http://tinyurl.com/y8oeyx4
Related stories
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fgw-obama-afghan12-2009nov12,0,5009595.story
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment: Any additional troops permitted by the Obama Regime would spell disaster for the consistency and credibility of U.S. foreign policy in the eyes of the world's peoples. Obama would be sending Amerikan troops the wrong way. We should stand down and work on the immediate withdrawal of Amerikan troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole of the Middle East. Let them work out their own problems without foreign interference. These military excursions are massive distractions away from working on the U.S. economy and domestic problems here now inside the United States.
This should be a no-brainer for any sane thinking man, but it seems that Obama himself is under the power of Amerikan warlords. He knows the history, he knows the complexities and he should know deep down in his heart that the U.S. is headed for doom in Afghanistan.
Even if the U.S. military were to contain the Afghan rebels in the short-run, in the long-run it would bring about disasters whose long-term repercussions would be felt for generations.
Education for Liberation! Occupation is NOT Liberation!
Peter S. López, Jr. aka~Peta
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://twitter.com/Peta51
http://help-matrix.ning.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Come Together! Join Up! Seize the Time!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THIRD-WORLD-NEWS/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.S. envoy reportedly warns against Afghanistan troop buildup
The U.S. envoy in Kabul has cabled against sending more U.S. troops because of the Afghan government's corruption and weakness, U.S. officials say. The reported dissent comes at a critical moment.
Reporting from Washington - In an unexpected dissent at a critical moment, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan has warned in classified cables against any further buildup of American forces in the country, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday.
Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired general and former commander of U.S. forces in the country, objected in two cables delivered to the State Department that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government, officials said.
The advice in the cables, sent last week, comes at a time when most signs suggest that President Obama soon will announce plans to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan in hopes of turning the tide against militants.
It also pits Eikenberry against a former military colleague, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, who has told Obama that more than 40,000 troops are needed if the country is to be stabilized.
Eikenberry's advice came to light on a day when Obama met with his top national security advisors in what may have been a pivotal meeting to discuss the policy makeover. The group is weighing four options that would add between 10,000 and 40,000 U.S. troops to the 68,000 already there.
McChrystal's strategy aims to protect the Afghan population in the hope of winning its support in the battle against Islamic extremism.
But the strategy postulates that allied forces won't succeed in their mission unless the Afghan government is honest and effective.
The fraud-tainted Aug. 20 presidential election has sharpened American and European concerns about the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. In recent days, a succession of American and European officials have warned that Karzai must change his ways for the costly international effort to succeed.
After the meeting on Wednesday, a senior administration official said Obama remains concerned about the reliability of the administration's Afghan partners.
"The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open ended," the official said. "After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time."
Several senior civilian officials, including Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have privately expressed reservations about a further troop buildup. But few senior military officials have lined up among the doubters, giving Eikenberry's statement a special impact.
Eikenberry oversaw the Afghan mission in 2006 and 2007. He was sworn in as ambassador in April after retiring from the military.
During his confirmation hearing as ambassador in March, Eikenberry warned that without strengthening the government and reducing corruption, progress in Afghanistan would be difficult to achieve. He also criticized as inadequate the job by U.S. officials and their allies were doing providing the civilian expertise needed to improve the Afghan government and develop the economy.
A senior Obama administration official declined to discuss the classified cables but noted that "success in Afghanistan depends on having a true partner in the Afghan government." Several State Department officials declined comment.
Staff writer Christi Parsons contributed to this report.
Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired general and former commander of U.S. forces in the country, objected in two cables delivered to the State Department that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government, officials said.
The advice in the cables, sent last week, comes at a time when most signs suggest that President Obama soon will announce plans to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan in hopes of turning the tide against militants.
It also pits Eikenberry against a former military colleague, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, who has told Obama that more than 40,000 troops are needed if the country is to be stabilized.
Eikenberry's advice came to light on a day when Obama met with his top national security advisors in what may have been a pivotal meeting to discuss the policy makeover. The group is weighing four options that would add between 10,000 and 40,000 U.S. troops to the 68,000 already there.
McChrystal's strategy aims to protect the Afghan population in the hope of winning its support in the battle against Islamic extremism.
But the strategy postulates that allied forces won't succeed in their mission unless the Afghan government is honest and effective.
The fraud-tainted Aug. 20 presidential election has sharpened American and European concerns about the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. In recent days, a succession of American and European officials have warned that Karzai must change his ways for the costly international effort to succeed.
After the meeting on Wednesday, a senior administration official said Obama remains concerned about the reliability of the administration's Afghan partners.
"The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open ended," the official said. "After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time."
Several senior civilian officials, including Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have privately expressed reservations about a further troop buildup. But few senior military officials have lined up among the doubters, giving Eikenberry's statement a special impact.
Eikenberry oversaw the Afghan mission in 2006 and 2007. He was sworn in as ambassador in April after retiring from the military.
During his confirmation hearing as ambassador in March, Eikenberry warned that without strengthening the government and reducing corruption, progress in Afghanistan would be difficult to achieve. He also criticized as inadequate the job by U.S. officials and their allies were doing providing the civilian expertise needed to improve the Afghan government and develop the economy.
A senior Obama administration official declined to discuss the classified cables but noted that "success in Afghanistan depends on having a true partner in the Afghan government." Several State Department officials declined comment.
Staff writer Christi Parsons contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Related stories
From the L.A. Times
From other L.A. sources
Around the Web
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment: Any additional troops permitted by the Obama Regime would spell disaster for the consistency and credibility of U.S. foreign policy in the eyes of the world's peoples. Obama would be sending Amerikan troops the wrong way. We should stand down and work on the immediate withdrawal of Amerikan troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole of the Middle East. Let them work out their own problems without foreign interference. These military excursions are massive distractions away from working on the U.S. economy and domestic problems here now inside the United States.
This should be a no-brainer for any sane thinking man, but it seems that Obama himself is under the power of Amerikan warlords. He knows the history, he knows the complexities and he should know deep down in his heart that the U.S. is headed for doom in Afghanistan.
Even if the U.S. military were to contain the Afghan rebels in the short-run, in the long-run it would bring about disasters whose long-term repercussions would be felt for generations.
Education for Liberation! Occupation is NOT Liberation!
Peter S. López, Jr. aka~Peta
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://twitter.com/Peta51
http://help-matrix.ning.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Come Together! Join Up! Seize the Time!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THIRD-WORLD-NEWS/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment