President of the US Afghan-Pak Address - Dec 1, 2009

[PAFAce]

Probably one of the most awaited speeches of the year. It was a bit anti-climactic, I was expecting some controversial things to come out. But, I guess if you look hard enough, you can always come out with something to debate.

The entire text of the speech delivered at the prestigious West Point Military Academy can be found here. Obama certainly knows how to use symbolism to his advantage, no better way to say "I'm not giving you what you want" than to come to your house with a gift:
The Associated Press: Text of President Obama's speech on Afghanistan

Now here are certain issues that stood out for me

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-Qaida was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.

I think he forgot to mention that the Taliban, the then governing "party" if you will, was entitled to withhold bin Laden and to try him in a domestic court under their laws according to International Law. Also, if I remember correctly, according to Islamic law, if Taliban had signed a mutual deal with bin Laden, then they would be bound not to turn him over until it was proven that he had breached the contract. Lastly, it was quite clear that political and diplomatic means were by no means "exhausted" before the war began.

As an interesting side note: How long has Pakistan been asking Britain to hand over the infamous criminal turned politician Altaf Hussain?

However, that said, what is done is done, and the war is a reality. Let's not live in the past, let's discuss those things that really matter today. I just thought it would be interesting to point this out, feel free to disagree.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al-Qaida and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al-Qaida 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.

Once again, I believe he forgot to mention how successful these campaigns have been. He also forgot to mention that the Pakistani nation has taken casualties like no other; over ten thousand civilians and over two thousand military personnel, not to mention the economic impact. I know this speech was not about Pakistan, but still, some well earned commendations would have been nice. Somehow, I feel the average American would come out just as ignorant as before of the contributions of Pakistan in this war. Hopefully, I am very wrong.

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-Qaida 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.

Not surprising for most of us. Maybe, though, a much awaited confession. Progress East of the border has been far greater than West, as far as eliminating safe havens and infrastructure goes, and as has been repeatedly denied by some of our American/European members in the past.

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-Qaida and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

Well, this really is a touchy matter. I am in no position to comment, as these issues are generally dealt with at the levels of intelligence services. However, the only clear information that has been shared openly about the terrorist networks' attempts to gather nuclear weapons has been regarding India. To be more specific, the Canadian intelligence service has reportedly obtained evidence that Indian nuclear facilities are a primary target for terrorists. No mention of that, though. In fact, no mention of India at all, which is quite surprising. I would have thought the Indian PM's visit would have brought some fruits for them.

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 should also be done in Pakistan, in my opinion. Strengthening local law enforcement agencies, strengthening intelligence services, empowering the judiciary etc. But Pakistan is a different debate.

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.

Then it should not be criminal for Pakistan to pursue a similar approach. And yet, every time anybody in Pakistan even hints at "negotiations", there is an outburst of "do more" thrown at us. Hopefully, that will change in this new strategy.

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.

Probably the most important bit of the speech for Pakistanis. It was interesting that he said "there is no doubt the US and Pakistan share common enemies". Well, very few in Pakistan disagree with this, but I also hope he realizes that we share "common objectives" but not the "same objectives". The objectives of both are sometimes incompatible, and compromise must be reached. You can't achieve what you want in Afghanistan without allowing Pakistan to achieve some of its objectives as well.

I like very much the last part, as it is widely believed in Pakistan that once the "guns have fallen silent", Pakistan will be smacked with another form of the "Pressler Amendment" and be suffocated, while its enemies will be strengthened. I hope the President goes through with those promises. When the F-16 Block 52s arrive in December/January, the public opinion might shift slightly, very slightly though, towards Obama's view.

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.

Read Iran, I think. Also, if you want to be very pessimistic, read Pakistan.

_______________________________

All in all, like I said before, the speech wasn't groundbreaking, and it wasn't even very controversial. I just thought it would be useful if I pointed out some issues that stood out.

[S-2]

"I think he forgot to mention that the Taliban, the then governing "party" if you will, was entitled to withhold bin Laden and to try him in a domestic court under their laws according to International Law."

You fail to cite such law. In any case, OBL had long been a wanted man. Further, it was from Afghanistan that we were attacked. That's ultimately the taliban's responsibility. Finally, we didn't recognize the taliban government and had no obligation to subordinate our requirements to theirs.

We understand that you'd preferred a waffling, dissembling diffusion of a necessary war to meet your ends of maintenence of the taliban government. Afterall, only the UAE, KSA, and yourselves recognized them as legitimate. No other.

Our mandate was clear and overwhelming by our laws and the support of the internat'l community. The taliban failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the matter and move swiftly to hand over OBL.

"I know this speech was not about Pakistan, but still, some well earned commendations would have been nice."

