt to gain the support of the general populace after Obama’s many campaign promises to begin pulling American troops out of the Middle East. However, as an American citizen, I am in accordance with the president’s plan to send more troops.
The United States army has been in Afghanistan at varied troop strengths since October 2001. During this time, the American public has occasionally heard about the death toll and skirmishes with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. However, we have not heard about the horrible effects of the war on the Afghani people. I was very impressed that Obama directly addressed them in his speech. If the troop surge leads to even more violence throughout the country, many more of the Afghani’s communities will be destroyed. It is important that we do not let our war destroy their lives and that our government considers the Afghan citizens in all of its further decisions. Thus, as part of the troop surge, I think that we should work to rebuild the country of Afghanistan, as we have tried to do in Iraq.
Furthermore, I agree with Obama’s plan to have American troops work with the Afghani forces to train them and eventually transfer full responsibility to them. Hopefully, allowing the Afghanis to defend themselves will help to instill a national pride in a divided and war torn country. It will also give them a solid foundation for the future. Afghanistan is located in the middle of a turbulent Middle East. Their people need the capability to make decisions and defend themselves. This will also allow the United States to begin to pull out our forces.
I was also interested in the parts of the speech when Obama referred to NATO and our other allies. Because of the far reaching effects Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, it is crucial that the United States does not fight this war on its own. While our government has lost the support of many other nations in Iraq, it is imperative that we gain and maintain their support in Afghanistan, especially when we have a designated time limit. The 30,000 United States troops cannot accomplish all of the president’s goals on their own in only 18 months. As The Christian Science Monitor article stated, McChrystal, the top US and NATO commander currently in Iraq, asked for 40,000 troops. While Obama’s decision to take the “middle ground” of troop requests and send 30,000 was reasonable, I believe that we will need the unremitting support of our allies to complete this gap.
I disagree with Obama on one significant point. I believe that while it is important to have some sort of plan in battle, including specific time limits is extremely dangerous. When it becomes the time to remove the troops, it must be done in a reasonable but not rushed manner. There is absolutely no way for the United States to accurately predict what Afghanistan will look like in 18 months. It may or may not be time for the troops to leave yet. If it is not time, what will the government do? Will they finish the war or continue with the plan to prevent a public outcry? I believe that, in the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we must finish what we have started and should not prematurely remove too many troops. We cannot just leave and allow political, social, and economic systems of the countries to fall back into shambles. Consider Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, if we had finished what we initiated in 1990 and completed the 1991 march to Baghdad, would we have needed to reinvade the country in 2003; at the very least, would the reinvasion been on a smaller scale?
As cheesy as it is, I am a believer in the fundamentals of the saying “two wrongs do not make a right”. I do understand that we, as Americans, were attacked, and need to be able to protect ourselves from future attack. I do not believe, however, that war is ever a sound solution. Therefore I am compelled to disagree with the decision of President Obama and his administration to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. What good is America doing for the people of Afghanistan, besides adding to the pre-existing chaos? More importantly, why does the United States always feel obligated to stick their noses in others business? Like I said before, its is understandable that we are trying to make sure another 9/11 doesn’t happen, but what difference are we going to make in fighting, and enflaming the tension between groups like Al Qaeda and ourselves. Obama said that “in the last few months alone we have apprehended extremists with our borders who were sent here from Afghanistan.” While this is a horrific realization, it supports my thought that being over there will do nothing to prevent what could be happening over in the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter. I believe that while we seek to protect America, there are other reasons that we are at war, and sending more troops.
I don’t understand why America feels the need to be the sort of “umpire” in every conflict that arises around the world. It does nothing and leads to nowhere. Members of Al Qaeda are not going to give up. They firmly believe in what they are doing, and nothing is going to stop them. Sending 30,000 more troops to fight for a lost cause is just sad. We are risking so many lives, and for what? So that hundreds more lives can be taken by the same group that already took thousands? That is not legitimate to me at all. Obama says that we should look to “a future that represents not the deepest of fears, but the highest of hopes.” What hopes are these, I wonder. Hope that more lives are not lost? That the 30 billion dollars a year that will be spent is not wasted? Or hope that we maintain our role as “fixer of the world’s problems”?
