Obama and Afghanistan: You Can't Handle the Truth?

The Obama White House keeps running smack into fundamental and inconvenient contradictions concerning its tough slog in Afghanistan. Most recently, on Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declared that pulling out of Afghanistan is "not a decision that's on the table" for President Obama. Yet a few days earlier, he had said that the Obama administration can only succeed in Afghanistan if it has a partner there that "is free of corruption and transparent." That description certainly does not fit the Kabul government—not even close. So how can the Obama administration hold on to both of these notions: that it will stick with this war and that it cannot triumph if the Afghan government and its security forces are not effective, competent and honest?
Looking for an answer to this critical question, I asked Gibbs about the apparent conflict between these two ideas at Monday's press briefing. Here's the exchange:
Advertisement
Advertisement
Q: One thing I don't understand, Robert, on Afghanistan, last week—
GIBBS: Just one? (Laughter.)
Q: Well, one big thing—but thank you for reminding me that there's more than one. (Laughter.)
GIBBS: I was going to say, if you've narrowed it down to only one, maybe you should come to the [next White House Afghanistan strategy] meeting.
Q: Happy to. (Laughter.)
GIBBS: I understand from April apparently you've got to walk a long way away [around the White House, due to anti-war protesters] to get to the—(laughter.)
Q: I'll make the sacrifice. (Laughter.) Last week you said that it was clear from—
GIBBS: I'm sorry, who said?
Q: You said—
GIBBS: Okay.
Q: —from that podium that last—that for there to be success in Afghanistan, you needed a partner that was free of corruption, and transparent. Now you've also said today that pulling out of Afghanistan is just not on the table, not under consideration. Well, what do you do then if you don't have a partner that's free of corruption and transparent? Because right now that seems to be a very open question about the government in Afghanistan.
GIBBS: Well, look, you have to ensure, as we dedicate more resources, that you have that type of partner; that actions are taken to ensure that there's confidence and credibility. I think many of us read the story today about—from —I think it's from—my numbers may be a tad off on this, but from 2002 to 2008, two generals in Pakistan mentioned that of the six, more than—a little bit more than $6 billion that was to go to aid the Pakistani army, approximately $500 million reached its intended target. I don't think it's any wonder that our efforts, particularly based on aiding the Pakistan army over that time period, was seen as not altogether very successful—and now we know why. We have to ensure that we have a partner that is capable of partnering with us as we go through this.
At this point, other journalists jumped in. One reporter asked, "You mean in Afghanistan?" Gibbs said no, he was talking about Pakistan:
I'm simply using an example in a region of what happens when you don't have a partner that is an effective partner and willing to do what has to be done to make progress. It's just simply—
But, another reporter interrupted, "it sounds like you're stuck with an ineffective partner. If you can't pull out and you've got a bad partner, what do you do?" My point, precisely. Gibbs went on:
You take steps to make sure that your partner is ready, willing, and able to assist in a way that is effective and matches, through their effort, the resources that you're dedicating to deal with this problem. I use that example because in many ways for that six-year or seven-year period of time, nothing was done.
Before I could, someone else asked the obvious follow-up:
Q: Well, then are we doomed to more problems with Karzai because he's not transparent or not cooperating or corrupt?
GIBBS: ...I think—I think that we are clearly going to have to take actions to ensure that everybody is working collectively to get this right. We—no amount of additional American resources that are siphoned off and not going to the problem that they're directed at, no increase or amount is going to fix a problem if those resources ultimately don't get to where they're going.
Now, something of a small feeding frenzy was underway:
Q: Then how do you make sure the resources get to where they're going? You've just quoted what happened in Pakistan. Why are—
GIBBS: We will work to ensure that they do. I think that's the very least that any of—that anybody can ask if we're dedicating the lives of men and women in our uniform to ensure that this is done in a way that ultimately protects them.
The issue here, of course, is how can the Obama administration ensure that there's a decent government and an effective security force in Afghanistan? Gibbs never detailed that. Nor did he address what would happen if Washington failed to ensure that such a partner was available for the war effort in Afghanistan. Throughout this exchange, it was hard not to think of Vietnam, where the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were never able to ensure the existence of a competent and corruption-free South Vietnamese government. To make the Vietnam metaphor more pointed, as Gibbs was speaking, protesters calling for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan were holding a "die-in" at the White House gate—an action that Gibbs said he was not aware of—and Gibbs even used the phrase "the best and the brightest" during the briefing, while referring to the US soldiers serving in Afghanistan.
