Quicksand

Ah, fondly reminiscing about happier times, in 2003!

Here are selections of the transcript of Obama's speech last night, and my take on the speech:

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.

Yes, but remember, the Taliban has roots in Afghan and Pakistani political culture. It did not spring up out of nowhere. The Taliban was and is particularly strong in the Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

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.

The Northern Alliance was most effective in throwing the Taliban out of power, but that Alliance was based on tribal interests: non-Pashtun tribes, for the most part.

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.

Well, "leaving Iraq to its people"? - not if you believe the Sunnis! But at least Iraq is primarily in the hands of Shiites - the majority.

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.

Reasonably true, which brings up the question of what Pakistan's approach will be now. Pakistan's ISI has been in league with terrorists: mostly those that have been causing so much trouble for India, mostly because of Pakistan's desire to aggravate the Kashmir situation, but also the Taliban to some extent. Pakistan has refused to exert control over its own border areas. An American surge won't mean much without firm Pakistan commitments to this project.

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.

This is not a narrow definition, Mr. Obama. There are extremist allies even within Pakistan's government! Can you defeat them too?

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.

That's low expectations! The election was widely-seen as a failure.

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.

So, it's a 'surge'. But defeating insurgencies generally require a deeper commitment. There is no assurance the Afghans will be ready in an 18-month time frame.

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.

In the new world of terror, safe havens need not be required. After all, while some of the London bombers had visited Pakistan, those visits were hardly required. The bombers lived in London and vicinity, after all. They weren't really sent by anyone. Al Qaeda currently has a pretty-free rein in places like Yemen and Somalia. If Pakistan becomes difficult terrain for them, they can adapt.

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.

But once again, the problem is more the Pakistani government's proliferation policies than Al Qaeda. According to Wikipedia: "Islamabad High Court on February 6, 2009 declared Dr. A. Q. Khan as a free citizen of Pakistan with freedom of movement inside the country. The verdict was rendered by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam. In September 2009, expressing concerns over the Lahore High Court’s decision to end all security restrictions on Khan, the United States has warned that Dr. Khan still remains a ’serious proliferation risk’."

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.

So, these are the objectives. Tall order!

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.

...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.

In and out fast! I don't believe it!

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over.

No, no, the days of the blank check are just starting!

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.

This is where the blank check comes in handy!

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.

So, Obama thinks he knows about Pakistani popular opinion? Not even the Pakistani military knows Pakistani popular opinion!

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.

Unleashed towards India, perhaps?

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.

Remember, U.S. intervention into Vietnam was done with the full blessing of the United Nations. International support is not much of a panacea. Also remember, support for the Taliban is strongest in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, so we are facing a "broad-based popular insurgency", at least in the south. Also note, if we can keep our involvement in Afghanistan small, we can maintain our involvement indefinitely. A surge invites defeat; retreat can turn into a rout. Saigon, 1975, anyone?

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.

We may not be able to slow down a deterioration of conditions in Afghanistan - that shouldn't be our mission anyway: targeting Al Qaeda is our mission. So the Afghans really aren't in control, even now? Hmmm....

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.

So, Obama sees the danger, but walks in anyway.

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.

Sounds exactly like Donald Rumsfeld!

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.

Good, but as noted, A.Q. Khan is sprung from prison!

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 was the slogan favored by the U.S. Army early in the Iraqi occupation?: "Their sand; our oil!"

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.

One of the most disheartening episodes of American intervention in Afghanistan so far has been the way the Afghans themselves betray their own futures. Our Peace Corps volunteers will come back in coffins. It's that kind of place.

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.

This is sentimentality, and it doesn't get you far in the Hindu Kush.