Dont get me wrong, I am in full support of the US, and the American government. Its when the issue goes beyond "by the people, of the people and FOR THE PEOPLE" when i begin to disagree. I understand that not all countries are able to defend themselves, but that is not the particular issue in this casse. In my opinion US government should be concerned with just that, US government, not the government in Afghanistan, especially when we have our own problems and people to be taking care of.
President Obama's speech on December 1st talked about the war in Afghanistan. He announced that we will be sending 30,000 more troops to the war after one of the deadliest years of war since the start. I think that he is definitely right in his approach to deploy more troops for this cause. Since Al Queda are still in Afghanistan and are using Pakistan as a base for terrorism, I think that Obama's approach is fairly reasonable and is probably what any president would do. In my opinion it is about time that we take care of this problem of terrorism against our country since it was not taken care of as it should have after the events of 9/11 in 2001. I am glad that we finally have a president who can take action to do the things that should have been done in the first place. It is a good thing that we are also staying for the Afghan people even though their country has come to resolve many problems. Our forces there are the only thing keeping Al Queda from taking over the country again and attacking most likely on United States soil. President Obama is doing all that he can do to keep our country save and instill justice upon others.
There is a cliché that adorns posters in middle schools and high schools warning against peer pressure: “What is right is not always popular; what is popular is not always right.” While this saying has become a little trite, it applies rather directly to the decision made by President Barack Obama. The decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan (and the conditions surrounding the infusion) was sure to be unpopular. But a virtuous politician is willing to sacrifice his short-term reputation for the long-term benefits to his constituents.
I am reminded of President Harry S Truman. Truman was constantly making unpopular decisions, and he exited office with a rather low approval rating. However, after Watergate, Americans began to reminisce about a politician who always sought to do the right thing. A politician who wasn’t afraid to forsake his reputation for the greater good.
I don’t have enough information to say whether or not Obama’s plan will be effective. But if it is, I believe we will see his vision as we look back upon the visions of Harry Truman.
I believe the deployment of 30,000 troops is a necessary evil for the continued pursuit of peace and tranquility in the world. The 2007 surge in Iraq seems to have gone over well, leading me to think that it may work for Afghanistan, too.
No politician can please everybody. But this ought not to be the goal of a politician in the first place. I firmly believe in the ability of President Obama and his staff to lead America through these turbulent times.
I think it is a bold move for President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan. The current situation is not working fast enough and something needs to be done. Opponents of this plan argue that too many lives have already been lost and that we need to pull all troops out right away. However, if we do this, all our hard work will have been for nothing. We need to finish what we started and would not be doing so by pulling out. Our goal for going into Afghanistan was to restore stability and order in the government and public life. Sometimes things get worse before they get better, but we will not know this if we take all our troops out right now.
I disagree with Obama publicly pledging to bring troops home by a set date. He says it is conditions based, but is vague on what those conditions are. I believe he only said this to gain the support of people who want the troops to come home immediately. He has already changed his view on the position since his presidential campaign. Who says he won’t change again? I believe the Taliban will simply lie low for the next 18 months, and wait for the majority of U.S. troops to leave, and then start terrorizing once again. I would be outraged if I was a family member of a soldier who was shipped off to fight in a war that will just be restarted 18 months from now.
I agree for many of president Obama’s warrants for increasing troop levels. I am especially glad that he explained that al Qaeda and the Taliban are not just the United States problem but also directly effect the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the safety of many other countries. I also agree with the current time table that Obama has established for removing our troops out of Afghanistan. I have my doubts that this time table will be followed. Remember the huge Mission Accomplished banner in 2003, 6 years later and we are still knee deep in turmoil. Though I support his sending the troops I don’t think that other issue have been properly addressed.