After I had posed my question, other reporters in the room sensed that the White House is in a bind, and they pounced. My intent was not to trigger a gotcha moment. But as Obama moves ahead with his Afghanistan policy review—prior to rendering a decision about whether to send more troops—he has to contend with this dilemma. He must do so not only in his behind-closed-doors policy sessions with his national security team, but in his conversation with the public about the war. After all, this may be a difficult truth to handle, but it's not a hard one to see.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
Comments
The war is over
Well, no matter what strategy Obama uses, the war is still essentially over, except for all the killing. In fact, if he does increase the troops, his own party will just put more pressure on to set an exit date:
http://watching-history.blogspot.com/2009/10/war-in-afghanistan-2001-201...
OMG. He actually said "the
OMG. He actually said "the best and the brightest?" A chill went down my spine remembering the book. Did anyone mention it to Gibbs? Good gawd, my brother was drafted for that damn war,made it home alive but he's never been the same.
Did anyone bring up Bin Laden?! We need that bastards head on a platter!! Only thing I want to stay there for,then leave asap.
WHY DOES OSAMA BIN LADEN HATE THE USA ???
MAYBE IF OUR CORPORATE RUN MEDDLING IN OTHER PEOPLES RESOURCES; JUST MAYBE THAT DETAILED MAP WOULD GIVE US A CLUE. AYE ??? THE PEOPLES HISTORY BY HOWARD ZINN AND DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY BY KENNETH C. DAVIS ARE BETTER MAPS THEN THE CORPORATE MEDIA HIDE AND SEEK GAMES/ AND PARTIAL TRUTHS ABOUT WAR PROFITEERING AND RESOURCES BEING TAKEN FOR BLOOD. FREE LUNCH BY DAVID CAY JOHNSTON REVEALS MUCH CHICANERY AS WELL: SOMETHING SMELLS BAD THAT IS A FACT.
Handling the truth...
You're on the right track. We're in Afghanistan to "clear the way" for the oil companies to build pipelines across that country. That's the only reason.
Take away the fuel, fire goes out
One part of the phenomenon that we read about called 'Afghanistan' is the opium trade. They say that Afghanis are cultivating opium, which gets turned into heroin, and sold in Russia, Europe etc. How about dealing with the other end of the whole problem, and talking about drugs in modern/western societies?
One way to shut off the revenue flowing east would be very simply for Big Pharma to start turning out opiates/replacements, and sell them cheap or even for free to the apparently heavily addicted populace, and follow that up by arresting, convicting, and then DEPORTING the dealers etc. The same stuff goes on in the United States and involving Mexico, so get to the heart of the problem, here, and in Europe, and wherever else, and let these other countries figure out how to take care of themselves. Also, has The Government done an analysis to make sure that there aren't any Americans etc. involved in the Afghan drug trade, aiding and comforting the enemy, there? Here and there we hear people calling the US an empire, giving outsiders one more thing to shake their fists about, and it bears remembering that part of the British empire's evolution involved...the opium trade.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/india/opium.htm
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/asia/china/opiumwar.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7460682.stm
"I should correct you. It was not two centuries ago. Under the British Raj, an enormous amount of opium was being exported out of India until the 1920s."
Soooo....having said all that, are we in a 21st century opium war, essentially? GB left their mark on half the world, spreading english, religion, and apparently, opium dependency. (WHAT was in that tea, again? LOL)
Maybe instead of bombs, they need to drop books. And then, get out of the way, and let those people figure out their own 'way forward'.
Final final final question, are all the allegations about the CIA essentially promoting opium trade baseless? Is there anyone from this country that was thus involved, somehow? Are we somehow in the business of creating the problems that this country then promises to solve? How much is known about all aspects of the opium and heroin trades? How much of the problem actually originates here in the United States, in Europe, or elsewhere external to places like Afghanistan? Would the Afghanis be a lot better off, maybe, if everyone including their neighbors concentrated on helping secure borders? It has helped along the US/Mexico border, would an effort in that direction benefit Afghanistan?
Somehow, some way, other countries are going to have to deal with this phenomenon also. But it'll be easier for them if western countries are dealing with the dealers on our own streets, shutting off the revenue completely. Europe has to think about borders, they have to use the 'D' word, deport, sending people home, back where they came from, WITH their dope and their politics, send all the Bob Marley wannabe's packing right back home. Maybe isolationism doesn't sit well with the 'give the world a big cookie' crowd, but there are times and places where it's wiser to just slam the door until/unless people remember their good manners and stop shaking their fists and doing whatever else.
Maybe a good starting point would be trying to define, and then publicly demonstrate, the size, scale, and scope of the heroin problem in more modern countries, such as ours, and how that problem then adversely impacts other countries where government is less organized and thus less able to deal with the problem.