Churlish and self-centered. You've done nothing that wasn't in your self-interest nor self-defense. Much of your security efforts now stem from poor choices made by your government in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 all the way up to last spring, 2009- nearly eight years. Those efforts, for the most part, can be EASILY defined as having occurred only since last April in Buner. You'd already acquiesced to the effective surrender of SWAT.

"He also forgot to mention that the Pakistani nation has taken casualties like no other..."

Really? Did you include Afghanistan in your estimate? The Afghans have suffered in this war like no other from an externally-directed insurgency made from ousted leaders residing on your lands.

"Somehow, I feel the average American would come out just as ignorant as before of the contributions of Pakistan in this war."

I'm unsure how "ignorant" the average American is about Pakistan. Most recognize that long after OBL's escape based upon OUR failures, that he's resided on your lands with others of similar ilk by YOUR failures. Nothing adequately explains foreign enemies of the Afghan people making war from your lands upon them.

Applause? Get real. You've done nothing more for this war than that which accorded to your specific and narrow interests. The President was too kind already.

You included this within your highlighted quotes but miss it's import-

"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."

To what, exactly, do you imagine that the President was referring? Whether you think OBL, Omar, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, and your own citizens like Nazir and Bahadur make war on Afghanistan from your lands or not is irrelevant to me. The President believes otherwise. So too the past President. I'm comfortable that they've access to information that isn't available to you in Canada. Whether you are in agreement or not matters little in light of the above words by POTUS.

His words are salient.

"However, the only clear information that has been shared openly about the terrorist networks' attempts to gather nuclear weapons has been regarding India."

Hamid Mir has made reference to this desire by A.Q. long before any warnings about Indian reactors-

Reporter: Take warning for Muslims out of U.S. Seriously-Sept. 21, 2006

So too others. So too your own scientists being "interviewed" by A.Q. The threat is real enough despite your dismissals of such.

"The objectives of both are sometimes incompatible, and compromise must be reached. You can't achieve what you want in Afghanistan without allowing Pakistan to achieve some of its objectives as well."

I don't see the over-riding objective of a stable, secure, and INDEPENDANT Afghanistan as incompatible at all.

Thanks.

[PAFAce]

S-2, pleasure to hear from you again.

Originally Posted by S-2

You fail to cite such law. In any case, OBL had long been a wanted man. Further, it was from Afghanistan that we were attacked. That's ultimately the taliban's responsibility. Finally, we didn't recognize the taliban government and had no obligation to subordinate our requirements to theirs.

Our mandate was clear and overwhelming by our laws and the support of the internat'l community. The taliban failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the matter and move swiftly to hand over OBL.

Very conveniently you have chosen to steer off the arguemnt presented. Extradition is voluntary under International Law:

"A legal right to demand extradition and a duty to extradite does not exist in customary international law"
- International law: a dictionary by Boleslaw Adam Boczek

You can read the rest of the chapter on extradition yourself if you like, I do not have the time to spell it out for you.

The only time a party is legally bound to extradite an individual or group is when they have signed bilateral or multilateral treaties with the demanding party. It matters none that you did not "recognize" their government, they were running the country. Don't try to deflect off the issue to pawn the entire situation onto Pakistan when you yourself had your tights all knotted up to show overwhelming force. In the past, when two parties have been unable to reach extradition deals, the person/group is tried under the laws of a third party, mutually trusted or tolerated. This could have been anybody, Saudi Arabia, UAE, even Pakistan, as much as it pains you. But no, you wanted everything your way, and you were willing to go to any extent. In the early years of the war, it wasn't even a war for the "hearts and minds" of the people, hence civilian casualties were quite high. And then you wondered why the Afghan people won't let you "help" them.

And no, you are mistaken, you did not have widespread international support, you had widespread support amongst the Western nations. That, too, after your president said "You are either with us or against us". I am well aware of how popular this was is, and has been, in Canada, one of your closest allies. Not to mention the Brits. I would like to see how many of these allies would come back to this region with you, if everything were to happen according to what S-2 wants.

Churlish and self-centered. You've done nothing that wasn't in your self-interest nor self-defense. Much of your security efforts now stem from poor choices made by your government in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 all the way up to last spring, 2009- nearly eight years. Those efforts, for the most part, can be EASILY defined as having occurred only since last April in Buner. You'd already acquiesced to the effective surrender of SWAT.

I admit it was a bit "self-centered" for me to ask for commendations. However, if anybody apart from us has benefited from our efforts in our Western region, it has been you. You say we did it for our reasons, and you are damn right, but you benefited nonetheless. Why is it that when Pakistan looks out for its interests, it bothers you so, but then you go down the road doing the exact same? Do you honestly believe you are not working on your own agenda in Afghanistan? did you even watch yesterday's address?

Really? Did you include Afghanistan in your estimate? The Afghans have suffered in this war like no other from an externally-directed insurgency made from ousted leaders residing on your lands.