I realize that from a military perspective increasing troops makes fighting the enemy easier and generally helps with our success. However, I wish that Obama had at least referenced the problems with the drug trade more than just his one sentence quip. Opium funds much of the terroristic activities. You still need money to make bombs and to organize guerilla attacks. The trafficking of opium is how the Taliban gains its money. Opium also ties the farmers in the tribal regions to the Taliban. Poppies are some of the very few crops that will make a profit in Afghanistan. Thus, rural farmers will grow poppies and sell the opium to the Taliban to make money to support their family.
Sending more troops to Afghanistan without addressing the opium trade is a bit like sending troops to Colombia without dealing with the cocaine problem. I understand that the drug trade isn’t the only issue in Afghanistan, far from it. But, I do find it a bit disconcerting that Obama doesn’t talk about the drug trade at all. It is a huge problem connected to the Taliban. Stopping the drug trade might help us control the Taliban a bit more effectively as well.
I strongly believe that war is not the solution to the problems the world faces today, and I believe that steps can be taken to prevent war from happening in the first place. Like many of my classmates, I was angered and upset to hear that President Obama is sending over 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Reading his speech only helped further my qualms about this new decision.
Total American soldiers will number about 100,000 once the new troops are sent over. President Obama plans to begin withdrawing the troops in 18 months. 30,000 troops over a course of 8,000 months is an extremely large number of soldiers to try and put into a country with no infrastructure and a crude road network. What’s really scary is the large number of boys, women and men who are going to be put in harm’s way because of this decision. And what are they fighting for? The response of most people would be to get rid of terrorism and to stabilize the country. My question is: How can we expect to solve the rest of the world’s problems when we have problems of our own? We cannot expect to thwart terrorism by sending troops to countries that have corrupt governments and harbor terrorists, expecting to expel them that way. This plan certainly hasn’t succeeded yet.
While I support President Obama’s pledge to withdraw the troops in 18 months, I believe that this is unrealistic. Sending in more troops will only escalate the problem. The generals and commanders in Afghanistan are not going to want to withdraw troops for a job that most likely will not be accomplished by July 2011. Due to the instability in Afghanistan and the tactical problems of providing shelter and getting troops in to this landlocked, mountainous country, I believe the goals for the next 18 months are extremely unrealistic. I do understand that President Obama inherited a large problem when he took office, in the form of the war in the Middle East, and that this decision must have been hard for him to make. However, just in looking at the years we’ve been involved in this war, I don’t think the terms of withdrawal are going to be as soon as the Obama administration pledges them to be. Once we get to 2011, who’s to say we won’t decide there’s an even greater need for more troops? I find it sickening. It’s also never a good idea for a President to give a withdrawal date. The enemy only has to last for 18 more months now, and once the U.S. troops are withdrawn, the problems will resurface. America, once again, will need to send more troops back into Afghanistan. It is a vicious cycle that doesn’t seem to end. I believe the current administration needs to step up and admit that they can’t fix this problem, and withdraw all troops immediately.
My personal opinion is that war does not solve conflict, and that it has caused a lot of needless death and destruction, particularly in the case of the war in the Middle East, especially Afghanistan. While some may call me an idealist, I believe that peaceful diplomatic compromises can be reached. While trying to go after terrorists, we have decided that fighting a whole country will solve our problems. Aren’t we really supposed to be fighting against one extremist group, Al Qaeda? We’re forgetting that we can only wage war against countries, not groups of people.
Obama's first year in office has been filled with new issues such as the economy and health care, but now he goes back to revisit a new issue: Afghanistan. Even though he insured that the military troops would be deployed out of the Middle East region by 2011, Obama has issued 30,000 more troops to be sent into Afghanistan once again. Obama talks about how the conditions will need to be met before he deploys his troops, but that brings up a bit of skepticism because the previous missions of the Bush administration had changed frequently, so it will be a challenge to decide what is a right time to leave versus help set up governments. I believe that there a few problems with this strategy due to empirical attempts to resolve conflict using military force. Even though I support many of Obama's different policies about the economy and health care for the most part, I don't think sending more troops into Afghanistan is the best solution.
