Obama vs. Al Qaeda

[zippy890]

Boston Globe editorial 3/28/09

THE COMPREHENSIVE new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that President Obama outlined yesterday comes with a considerable cost and with no guarantee of success. But it derives from a careful policy review that drew upon civilian as well as military specialists. This is the right way to shape policy, and Obama explained it with proper respect for the public's right to know.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are deeply troubled countries. As Obama said, they form the crucible that produced Sept. 11. And over the past few years, Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have been able to regroup and revive in both countries. So Obama was not conjuring up a phantom danger when he invoked a need "to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Instead of speaking in generalities about good-and-evil or the democratic transformation of an entire region, Obama laid out a clear and focused goal - "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." It may not be easy to reach that goal, but by delineating specific, limited objectives Obama gave the public definite criteria by which his strategy may be evaluated.

The overall design and particular components of the strategy are grounded in logical and realistic choices. Those choices avoid the simplistic assumptions and self-deception that marked previous US involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

--snip--

Last but not least, Obama has wisely accepted the need for wide-ranging cooperation in the fight against Al Qaeda. He proposes not only "constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan," but also a contact group for Afghanistan that includes NATO allies and neighboring Central Asian states, as well as Iran, Russia, and China. This is the right vision. We hope it is realized


more http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/03/28/obama_vs_al_qaeda/

No 'phantom dangers'. clear goals. Respect for the public's right to know. Obama's strategy is definately not Bush's stratergy.

[yurbud]

1. Questions for Obama on chasing ''al Qaeda''

President Obama,

You said we are sending more troops into Afghanistan to deal with ''al Qaeda,'' but wouldn't it make sense to open the http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-this-sen-bob-graham-said-two-911.html">Saudi pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 that Bush classified?

Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the root of the problem than strike at the branches and kill innocent Afghans?

Also, if we were concerned about weakening or destroying al Qaeda & the Taliban, shouldn't we attack those http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT">elements of the Pakistani military & ISI that sponsored them for years and demanded they be spirited out of Tora Bora rather than killed or captured, according to Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4462107,00.html">Daniel Pearl even made arrangements to meet the terrorist who killed him through their ISI handler.

If you don't address these issues, how do we know you aren't using the "War on Terror" as an excuse to pursue other agendas without public consent?

Could you explain our strategy for controlling Persian Gulf oil reserves and Caspian Sea Basin pipeline routes worth tens of TRILLIONS of dollars? Our military actions in the Middle East and Central Asia seem to fit that agenda pretty closely, and to the extent you and the previous administration didn't and don't talk about it, you deprive the public of the ability to make informed decisions about whether to support what we are doing there and you neuter our democracy.