Point taken. It was very wrong of me to ignore the sacrifices made by the Afghans. The sacrifices they were forced to make when you decided to "stand up for your values".

I'm unsure how "ignorant" the average American is about Pakistan. Most recognize that long after OBL's escape based upon OUR failures, that he's resided on your lands with others of similar ilk by YOUR failures. Nothing adequately explains foreign enemies of the Afghan people making war from your lands upon them.

How does an average American know that OBL is inside Pakistan. Has the average American been provided by proof of such? If, despite this, the average American believes what you say, then would you not say that the average American is quite ignorant of Pakistan?

By the way, the average American at one point also believed Iraq had WMDs.

"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."

To what, exactly, do you imagine that the President was referring? Whether you think OBL, Omar, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, and your own citizens like Nazir and Bahadur make war on Afghanistan from your lands or not is irrelevant to me. The President believes otherwise. So too the past President. I'm comfortable that they've access to information that isn't available to you in Canada. Whether you are in agreement or not matters little in light of the above words by POTUS.

His words are salient.

I didn't miss those words, I just had nothing further to add to what my Army has done. What we have done speaks for itself, when you match that West of the border, then come back and tell us to "do more". Until then, good luck with your "escalation".

By the way, Mr. "POTUS" also said "open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens". Spot on, and we shall follow that policy as well.

Hamid Mir has made reference to this desire by A.Q. long before any warnings about Indian reactors-

So too others. So too your own scientists being "interviewed" by A.Q. The threat is real enough despite your dismissals of such.

Jeez. Selling Canadian intelligence services a bit short, aren't you? by putting them in the same league as Hamid Mir's investigative reporting and AQ threats. Plus, I never said they wouldn't love to get their hands on our nukes, I said that all we have to go by in terms of evidence are the words of an American politician. Hardly concrete enough.

I don't see the over-riding objective of a stable, secure, and INDEPENDANT Afghanistan as incompatible at all.

Ah. Finally we agree.

Thank you very much.

[All-Green]

I'm unsure how "ignorant" the average American is about Pakistan. Most recognize that long after OBL's escape based upon OUR failures, that he's resided on your lands with others of similar ilk by YOUR failures. Nothing adequately explains foreign enemies of the Afghan people making war from your lands upon them.

First of all S-2, USA launched an all out attack to capture OBL, i think he was the primary in this war, the neutralization of Taliban and all other things are secondary.
So when USA failed to capture OBL despite cornering him...it is not a small lapse on your part, it is a huge failure and something which your leaders are accountable for and also the leadership in your allied countries.
It also has given light to many conspiracy theories that OBL is a very convenient bogey for USA...such views have only worked against the governments in Pakistan and is certainly not something we would ever have wanted to see or hear of, in all honesty OBL's death or capture is also our earnest desire...

OBL's alleged escape into Pakistan and his permanent residence has not been proven, so in other words to cite our failure to capture OBL has no concrete basis...
He could have gone anywhere using those mountains, he operated here before 9-11 in Afghan war and was extremely well aware of the many paths leading in all directions.
Who is to say that NA was and is still not playing a double game here...it is merely a gathering of warlords...money talks and it also suits them to keep USA in Afghanistan because lets face it...they can never hold Afghanistan in any other scenario...maybe it was Hazrat Ali or whoever the NA commander was that helped OBL escape...we shall never know for certain but we do know via many books and articles that US teams in field were not happy with the way the operation at Tora Bora was dealt with by the high command...what gives here?
Was the objective not clear to the command?

In probability after OBL's absence he can be anywhere but the blame was be shifted to Pakistan which is not right and is not in spirit of the relationship we want to have.
Maybe he still lurks in that mountain range and is neither here nor there...

[jeypore]

Originally Posted by All-Green

In probability after OBL's absence he can be anywhere but the blame was be shifted to Pakistan which is not right and is not in spirit of the relationship we want to have.
Maybe he still lurks in that mountain range and is neither here nor there...

Surely this discussion has been made numerous times regarding OBL and the Tora Bora issues and still is ongoing. But looking at present value and situations now, the question becomes, If OBL existed or not, will this fight against terrorist issues make any difference now. For me no, because isn't the ideology of Al-Queda greatly imbedded in the Talibans and the only way out is to fight until it is undone?

And looking at history to undo any ideology, you have to destroy everything regarding the foundation of the country (take Hitler and Germany in World War II), but the problem here is there was no foundation to begin with so lies the paradox of NATO forces and the Pakistanies conundrum, but the real solution to the whole problem is create a nomans land where Afgainstan and Pakistanies loses some land for the future and betterment of both countries. That where Mr. OBL will reside forever where he can be monitored as well a better border controlled of his idelogies...