Mr. Obama, President of the United States of America, recently gave a speech to the American troops, public and to the general confusion felt by most American citizens about the decision to deploy an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan. While Obama's speech was given in the most charismatic of manners, I must admit that it did little to allay my doubts about the war. Mr. Obama's reasons for the war to start at all still left me questioning. I felt that in several areas, Mr. Obama was being almost insensitive to troops in Afghanistan and their families. When he said that he had personally signed condolence letters to families who had lost someone in the war, the only thing that I could think of was "so what?". The entire war is NOT, in my personal opinion, a "war of necessity" that needs to be dragged out. The fact that we are using our soldiers to ferret out terrorist groups in another country, with little to no support from that country's government or citizens, is absurd to me, especially with all of the national problems in the US right now. It might sound harsh but I believe that we should take care of our own country before helping another back onto its feet. However, it would be impossible to draw out now, and I must unhappily and begrudgingly conclude that Mr. Obama's move was a necessary one: one to, perhaps, move the end of this war into sight. Mr. Obama is stuck in a rather uncomfortable situation; call it a rock and a hard place, if you will. There is no action that he can make without inciting people. There is no easy solution to the problem that America has found itself in with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sincerely hope that the stalemate will be over soon and that America's troops will be allowed to come home.
The problem with the United States in regards to foreign policy, specifically war, we do great in the actual fighting but closing the door and ensuring stability and economic growth is another issue. The United States had a failed policy in regards to Afghanistan. We went in and effectively fought the Tailban and Al Queda and saw a reduction of their influence in the region. This supports the United States policy of engaging and promoting democracy in parts of the World. I didn’t view the initial start of the war as necessary, nor did I condone it. I felt that if we were to go in we would need to finish the job because we were effectively deconstructing the society and societal norms in that country. However, just like the United States has failed before at reconstruction for countries, it has fail again with this one.
Now we must consider the need for the additional 30000 troops to be deployed in Afghanistan. In order to properly address the situation we first need to find the cause of going and if it’s necessary. I find that it is necessary for several reasons. First the Taliban have been making a resurgence in their numbers and influence in the region. I do not find them to be in the best interest of the United States and I also don’t think acts of terrorism against the US will derive from increased influence of the Taliban. However, I do think there will be human rights abuses, increased drug trafficking out of the region, and unstable governments. These are reasons that we should reengage the region and attempt to reduce the role and influence of the Taliban. Also, some of these thing are also because we engaged in the first place, and the United States should live up to its responsibility and fix the broken situations we create.
The fact that Obama has a plan of action is a good sign that we could create more stability within that country. Also a timeline proves to many that we can reduce the numbers of troops in the region within 18 months. This will satisfy the needs of many so that these additional troops will not be there indefinitely. However, I do believe if we are to actually create peace and stimulate economic growth we should engage the country for a prolonged time period. Without additional troops though I don’t think there will be success in the region and the eight years of resources, soldiers lives should not be in vain. They should be for a cause and we should finish that cause, not cut our losses and run. Something needs to be done within the region and I cringe everytime I think of us going into Iraq without providing long term stability to Afghanistan. The support for the war in Afghanistan has decreased overtime and that’s because we’ve been failing and neglecting our duty to finish the policy we started in Iraq. I 100% agreed with Obama during his campaign for office and his policy towards Afghanistan and I’m pleased that we’re finally seeing troop levels increased, because even though we’re putting more troops in the region I’m confident that the country will benefit and there will be decreased levels of violence in the region after the 18 month time period. I hope and do believe there will be positive outcomes for this troop surge, and if there isn’t, I feel it’s only because of the failed policies towards Afghanistan during the Bush administration.
