Showing posts with label United Nations Security Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations Security Council. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

1,050 Indian Islamic Scholars And Clerics Against ISIS

Ban Ki-moon
Ban Ki-moon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Indian clerics issue fatwa againt ISIS, declare it un-Islamic
Over 1,050 Indian Islamic scholars and clerics have issued fatwa against the Islamic State terror group and described its acts and actions as against the basic tenets of Islam ..... "Islam shuns violence while Daesh perpetuates it," the edict said. ..... Abdul Rehman Anjari, president of the Mumbai's Islamic defence cyber cell, collected the edicts from Muslims scholars and leaders over the past few months. ....... These fatwas are in 15 volumes, and copies were sent to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and other leaders to convey Indian Muslims' views on IS activities....... It urged the international community to take immediate steps to eliminate this terror group that has caused mayhem in the region and is spreading its tentacles in the South Asian region. ..... The signatories to the fatwa include the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari, head priests of Dargah Ajmer Sharief and Nizamuddin Aulia, functionaries of Mumbai's Raza Academy, Mumbai's Jamait Ulema and the Ulema Council. Hundreds of imams and various religious leaders have also endorsed it. ...... Anjari said muftis and imams of all sections and sects of Islam have condemned the activities of Daesh and acknowledged it has tarnished Islam's image. ..... The fatwa was issued at a time when reports say that Daesh mercenaries are trying to lure Indian youth to join them.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

The Response To Benghazi Has To Be In Tripoli

Operation Enduring FreedomImage by US Army Korea - IMCOM via FlickrGaddafi not only did not respect the UN Security Council resolution, he lied about it first, then openly came out not only defying it, but also went on to threaten Europe. Attacking his troops that have encircled Benghazi is not sufficient. Because the orders are not coming from the outskirts of Benghazi. The orders for those military acts are coming from Tripoli. It is fundamentally important to destroy the command and control centers that are based in Tripoli. All that infrastructure that makes it possible for Gaddafi to make his ground maneuvers have to be destroyed.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, March 18, 2011

Barack Obama Proved Me Wrong On Race And Libya

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...Image via WikipediaI was one of Barack Obama's earliest supporters when he ran for president. But the guy confounded me by absolutely refusing to hold discussions on race. Instead he became president and pumped billions upon billions into inner city schools.

Posturing on race, that was Jesse Jackson. To Obama race meant getting the kids some good education. I could not argue against that. No you-love-me-you-love-me-not race talk for my man Obama.

He was right. I was wrong.

Recently I have been impatient with him on Libya. Bomb the shit out of Gaddafi, I thought. But Barack waited and waited and worked behind the scenes until the Arab League did the right thing, until the UN Security Council did the right thing.

He was right. I was wrong.

And now you will see some real democracy action in Libya. The rebels will take over Tripoli, but not at the point of a gun. You take over Tripoli by organizing mass protests. That is the way it was always meant to be.

Don't Let Benghazi Fall
Gaddafi Just Did The Bin Laden Thing: He Threatened America
Democracy's Despair
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Don't Let Benghazi Fall





New York Times: Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya: some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi..... the world had only days, or even hours, to head off a Qaddafi victory...... “What everybody is focused on is drawing a line, literally in the sand, around Benghazi, to prevent Qaddafi’s forces from capturing the city and staging a bloodbath,” said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch. “If Qaddafi wins, it could kill the moment in the entire Middle East.” ....... Libya’s deputy to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, who last month broke with the Qaddafi regime, warned that if the international community did not intervene in the next 10 hours, there was a risk of genocide

Hindustan Times: Gaddafi announces 'decisive battle' today: Misrata, the country's third city, has a population of half a million people. It lies 150 kilometres (90 miles) from the capital Tripoli.

BBC: Libya: Red Cross pulls out of Benghazi fearing attack: Government forces say they have captured Ajdabiya, the last town before Benghazi, but the rebels deny this..... "We are extremely concerned about what will happen to civilians, the sick and wounded, detainees and others who are entitled to protection in times of conflict," said Simon Brooks, head of the ICRC mission in Libya. ..... Jalal al-Gallal of the rebels' Transitional National Council in the city said there would be a "massacre" if they did not intervene. ..... "He [Gaddafi] will kill civilians, he will kill dreams, he will destroy us," he told the BBC. "It will be on the international community's conscience." ..... "Let's save the martyred Libyan people together. Time is now counted in days, or even hours. The worst would be for the Arab League's call and the Security Council's decisions to fail because of armed force." .... Asked about targeted strikes, she said all options were on the table.

