"The situation in Afghanistan is extremely complex and difficult, and the President clearly understands that. After years of mismanagement of this war, we need a strategy that protects our national security and prevents a resurgence of terrorist safe havens in this region. As the President said, we must balance discussion of troop levels with consideration of Afghan governance and security capabilities, the role of Pakistan, the possibility of additional resources from our NATO allies, and the many other challenges we face as a nation.
"The decision to send more American troops into this hostile and dangerous region of the world is not one to take lightly. I agree with President Obama that our objective needs to ultimately be focused on transferring responsibility to the people of Afghanistan.
"Later this week, I will have the opportunity to ask Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and Chairman Mullen directly about Afghanistan policy when they testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I want to hear more from them about whether we are setting clear and realistic expectations and how they will measure success and track progress.
"Nearly 150 members of the New Hampshire National Guard will deploy to Afghanistan by the end of the month. It is for these brave men and women and those already on the ground that we absolutely must have a clear mission and a clear endgame in Afghanistan."
"We are at war with Al Qaeda because they attacked us - and we need to make sure they cannot do it again. I am committed to finding the best ways to keep Americans safe.
I am sure this was a very difficult decision for the President. Unfortunately, the problems in Afghanistan exist in large part because the Bush Administration took its eye off the ball and got us bogged down in an unnecessary war in Iraq.
While I am pleased that the President has decided to set a timetable for drawing down our troops in Afghanistan, I do not agree with the decision to first send 30,000 additional troops. It is not clear that sending more combat troops is the best way to meet the real threat, as Al Qaeda disperses to Pakistan and other countries. This is particularly important as our military has been strained by six years of fighting in Iraq and eight years of fighting in Afghanistan.
I believe we need better cooperation and accountability from the Afghani government and we must demand a commitment from them to root out corruption. Instead of more troops, we should be sending more trainers to help the Afghan military provide better security for its citizens. Rather than a broad counterinsurgency, we need a narrowly focused mission, with clear, measurable goals for success. Our involvement can't be a blank check, and I appreciate the President's attempts to focus our mission.
While I would have made a different choice, I will of course support our troops in their mission. I very much hope that this new strategy will succeed so that we can begin bringing our soldiers home, give them the full support and veterans' assistance they deserve, and focus on the great economic challenges we face here at home."
State Rep. John DeJoie:
The Wrong War
By John DeJoie, Democratic Candidate for US Congress, NH-02
It was clear from the President's remarks last night that he has worked to fully understand the conflicting information he is receiving on Afghanistan. He was thoughtful and clear on his reasons for an escalation of troop strength. However, I believe history will also show that he was incorrect.
I was struck by the rhetoric the President used and the similarity to that of former President Bush. The idea that we must engage the "bad guys" in Afghanistan so that America is safe is reminiscent of President Bush's reasons for fighting in Iraq. It appears to me that we are fighting in Afghanistan because we are fighting in Afghanistan and do not know how to leave and want to be able to claim victory. SO now we are going to increase the US troop strength by 30,000 and begin withdrawing them in 18 months. But the question is, how is this going to work?
We have an Afghani President who was elected with as many as 1/3 of the ballots being fraudulent. The re-election was boycotted by Mr. Kharzai's opponent because he did not believe the new election would be any fairer than the first. Mr. Kharzai's government is overrun by corruption, yet this is the man we are trusting to work with our time table. It seems as though this is a risky gamble, when you figure we are gambling with the lives of US soldiers. Our soldiers have fought bravely and honorably for 8 years. Now we are asking them to fight "just a few more years"? Just think, there are 3rd grade students who have never known an America at peace.
President Obama's idea that we need more troops now to make the war shorter is eerily similar to the statements of President Johnson in 1965.
From Wikipedia:
In a discussion about the war with former President Dwight Eisenhower, Johnson said he was "trying to win it just as fast as I can in every way that I know how" and later stated that he needed "all the help I can get."[56] Johnson escalated the war effort continuously from 1964 to 1968, and the number of American deaths rose. In two weeks in May 1968 alone American deaths numbered 1,800 with total casualties at 18,000. Alluding to the Domino Theory, he said, "If we allow Vietnam to fall, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week in San Francisco."
After the Gulf of Tonkin incident, President Johnson received authorization for more troops from Congress to finish the job. Mr. Obama has made his intent clear that the additional 30,000 troops is to enable US troops to leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later.
While Afghanistan is not Vietnam, it is part of Asia, and there are clear similarities with Vietnam. Vietnam has been described as an organized group fighting against the US. In point of fact, Vietnam, Like Afghanistan, is made up of disparate groups whose main commonality is their dislike for foreign invaders. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That's right, foreign invaders. The US is seen now, as we were in Vietnam, as invaders. Let me be clear, this is not a reflection on the troops, but rather on US Foreign Policy. The US policy has been to pick the side we most want to be in power and throw our support behind them. We did this with Sadaam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, the Taliban in Afghanistan and countless others. Until we changed sides and fought to bring down our previous "allies".
Afghanistan is not like the US. As a crossroad between Europe and Asia, they have endured many invaders over the centuries. Afghanistan is far more familiar with tribal leaders, than national leaders, and appears content to work within their tribal/village units. What intra-Afghani fighting has been more akin to Civil War. So when we remove US troops, their will be an escalation of fighting. But by staying, we only forestall the inevitable fighting, and place US troops in the middle of this Civil War, with few if any friends in country. So what do we do? As a firefighter, I know that some fires do not warrant risking additional personnel. That is the position we find ourselves in Afghanistan.
We begin drawing down troops. We offer the Afghan President the training for his troops and police force during our draw down, but it must be clear that we will no longer be the prime law enforcement fore in Afghanistan. Our troops should as quickly as is feasible to a training mission and a mission of defending themselves on base. This should be accomplished within about 6 months. The US should remain available for humanitarian aid and non military technical aid as needed. There is clearly a mission for the US in Afghanistan; it just is not a military mission at this point in time.