When i was watching the speech while studying for the test, A few major points suck out in my find, First point : i dont get why he would set a timetable. to me a timetable is very stupid because now our enemy knows when were gonna leave so they can just wait till were out and then conquer and create havoc all of the world (simiailar to the vietnam war but to a lesser extent) a timetable gives them and advantage. Another point is that this speech is in some ways extremely simialr to president Bush's speech to go to war with Iraq. They both are rallying support for wars that are contoversial to say the least. I thought Obama wanted to be out of afghanistan this year? I would like to know when the obama administration is actually going to make the government more transparent, instead of saying your going to and thats all. One more thing is I really dont know why we are sending these troops over because Congress isnt supporting it in anyway including funding, When you have trrops running out of food, and serving 2 year terms and then going right back to war then I dont think Congress or the executive office is doing there job the right way. The majority of congress is against this war but that doesnt mean they should leave our troops half a waorld away to sit there isolated. To win this war we need to be fully committed or not be there because we've been half in it for about 8 years and we have barely accomplished anything. War is not a pretty thing nor do I support it, but if we leave afghanistan without beating the taliban or at least doing fatal damage then I think our governmant has failed us in this regard
This was supposed to be the good war, the war that everyone agreed with. Nearly everyone in America was in favor of retaliating against those who attacked us on 9/11. But now, public support of the war is fading and people are tired of hearing about more and more dead troops in the Middle East. The situation in the Middle East is basically a giant fiasco. We made a popular decision by invading Afghanistan, but our attention was directly elsewhere before the job could be finished. Now, the Taliban has rebuilt itself in Pakistan and is once again infiltrating the Afghani government. Our soldiers don’t know where and when their enemy will strike, and thousands of civilians have been killed.
With that said, what other choice President Obama have? Pulling out troops would stop the loss of American life, but the country is still not stable. If we left there now, the Taliban would swiftly rebuild itself and all would be lost. You have to give Obama credit for being upfront and making the tough decision. I personally am strongly against war, but when you are thrust into the middle of a war that was started eight years ago, the right decision is to finish the job. Nevertheless, Obama better hope that this strategy works. Sending in 30,000 troops and beginning to bring them all back in 18 months is quite the promise and if it’s broken, the American public will be outraged.
Although I can never find a good reason to condone violence, there’s really no other choice that Obama can make. The area we occupy is not nearly stable enough to be without American involvement. If we (or former President Bush) hadn’t made a giant mistake in going into Iraq, our focus would have stayed in Afghanistan and we could be out of there by now. Instead, the war rages on and no one really knows when and how it will end. It’s not Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess and you can’t blame him for making the tough decision, but the right decision.
I support Obama's decision to add 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan whole-heartedly. Our excursions and efforts in Iraq, should've been directed at Afghanistan from the get-go. The Taliban, an islamic group of extremists, has corrupted the country with violence and intolerant policies. This decision coincides with my classwork in College Writing. We are reading The Kite Runner, a bildungsroman about two Afghan friends whose experiences document the history of Afghanistan within the past thirty years. Among numerous stories told in the book, I did research elsewhere on the practices of the Taliban and discovered several news-related atrocities. The suppression of womens' rights and publci displays of violence make the Taliban one of the cruelest groups in political history. America likes to think of itself as the savior of downtrodden people across the globe. In Iraq, our small successes were marred by how much turmoil we stirred up. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, we have the oppurtunity to make positive change, by eliminating the Taliban or else severely crippling it. Obama's plan seems sound to me, given the emphasis on working efficiently and as quickly as possible towards meeting goals. I'm particularly appreciative of his desire to replace American troops with trained Afghan police and militia as well as bolstering the weak infrastructure of the government. My own criticism is that the time table may be too short, given that there the magnitude of work to be done. Some people argue that timetables spur rebels to wait it out until after America is gone, but this would not be the case if we achieve our goals: destroying the Taliban (or else permanently weakening it) and replacing our troops with well-trained Afghan guards. If these goals are not met, we should continue to stay in Afghanistan, and any President hoping to be re-elected will put pressure on the military to complete them, given the American public's current distaste for war in the Middle East.