Bloomberg: Qaddafi Hits Rebel Capital, Son Says War ‘Finished’ in 48 Hours: Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, scoffed at yesterday’s United Nations Security Council discussions about authorizing a no-fly zone. “It’s too late,” he said in an interview with EuroNews television, according to a transcript on its website. “In 48 hours, we will have finished our military operation. We are at the gates of Benghazi.” ..... Libyan government forces continued to fight pockets of rebel resistance Ajdabiya, a city 100 miles (160 kilometers) from Benghazi, and attacked the blockaded city of Misrata, the last rebel holdout near Tripoli. ...... “The situation in Benghazi is calm,” Essam Gheriani, a spokesman for the rebels, said by phone yesterday from the city. “We are not concerned by what Saif al-Islam said. Our armed forces have taken all the necessary measures to protect Benghazi. Qaddafi has been trying to take over Misrata for two weeks. How would he manage in Benghazi that is a much bigger city than Misrata?” ...... “I don’t believe that any member of the Security Council could take the position of a spectator when people are being killed daily and cities demolished,” he said. “What are they waiting for before intervening?” ..... at Qaddafi-paid African mercenaries are headed toward Benghazi in a convoy of 400 vehicles. The Security Council needs to impose the no-fly zone, and go further in authorizing air attacks on Qaddafi’s ground troops, within “10 hours.” ..... In his EuroNews interview, Qaddafi said rebels should flee to Egypt while they can. “We have no intention of killing them or taking revenge on these traitors who have betrayed our people,” he said. “We say to them that they can run into Egypt quite safely because Libya no longer belongs to them. A lot of them have already left for Egypt.” ...... Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini proposed the convening of a European, Arab and African summit to discuss the almost monthlong fighting in Libya ..... David Cameron said leaving Qaddafi in power would send a “terrible message” not only to the Libyan people but also to those in the region who desire democracy

Voice Of America: Libya’s Opposition Tries to Define Itself to Gain Western Support: Despite anxiety and fear, Benghazis still widely support the 11-person provisional transitional council -- a group of men and women who lead the opposition. .... Council spokesman Abdul Hefda Ghoga offers this explanation. “We would like to assure everybody that once Gadhafi is gone it will be a much better place than it has been for the last 40 years. We will have true democracy in Libya. There will be a civil state that is independent and enjoys its civil rights,” he said. ...... Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi portrays the rebels as religious extremists. "It is a small group from Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt and Palestine who entered cities, they entered Zentan, Zawiyah and Benghazi and then what happened? They recruited youngsters, juveniles under the age of 20 upon whom the law cannot even apply," he said. ..... In Benghazi, there is little talk of establishing any kind of Islamic caliphate. For out of work Faraj Saber, it is all about having more of a voice…and a choice. “We should have more democracy, election…nobody rule us or control us for five years, fours years, not 40 years, like Gadhafi,” Saber said ..... “Once we are through this stage, we will work on developing a national dialogue among all Libyan forces in order to put the basis for the next stage. And we will have to develop together a civil organization to establish a constitution and then we will look on how to move into an election period,” Ghoga said.



Voice Of America: Libyan Forces Pound Rebel Areas, UN Security Council Meets: Ajdabiya is the last large town on the road to the opposition's eastern stronghold of Benghazi. The Libyan government urged Benghazi residents to hand over weapons and support a government advance on the city.

Reuters: Rebels fight to stall Gaddafi's army in east: "There are a couple of tanks there that sporadically fire at the city. But Ajdabiyah's city centre and other access points are peaceful and not one man from Gaddafi's force wanders around." ..... Earlier on Wednesday, weary government soldiers returning from the frontlines told journalists that they were meeting renewed resistance from rebel positions near the city. ..... The rebel army, made up largely of young volunteers with little training and defectors from the government military, has been hammered by the artillery, tanks and warplanes of Gaddafi's troops and looks now to be relying on guerrilla hit-and-run tactics to stay in the fight.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, November 08, 2010

The United Nations Conundrum

President Barack Obama escorts Prime Minister ...Image via WikipediaAmerica never felt like 200 little, small countries got in the way when it has exercised or threatened veto power. But America always complains that the UN is too inefficient as an organization to be propped up, too mushy to be given more power. The powerless, the poor do look poorly managed, don't they? They don't seem to have their s____ together. Should not America take the lead on changing that inefficiency?

The Importance Of The Private Sector

America has not lacked any confidence in its use of veto power. America should not lack confidence to tidy up the UN as an organization. Of course it is poorly managed.

My Third World People Don't Get To Vote In This City

It is kind of like the schools in the poor neighborhoods in this country. Of course they are poorly managed. But their number one ailment is lack of funds, not lack of great management. The management would improve if they had more money.

