With Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at his side, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
President Obama says the new strategy, which “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review” with top military and diplomatic officials, includes plans for increased funding and an additional 4,000 troops above the 17,000 increase he previously authorized. These 4,000 troops will train Afghan security forces.
“As president, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future,” the president said. “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”
The increased funding will support civilian efforts, because “a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone,” Obama said. He said he supports a congressional bill that would authorize $1.5 billion in aid over the next five years to help build schools, hospitals and strengthen democracy in Pakistan.
The president acknowledged the high price of these efforts. “Resources are stretched,” Obama said. “But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future.”
For more, see “Obama Announces New Strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan.”
Comments (10)
Sharon Swift
27 March 2009 at 19:53 EDT
Permalink
There is a cnn facebook site with an open discussion forum. There are some disturbing individuals there that are very anti Obama, pro corporation. They are radical in thought and are bent on trying to sway opinion away from President Obama. Anyone rational can see their hatred and ignorance, however I am concerned with their propaganda. They deny climate change, the threat of Al Queda, pollution and climate change…. All motivated by corporation ethics, money and taxes. I would encourage anyone who has sound knowledge of economics, global politics, the middle east crisis and pollution to go to cnn facebook and stand up for your President. I don’t like it’s prevalence.
Jitendra K Kaushal
28 March 2009 at 00:02 EDT
Permalink
“Constructive diplomacy” and “trust deficit in Pakistan”, are two key phrases to which I, a seventy year old Indian, would like to respond.
Both the above phrases underscore the disturbing fact that President Obama, like his predecessor, is ill-informed about the ground reality in the region. When a physician fails to notice key symptoms, the daigonosis can not right, the prognosis can not be correctly anticipated and proper prescription can not be made.
To have successfully played the double game of breeding terrorists and putting on act of allying with America to destroy them, for better part of a decade, Pakistan leaders have to be very wily indeed. And not unpredictably, American planners equally dumb dull-witted. Americans may be groping in the dark about Osama’s whereabouts, but not the ISI of Pakistan, his zealous hosts. They not not know his address but provide his the wherewithal of survival.
The failure The White House to see Kashmir in correct perspective underlines the fact that by being Lincoln’s admirer, President Obama does not automatically inherit his statesmanship. It was not by ‘constructive diplomacy’ that he kept America from breaking up but by seemingly destructive statecraft. He took America through baptisement by fire by forcing upon the nation a bloody and long civil war. How can Obama, on Pakistan’s prompting, rue India’s determination to safeguard her sovereignty with similar zeal?
During the recent election for State Assembly, a 60 % voter turnout in J&K is as irrefutable a proof of its Indian identity as ever one can be. Kashmir is no more than a red herring that Pakistan uses routinely to fox the western world generally and America in particular.
America’s ‘trust deficit’ in Pakistan is not a phenomenon of anyone’s making, but a reflection of, virtual or real, of Islamabad’s guilty conscience. If after six decades of very liberal dole of dollars, the US could not buy the trust of its long time ally what guarantee is there that a few billion dollars more would bring about a miracle of every Pakistan dying of love for America? A foolish thought at best, and a fanciful wish at worst.
If cultivating democracy in AfPak is America’s aim then She can not achieve this by embarrassing and harming India, the only functional democracy in the region. In doing so America betrays either the lack of clarity of aim, or want of honesty of purpose, or both,
A statesman stands for principles and has great capacity to punish deceit and deviant behaviour. Statecraft is not about currying favor or placating misguided elements, least of all playing to the tune of mischievous minds.
If Pak sponsored terrorism is bad for America then how can it be otherwise for India? US planners need to remember that security of mainland America begins on Pakistan’s borders. For, this is the testing ground for Jehadi tactics and doctrines. Why should this simple fact be so difficult to grasp for Mr. Holbrook or Ms. Clinton?
Robert
29 March 2009 at 00:25 EDT
Permalink
I think, War is not a solution to establish peace. Understanding and co-operative activities is needed for peace. In the way of war it’s not possible to defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”
Thanking you,
Robert.
R."Mitch" Mitchell.
29 March 2009 at 05:04 EDT
Permalink
Trust me: At the end of Obama’s first 3 1/2 years, George Bush will look like a genius.
The far left will just keep on printing the green-back,.why not! they have nobody to answer to.
Can you imagine, people that are not even born yet, will have a mortgage as long as say live,property or no property.
Democrats are truly in a league of their own.
Joanie Smith
29 March 2009 at 14:56 EDT
Permalink
I’m a Fort Worth Chiropractor and am so excited to see President Obama addressing the issue of Pakistan. George Bush got us into such a mess during his tenure. And While it will be hard for anyone to dig us out of this situation, I believe in Obama and his smart choices for advisors. Thank goodness we have intelligence back in charge.
franck Dessi
31 March 2009 at 06:26 EDT
Permalink
barack obama is one of presidents the most hardworking in the world. that was seventy days ago he is president of united states and he have already carry out some projects. obama thinks well-being of american people and we see how he lead struggle for resolve the financial crisis’s matter.I think that the new plan for afganistan and pakistan is welcome for the american people and whole world.
Jitendra Kaushal
16 April 2009 at 12:12 EDT
Permalink
Developments in Swat valley or arson attacks in Lahore are not real terrorist strikes. These shenanigans betray the hand of the ISI, Pakistan’s dirty tricks department, enjoying the status of elite military establishment.
The game plan could have two motives. Firstly, it could be to unnerve America and make it abandon its recent tough stance. Secondly, Kyani, old ISI boss, may be preparing grounds for military take over.
Transfer of power in Muslim states, historically, is seldom peaceful. New regimes are, invariably, born out of bloodshed. In their desperation Pakistan’s ineffective rulers can go to any length to keep the flow of dollars uninterrupted.
In enforcing a measure of accountability America does not only the region a good turn but also to the people of Pakistan.
Wes Dillard
22 April 2009 at 15:05 EDT
Permalink
Sharon Swift, I don’t agree with Obama on economics, you want to talk? Here I am. Questions please!
Wes Dillard
22 April 2009 at 15:23 EDT
Permalink
Jitendra K Kaushal, my heart goes out to you my friend. That was beautiful and I will forward it to my friends. I have been saying for years that money to Pak is an awful idea and a slap in the face to our friends in India who make the US a better place to live. Washington can never figure out how to deal with any part of Asia, one day they will figure out that no action other than trade with the free nations like India is the only moral way that the US government can voice it’s opinion of the affirs in Asia.
nazir ahmad bhat
6 May 2009 at 06:47 EDT
Permalink
to tackle the terror problem in afgan as also in pakistan needs indepth study at the gov.level at united states.ironically the civil society of america has now groomed a deep believe rather thinking that whole muslim world is terror slot and worth to be smashed.even president obama while addressing the nation on assuming the presidency said”we r nt enemy of muslim world”instead saying tht united states has good relations with all countries including muslim world;nevertheless; somedisagreement persists wth some of them including iran and united states is trying to slove it.in iraq america held sadam dictator with inhuman traits so invaded the country to restore democracy there. the invasion turned into civil war where millions together were killed without sign of democracy.similarily; to root out taliban at afganistan too failed.even; army generals and civil authorities also acknowledged it.going against all muslim world and to qualify or identify them with terror thoughts would render more desperate results.taliban historicaly and for opportunistic method was creation of america?thx