Drugs drugs drugs, war on drugs, maybe if they just legalized it all, and let people get high for .25 a pop, the business model driving the entire mess overseas would stop. Have American farmers grow the stuff under contract with the government, or something, and encourage Europe to do the same, keep the money local, keep the problem under control, hey, Obama wants jobs, right? Ok, staff those medical cliinics, then. Make 2010 the Year That America And Europe Sobered Up. Or At Least Switched To New Heroin Lite(Made In USA!). LOL
Sure, it's not really a laughing matter, but the joke's on us if we keep wasting 100's of billions of dollars to try and regulate and control what goes on overseas when at least part of the problem is in our own back yard, and will yield itself a lot more readily to treatment and enforcement etc. Pluck first the splinter from thine own eye etc. Someone doped up on heroin is not necessarily a public threat. The guy with the baggie of dope and the guns, that's running from the cops might be, though. If they can figure out how to deal with addiction here, then maybe our military doesn't have to be Over There. That's my view.
Klaatu marachas necktie
No more big pharma please...
Sorry... I'd rather see Big Pharma out of my life altogether.
I'm sick of the drug argument. The Taliban had dramatically *reduced* opium production when they were in power. Opium production has *skyrocketed* since the western invasion. Don't take my word for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
Over ninety percent of opium sold in the world orginates in Afghanistan. Who is making money off this? The bulk is not being made by the Taliban that's for sure. US and NATO forces have had many opportunities to destroy opium crops over the past eight years. Now they complain that it is so high?
It's Air America all over again (no, not the movie):
Taliban and opium
You're absolutely correct pointing out this little known fact about the Taliban's harsh penalties for opium growers before the West got involved.
Wrong...
The good reason (in this doves opinion) for us to be in Afghanistan is that unlike Vietnam, it is a country which hosted the worst terrorist attack in history against us. Their is a super villain alive and kicking and plotting just across the border in a vast no man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. To imagine Bin Laden potentially sponsoring a revolution in nuclear armed Pakistan is quite easy.
All of this makes this military effort as different as night and day from Vietnam. Another great difference is that we have a very powerful allie in this effort in the government of Pakistan. They are making a strong effort to move against Bin Laden from their side and we from ours.
We can no more consider giving up this cause than we could versus Hitler.
It's you who is wrong...
Sorry... planning for 911 came from operatives in several different countries, including Germany. And if you seriously consider Pakistan our allie, you're not doing enough hard work with your research.
Bin Laden is only a convenient excuse for invading Afghanistan. The real reason behind the war is to "clear the way" for the oil companies to build pipelines across Afghanistan. Just research your own government's websites for proff of this, e.g.:
1998
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm
----
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mr. MARESCA (Unocal Corporation). Congressman, I am not here to defend the Taliban. That is not my role. We are a company that is trying to build a pipeline across this country.
Mr. ROHRABACHER (R - CA). I sympathize with that. By the way, you are right. All factions agree that the pipeline will be something that's good. But let me warn you that if the pipeline is constructed before there is a government that is acceptable at a general level to the population of Afghanistan and not just to international, other international entities, other governments, that your pipeline will be blown up. There is no doubt about that. I have been in and out of Afghanistan for 15 years. These are very brave, courageous people. If they think they are being stepped on, just like the Soviets found out, they are going to kick somebody back. They are not going to lay down and let somebody put the boot in their face. If the government that is receiving the funds that you are talking about is a government that is not accepted by a large number of people in Afghanistan, there will continue to be problems. You say you have had a positive relationship with all the factions. That is what you are presenting to us today.
Another Quagmire
Mr. Corn has identified a major issue in Afghanistan today of corruption and lack of transparency.
Why does the United States government continue utilizing the "best and brightest" from the same mindset pool of Democrats and Republicans with repeated foreign policy failures resulting in high human costs and high financial expenditures in the billions of dollars and possibly in the trillions of dollars creating chaos and less security?
The quest for war was rapid and without much deliberation, not necessarily the hallmark of a vibrant and strong democracy with a robust free press throughout our mainstream news media.
We're not in Afghanistan to fight terror
Anyone who thinks we are there to fight "terror" is a complete dunce. We're their for geopolitical desires, we want to control resources and influence our enemies, Russia, China and Iran. Cup o' Caspian anyone?
Like the FBI showed us in 2002, in 2002 there were about 200 members of Al Qaeda left, down from around 800. Do the math supporter o' war. That's 200 two zero zero. Lol, America is one great idiot.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-09-1acover_x.htm
Lol, the radio advertisements for employment at the CIA that I listen to on my local Russian radio station always begin the same: "Do you speak Russian, Chinese or Farsi? Start your exciting career today!"