I do think there is going to have to be a total spread of democracy before the UN can truly
President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minist...Image via Wikipedia be the world government it deserves to be. But you can not wait for that total spread of democracy before you can start giving the UN more teeth, before you can shift the power from the Security Council to the General Assembly, before you bring about fundamental reform in the way the UN works. The hiring and firing practices will have to meet the highest management standards.

The long term idea can not be to add a few more countries to the list of veto carrying powers. The idea has to be get rid of the veto power itself. But then that idea looks far fetched at this juncture, just like the idea of one global currency, a total elimination of all nuclear weapons, elimination of hunger.

But then it is idealism that drives the best kind of pragmatism. You have to have lofty goals to make the best short term moves.

Each country having its own separate currency is quite a ridiculous idea. It makes no economic sense. And some day. Similarly it is a lack of world government that gives rise to all sorts of regional blocs, regional conferences, and yet another global conference on this and that. One world government would be vastly more efficient. And the long term goal is to have rule of law for nations just like we have rule of law for individuals in many countries.

New York Times

Countering China, Obama Backs India for U.N. Council a priority for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ..... a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate ..... Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. .... China has been especially cool to the idea of permanent Security Council membership for rival Asian powers Japan and India. ..... a 10-day trip to Asia that will take him to four countries, all democracies; it is no accident that China is not on the list ...... “India has emerged.” .... India’s foreign policy establishment had been divided on the issue, with some arguing that the United Nations is increasingly outdated compared with groups like the Group of 20, where India is a major player. ...... Obama on Monday signaled the United States’ intention to create a deeper partnership of the world’s two largest democracies that would expand commercial ties and check the influence of an increasingly assertive China. ...... the almost giddy reaction to the president and his wife, Michelle, in the Indian press
President George W. Bush and India's Prime Min...Image via Wikipedia ..... Mr. Singh emphasized the need for the two countries “to work as equal partners in a strategic relationship.” ..... Obama arrived in India on Saturday bearing a big gift: his decision to lift longstanding export controls on sensitive technologies ..... “It’s a bold move — no president has said that before .. It’s a recognition of India’s emergence as a global power and the United States’ desire to be close to India.” ..... during a question and answer session with college students, one demanded to know why he had not declared Pakistan a “terrorist state.”

Between India and the United States, a Defining Partnership two men, neither known for their social ebullience ..... Obama called the relationship between India and the United States “the defining partnership of the 21st century.” ..... Obama has called Mr. Singh his guru ..... Mrs. Gandhi had notoriously noxious relations with President Richard M. Nixon. ..... Singh, a reserved academic 14 years his senior .... Mr. Singh replied that he appreciated Mr. Bush’s straightforward nature. .... Obama and Mr. Singh .... Both are better policy wonks than glad-handing politicians. Both enjoy adulation on the global stage that seems to have eluded them at home.

Our Banana Republic The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. .... the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. .... From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
Manmohan Singh, current prime minister of India.Image via Wikipedia ..... The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans ..... the levels of inequality we’ve now reached may actually suppress growth. A drop of inequality lubricates economic growth, but too much may gum it up. ..... places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies. .... Rising inequality also led to more divorces, presumably a byproduct of the strains of financial distress. ..... losing a job or a home can rock our identity and savage our self-esteem. ..... we’ve reached a banana republic point where our inequality has become both economically unhealthy and morally repugnant.

Senator Gillibrand Has New York Home on the Market about two hours’ drive from New York City

What Obama Can Learn From India Many American business executives now consider India the "new China" -- an increasingly important manufacturing and service hub as well as consumer market for their products .... India's economy is growing at an impressive 9 percent this year.

My Endless New York London was the commercial and financial center of the world from the defeat of Napoleon until the rise of Hitler ..... By the time I got to Paris, most people in the world had stopped speaking French (something the French have been slow to acknowledge). .... The French have a word for the disposition to look insecurely inward, to be preoccupied with self-interrogation: nombrilisme — “navel-gazing.” They have been doing it for over a century. .... It looks outward, and is thus attractive to people who would not feel comfortable further inland. It has never been American in the way that Paris is French ..... They shout at one another all day in Sicilian dialect, drowning out their main source of entertainment and information: a 24-hour Italian-language radio station. ..... the cultures of contemporary London are balkanized by district and income — Canary Wharf, the financial hub, keeps its distance from the ethnic enclaves at the center. Contrast Wall Street, within easy walking distance of my neighborhood. As for Paris, it has its sequestered quarters where the grandchildren of Algerian guest workers rub shoulders with Senegalese street vendors, while Amsterdam has its Surinamese and Indonesian districts: but these are the backwash of empire, what Europeans now refer to as the “immigrant question.” .... at night they return home to Queens or New Jersey .... New York — a city more at home in the world than in its home country ..... As a European, I feel more myself in New York than in the European Union’s semi-detached British satellite, and I have Brazilian and Arab friends here who share the sentiment.
Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...Image via Wikipedia... there is no other city where I could imagine living .... . Chance made me an American, but I chose to be a New Yorker. I probably always was.

