• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama Chooses Winning Strategy for Afghanistan

    The long-awaited new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that President Barack Obama unveiled this morning is the clearest signal yet that the Obama Administration intends to dedicate the time, resources, and U.S. leadership necessary to stabilize the region and contain the terrorist threat in South Asia. Obama laid out a strong case for the American people on why we need to remain committed to Afghanistan, reminding that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 remained in Afghanistan and Pakistan and need to be defeated to ensure the future security of the American people.

    The new plan reflects a shift in U.S. strategy toward more regional diplomacy and civilian aid to both countries, but less tolerance for the continued existence of militant sanctuaries on the Pakistani side of the border. The speech reflects Obama’s commitment to building partnership with Pakistan, but on terms that set benchmarks on Pakistan’s performance against the terrorists that threaten stability in Afghanistan and the safety of the international community. He supported vastly increasing non-military assistance to the Pakistani people (even in the midst of the global economic downturn), but also explained the U.S. would no longer provide a “blank check” to the Pakistan military and would expect more cooperation against the Taliban and other extremist groups. He called the Pakistani tribal areas the greatest danger to the American people.

    Indicating he understands the threat the Taliban poses to U.S. interests, he said senior Taliban leaders remain allied with al-Qaeda and “need to be defeated.” When the Obama team started the Afghanistan-Pakistan review process, they examined all options on the table, including whether there was some sort of grand bargain to be reached with the Taliban that would allow for a quick exit of U.S. forces. However, after closely reviewing the situation, they decided this was not possible, as many of us had long argued.

    So it appears those advisors arguing for a continued commitment to the mission in Afghanistan have won the debate within the Administration. Some advisors had argued that Afghanistan could never be stabilized and therefore the U.S. should scale back both its expectations and resources going toward the effort. We should all be thankful the “maximalists” have won the debate. The American people will be safer because of it.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Obama Chooses Winning Strategy for Afghanistan

    1. atlanta, Ga says:

      So far this is the only thing he has done right. Protecting our country should be top priorty considering what we have been through and what we have lost.

    2. nick kanterakis,hoba says:

      I'm 69 years old. I have never seen anything like that. This administration should worry about the American people and our economy.

      That administration is such a joke!!!!!

      I pray for the good old USA.

    3. bill s. ; Tampa,Fl says:

      Pres. Obama plan should incoperate plan "B" similar to the way the USA defeated Japan finally.Also,Pres.Obama should be securing the USA North and especially the Southern border with Mexico where it has been reported by the news media that Islamic terrorists are now mixing with the Mexicans while crossing into the USA. Troops , tanks and attack helicopters should be deplored along the USA and Mexican border.Will some one wake up homeland security to do a better job in securing the USA borders,or is she to busy putting her make up on..

    4. John Roane Sarasota says:

      Where is the out cry for committing more troops without a withdrawl date? First it was 17,000 then an additional 4,000 troops when will it end?

      This President within the first two years of his first term will committ more troops and see more body bags then President Bush ever did.

      It's time to bring back American Nationalism.

    5. Richard says:

      I don't consider cutting back military development programs that would save soldiers lives a plus for Obama and a negative for the Taliban.

    6. Carol in az says:

      I agree with his policy in Af.

      However not putting "boots on the ground"on our borders as Bill from Tampa wrote, is unforgivable.

      What part of the word "Border War" is not understand.

      When anyone is trying to kill us as in the word "war" on our border, in our streets, home invasion, gang warfare, kidnappings, mass graves and untold people missing you shoot to kill or you will be killed.

      The entire sitution is anarchy.

      I am greatly shocked by H.L. Security Dir. Janet Napolatano's inability to act effectively on this issue. She was the Gov' of AZ and "wrote the book" on border security because of the murdering going on over two years ago.

      A fence was built becasue of her .

      Then the fighting began.

      An electrified fence was on the drawing board .

      Naturally the animal rights groups when crazy over this suggestion ."Animals may die."

      Then you have Hillary telling the world, "that more has done on our side of the border since the guns and money laundering come from our side."

      Yes there is duplicity here, it cut deeps.

      But when your country is bleeding and coming apart at the seam you don't turn around and blame your country and cut her off at the knee. You act immedicately to support the thousands of men an women who are putting their lives on the line everyday from the numerous land enfrocement agency's .

      I have to wonder that the rest of world must think we are surely crazy here when we can't even secure our own borders while we stablizing Iraq. (for seven years. )

      So yes we have allowed it to happen , saying one thing and doing another. Duplicity.

      Of the four Cartels that now fighting for control over the narrowing "choke points" , it is reported that thier each have army's of over 100,000 foot soldiers. Many are former miltary, X- law inforcement .

      Here , we believe that the border should closed immediately.

      Let the Mexican side that recently sent in thousands of miltary troops to secure their side do their job.

      We will clear-up our own back yard since we all know dulpicity cut deep.

      While we are doing this we must also also electrify the fence and complete it.

      Texas must be more aggressive addressing the problem there.

      Carol in AZ

    7. Jerome Zacny says:

      Mr. Obama will find that people from Pennsylvania are not the only ones who will cling to their guns and religion. I'll bet he will find the same thing among the members of the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

    8. Pingback: Afghanistan » Blog Archive » Obama and I: Back in Action!

    9. Pingback: Morning Bell: How Much Risk Will Obama Expose Our Troops To? | The Foundry

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.