This military adventure started on January 17, 1991, remember? Doesn't anyone remember the incubators and George Bush 1 blathering about protecting democracy (Kuwait is a monarchy, Iran is more democratic). Our foreign policy with respect to this issue has been completely consistent from one administration to the next, American leadership is nothing more than a scam and to think of ourselves as a democracy when half the nation doesn't even bother to show up to vote makes the opinions of most Americans nothing more that mindless dribble. 32 million Afghani's, 200 Al Qaeda.
Maybe we should debate 'torture' for a few more years, lol. American morons, for the trillions we've dumped into destroying Iraq and Afghanistan, we could have quite simply given each of their 65 million residents about $50,000 a piece to get rid of Saddam and Al Qaeda, and trust me, they'd love us. After what we've done, they will always fight us, as evidenced by the suicide bombers. Ever been so pissed you'd suicide bomb someone? Doubt it. America is a tard-fest and doomed for destruction.
Reason for Afghanistan involvement
Agreed... right on the money.
afpak war
dear mr. corn:
here's a question you'll never ask; at least not of mr. gibbs: is the stategy for afpak the equivalent of nixon's viet nam strategy from 1968 - 1972? in short, extend the war so as not to compromise a re-election bid? ending wars is messy business. massive blame, and a preciptous drop in poll numbers is not an unlikely event. the awful devil in this strategy is the delivering of americans and afpakis to their deaths to facilitate a second term. nixon did it. obama is essentially third term cheney/bush. why would he not be disposed to the same evil? because he's a star? because he is above reproach? only the naive would forget that he's a politician. will the status of forces agreement in iraq too be subject to change? or will 150,000 mercenaries be enough to keep the peace until 2012? these are hard and responsible questions. they are also suggestive of a devious, cold-hearted, immoral, political gambit. but who would ask them other than me? god, i hope i'm wrong. we shall see.
sincerely
lawrence fitton
Another November 1, 1963?
Sounds to me this White House is getting ready to pull on Karzai something like what was pulled on Diem and his brother on Nov. 1, 1963.
Blame the "partner"
You should note that the Nazi's did the same thing in Eastern Europe: bribe & set up puppet states - and then blame them for battle losses! The comparison extends: poor weapons (because you are afraid they will be turned against you - which they occasionally ARE!); complete "fairy-world" promoted back home - so that the home population will not guess at the truth or even be able to intelligently evaluate the bits that slip through. All this is done under "National Security" wraps, so that any questioning the truth of the prop-line will fear arrest (and worse) for saying anything different (leads to the "shrug?).
We may note that the British - almost alone among occupyers, LAUDED their "partner" troops - at least as long as they won the war! But then, they tended to choose ethnic troops traditionally hostile to the previous majority dispensation - as the US TRIED to do in 'Nam.
The woes of aggression under false pretenses, and the spreading feeling of inevitable defeat - and the justice of such an outcome. Fear coming home to the warmongers - as it did to the "SS".
Another date
I think another date to look out for is January 31, 1968. We get something like that in Afghanistan, poll numbers will be diving to the floor.
Yes you can handle the truth.
The Taliban stopped the opium production and we stopped the Taliban from stopping the opium production. As long as the opium is flowing through our pipeline we have achieved our goals.
It's a drug war. Anyone complaining about cheap and plentiful heroin?
I didn't think so.
Stop the largest military budget bill in US history
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate approved the largest military budget bill in the history of our nation: $626 billion.
Next, the bill will be sent to a conference committee and then back to the House and Senate for final passage.
There remains a short window of opportunity to stop this wasteful military madness.
Tell your members of Congress to vote "NO" on the 2010 defense appropriations bill:
Malalai Joya's book 'Raising my Voice'
Glad to see how many of you are clued in on this :) I just wish Australians gave a toss so we could get our boys and girls out of there, it appears they honestly think they are being sent over to assist the Afghan people.
Just finished the excellent book, 'Raising my voice' by a woman Afghan politician of great courage and integrity, Malalai Joya. She makes it very clear that the Afghans don't want military 'help', they just want everyone out of there, especially the US, so the Afghan people can start flushing the corrupt war criminals and warlords and their puppet Karzai out of their parliament and put in some honest representatives who will look after people and restore women's rights, for which she is a leading advocate. She makes the point that in practice, many women are actually worse off than they were during the rule of the Taliban! But the freedoms must be gained by the Afghan people if they are to take permanent effect. (And if they can't do it, why should any one else think they can?)
She is confident this can be achieved if they don't have to deal with foreign interference which bolsters the corrupt individuals. USAID is named as a major offender there.