To begin, I hate war. I don’t think that fighting people with violence will ever actually solve anything unless a whole group is killed and war only escalates tensions. This statement is not to be mistaken with the fact that I do not appreciate what the men and women overseas are doing for our country. I know a handful of people that are overseas fighting right now and I am deeply thankful they are doing what I know I would never be able to do. As for the issue of sending troops to Afghanistan first I need to acknowledge that I am fairly ill-informed about the issue. While I have looked up the issue I am in no means an expert on what is actually best for our country military-wise. I do know that the United States has only escalated what was a very messy situation in the first place in Afghanistan and while we have kept some soldiers there, we have left it in a less than satisfactory state and we need to finally move to make it a better place than where we found it. I do agree that we need to send more troops over to help clean up the mess we made that way we can move on and hopefully be on better terms with Afghanistan.
The number of troops and what they will be doing over there is the main part of the plan that I have an issue with. I am really unsure of how many people need to be sent over to Afghanistan and I think we may be overestimating the number of soldiers needed. I feel as though we already have many soldiers over there and I think that an enhanced plan would suffice better than sending so many soldiers. I am also worried about what the soldiers will be doing over there. While I am glad that we are trying to create and national defense system, we have to be careful what type of terms we are on with them when we start to bring troops home because we do not want to give them the power to attack us. Another part of this is making sure they have a stable leader. I am not sure their current president is really open-minded enough to work with the United States to enhance the state of Afghanistan to the point the United States finds acceptable. I would prefer that somebody else would have taken power in the last election however directly placing someone of the United State’s choice into power may make them think we believe we are better than they are which will only fuel the fire of the tension between us.
Finally, back to what the soldiers’ job entails, I am hoping that we do not use our weaponry except for in extreme cases. In this war between the United States and the Middle East, many innocent civilians have been killed as well as American soldiers. The loss of these lives is a tragic thing and I hope that the guns can stay stored unless we are assaulted first. In all, I do believe that we have to enter Afghanistan with more troops to build it up but I am hoping in doing so that actual violence and warfare is nearly nonexistent although the chances of that are slim. I hope that we are able to leave them as a more peaceful country as soon as possible so that they do not feel we are being overbearing. As well, so that people living in the United States can have their loved ones who are fighting safe at home and with their families, especially their children. I hope that this move is a step in the right direction for both countries so that we can focus on other problems that could be resolved peacefully and bring our world to a more tranquil place of living.
This past Tuesday, December 1, 2009, President Obama delivered a speech at West Point Military Academy. Before, I didn’t know much about Obama’s plan, other than he wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan. However, after listening to his address, I now better understand exactly what the plan is for the 30.000 troops that will be deployed in early 2010. I feel that with a detailed action plan, the additional troops will be able to accomplish the tasks set in front of them. One portion of Obama’s plan that I particularly liked was that he provided an expectation of the Afghani people to step up and be trained to defend their own country. I feel that it is a necessary component for a smooth transition for American troops to come out of Afghanistan. By training Afghan forces, and focusing assistance in areas such as agriculture, the Afghani people will be able to see the results quickly. “And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people.”
Obama also set a timeline for when we will begin to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. In accordance to this plan, troops will begin to come home in July of 2011. I believe that although this is a giant step towards the end to war in the Middle East, I am not sure if all of the tasks at hand, can be completed in a 11 months. I do agree with Obama’s statement “the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government.” However, with such a short time frame, I have to ask if all components will be completed up to standards. I do believe that with Obama’s action plan, we will begin to see the affects in a positive manner and that troops will begin to come home as the war ends.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home