For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out a horrifying escape: from poverty, from forced marriages, from the abuse and despondency that can be the fate of Afghan women. .... The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: Their family is their fate. .... Her primary job is to serve her husband’s family. Outside that world, she is an outcast. ..... The most sinister burn cases are actually homicides masquerading as suicides .... the extremes that in-laws often inflict on their son’s wives .... at least 45 percent of Afghan women marry before they are 18; a large percentage before they are 16. Many girls are still given as payment for debts, which sentences them to a life of servitude and, almost always, abuse. ...... “No one in our family has asked for divorce. So how can I be the first?” ..... “The thing that forced me to set myself on fire was when my father-in-law said: ‘You are not able to set yourself on fire,’ ” she recalled. ..... “My marriage was for other people. They should never have given me in a child marriage.” ..... Many women mistakenly think death will be instant. ..... Halima, 20, a patient in the hospital in August, said she considered jumping from a roof but worried she would only break her leg. If she set herself on fire, she said, “It would all be over.” ..... Iran shares in the culture of suicide by burning. ...... Even badly burned and infected patients can speak almost up to the hour of their death, often giving families false hopes....Two weeks after his mother set herself on fire, he stood by her bed as she stopped breathing.

Paul Krugman: Doing It Again as in the 1930s, every proposal to do something to improve the situation is met with a firestorm of opposition and criticism. As a result, by the time the actual policy emerges, it’s watered down to such an extent that it’s almost guaranteed to fail. ..... the small rise in federal spending was effectively offset by cuts at the state and local level, so that there was no real stimulus to the economy.
President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manm...Image via Wikipedia..... The case for a more expansionary policy by the Fed is overwhelming. Unemployment is disastrously high, while U.S. inflation data over the past few years almost perfectly match the early stages of Japan’s relentless slide into corrosive deflation. ..... conventional monetary policy is no longer available ..... the Fed is shifting from its usual policy of buying only short-term debt, and is now buying long-term debt ...... the Pain Caucus — my term for those who have opposed every effort to break out of our economic trap — is going wild. ..... our domestic inflationistas — the people who have spent every step of our march toward Japan-style deflation warning about runaway inflation just around the corner ...... The only way the Fed might accomplish more is by changing expectations — specifically, by leading people to believe that we will have somewhat above-normal inflation over the next few years, which would reduce the incentive to sit on cash. ..... He’s facing intense, knee-jerk opposition to his efforts to rescue the economy. In an effort to mute that criticism, he’s scaling back his plans in such a way as to guarantee that they’ll fail. ...... as the slump goes on and on.

Where Marijuana Is a Point of Pride almost one in 20 residents qualify for cannabis treatment .... a disproportionate amount of debilitating pain diagnosed in men in their 20s ..... Nederland’s ganja-tinged reputation

In Lame-Duck Session, a Hint of the Governing to Come Conservatives warned that Democrats might use the session to push through their cap-and-trade plan to curb climate change by limiting carbon dioxide emissions; environmentalists hoped that was possible....A fuller picture will unfold as Republican leaders grapple with the demands of the Tea Party and Democrats cope with internal tensions caused by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to run as her party’s leader in the House, despite last week’s drubbing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

A still of 2004 Osama bin Laden videoImage via Wikipedia
Good evening. 

To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here — at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more. 

As we know, these men belonged to al-Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al-Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. 

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al-Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al-Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security. 

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al-Qaeda was scattered, and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. 

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. 

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 
At the UN, Colin Powell holds a model vial of ...Image via Wikipedia

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al-Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an underdeveloped economy and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al-Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people. 

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the re-emergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. 

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al-Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. 

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al-Qaeda has not re-emerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable. 

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander in Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less. 

This review is now complete. And as Commander in Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. 

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. 

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al-Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al-Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. 

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. 

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. 

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility — what's at stake is the security of our Allies and the common security of the world. 

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But 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. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the U.N. and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. 

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. 

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron. 

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. 

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. 

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. 

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. 

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard and which I take very seriously. 

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. 

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. 

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." 

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. 

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. 

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. 

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them. 

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. 

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. 

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — and what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. 

As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy, from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries, from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home, from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad, and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. 

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. 

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops and may God bless the United States of America.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]