Vietnam parallels
I've been talking about the resemblance between the Afghan situation and the Vietnam War for a while, but the parallels are getting so extreme it's surreal. We've once again failed to learn the lessons of history, obviously.
I have a proposal for a new way forward in Afghanistan: let's carpet-bomb the Afghan cities and villages with bundles of cash, wrapped in notes saying we're sorry for making such a mess of things and hope this will help fix things up. This would be cheaper than what we're doing now, and it would get the aid directly to the people without the corrupt politicians and generals getting to siphon most of it off. Paying of reparations is a tradition in the Islamic world, so this would be culturally appropriate.
I believe this would deprive the Taliban of much of their support; certainly, those who joined up for pay would quit, many others would find strict religious discipline much less attractive once they can afford some serious materialism.
I think this could work - it sure couldn't do any worse than way we're going now!
That's an interesting idea
That's an interesting idea and I'd be anxious to see how it played out with the people on the ground.
CherokeeGirl
It bothers me that the
It bothers me that the Taliban cut off the fingers of those who have voted. It bothers me that they throw acid in the faces of little girls on their way to school....BUT
We have our own problems and when people are oppressed, it is incumbent upon them to rid themselves of the tyranny. They cannot expect us to do it for them when they don't appreciate us anyway. They have many reasons not to appreciate us.
I liked it when we went in after 911 and bombed the hell out of the Taliban. It was great how women were again able to attend Universities and people were opening up hair salons and TV repair stores. But it's up to them to maintain their own freedom.
Our job is to catch Bin Laden and defeat and dismantle Al Queda worldwide. Therefore, we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on a cold war, a spy war.
I'm sorry that the Taliban will slay innocents when we leave, but when the people allow themselves to be oppressed without fighting back, that's what happens. It has always been this way on this planet. The people must rise up to save their own nation.
Like we must rise up and save our own from big corporations and banks choking us.
UGG Classic Cardy boots ugg
UGG Classic Cardy boots
ugg classic cardy cream
UGG Classic Cardy black
UGG Classic Cardy sale
ugg cardy
ugg classic cardy
ugg classic cardy oatmeal
ugg classic cardy boots
classic cardy boots
cardy boots sale
Ugg cardy boots sale
UGG Classic Cardy grey
bailey button
ugg bailey boots
ugg button boots
ugg bailey boots
Ugg Bailey Button sand
ugg bailey black
Ugg Bailey
bailey button boots
bailey button boot
Ugg Bailey Button Boots
Ugg Bailey Button Chocolate
Ugg Bailey Button black
Accidentally come here , I am incomparable to enjoy myself when i appreciate your beautiful article from my deep heart!Ugg Boots
Everything dynamic and very positively!Ugg Boot
I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.Ugg Boots Sale
Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so farUggs
Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.cheap ugg boots
Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.uggs on sale
Only One word to characterize such a great post “WOW” that was a very interesting readugg boots uk
Timberland Classic
Timberland Classic Boots
Kids Timberland Boots
Mens Timberland Boots
Womens Timberland Boots
Tiffany Jewelry
Many people look in the wrong
Many people look in the wrong places when they are trying to see
why things are are like they are in the USA (and worldwide as well).
They keep looking at the effects rather than the cause. The cause is
not oil, or riches, or power plays for dominance over others, or
the drive to make sure you are the one who has it comfy cozy in
life. The real cause is rejected by many of the American public.
America walks around as though it is still a Holy Nation consecrated
unto God, while at the same time it embrases illicit sex, violence,
selfishness, and drugs and murder and all sorts of wicked ways. Many
of my fellow citizens here in America no longer eben know what wicked
ways really are - they call the good bad, and the bad good. This is a
definate indictor of the state of our Union, which reflects the state of
it's people. You do not like the current leaders in Washingtom DC?
Why not? After all, they simply reflect all the choices 'We The People'
have made over the years.
The following is the truth of the matter, the real cause as to
the downward trend in the USA. As you read it, please keep
in mind that Americans pride themselves on being God's
country:
These people make a big show of saying the right thing,
but their hearts aren't in it.
Because they act like they're worshiping me
but don't mean it,
I'm going to step in and shock them awake,
astonish them, stand them on their ears.
The wise ones who had it all figured out
will be exposed as fools.
The smart people who thought they knew everything
will turn out to know nothing.
When the Son of Man [Jesus] returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day.
In those days before the flood, the people [We the People] were enjoying
banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his
boat. People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came
and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when Jesus returns
< Matthew 24:37-39 >
the Good News:
For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal
life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save
the world through him.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.



