BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)At the end of the links to articles are a transcript of the Presidents speech and an article that has the following
headline "Putting A New Coat on a Failed Strategy".
The articles that identify the hurdles to be overcome are marked with + in the expectation not all will be read but with the hope these will be.
Get the main elements of the new strategy then peruse the articles indicating the problems faced.
Then answer go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/poll/2009/mar/27/obama-afghanistan-strategy ,
answer the Guardian poll below - and then share your reasons for so doing with all receiving the Digest.
_______________________________________President Obama's new strategy for winning the war in Afghanistan represents a major shift from the policies of the Bush administration. But given the determination of the Afghan insurgency, and the growing threat from Pakistan, is there any way the US can succeed?
POLL Will the new Afghanistan plan work?
POLL Will the new Afghanistan plan work?
- U.S.: Obama Affirms New Focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan
- President Unveils Afghan-Pakistan Strategy Review - AFPS
- Obama Announces Plans for More Funding for Afghan War - Washington Post
- Obama: Taliban and al Qaeda Must Be Stopped - Washington Times
- Afghan Plan Adds 4,000 US Troops - Boston Globe
- Obama Zeros in on Afghanistan - Washington Times
- Obama Vows to 'Dismantle and Defeat' al-Qaeda - Daily Telegraph
- Barack Obama Pushes for Afghanistan Result - The Australian
- Obama sets Qaeda Defeat as Top Goal in Afghanistan - Reuters
- Barack Obama Offers New Strategy to Tame Pakistan - The Times
- Pakistani, Afghan Leaders Welcome Obama War Strategy - Voice of America
- New Afghan Program Supports Community-based Approach to Security - AFPS
- Mullen Praises Regional Approach of Afghan-Pakistan Strategy Review - AFPS
- New Strategy 'Refocuses' Mission in Afghanistan, Flournoy Says - AFPS
- The Price of Realism - Washington Post editorial
- Mr. Obama's Surge - Wall Street Journal editorial
- Obama's Afghan Plan - Christian Science Monitor editorial
- Defusing Afghanistan - Washington Post opinion
- Why Pakistan is a Stumbling Block - The Times opinion *
- Some Strategists Cast Doubt on Afghan War Rationale*
- ' Will Obama's plan work in Afghanistan?', +Reuters India, 27 March 2009
- ' EU weighs increasing aid, more police trainers for Afghanistan', Bloomberg
- Obama shifts strategy from Bush policy
- Obama sets Qaeda defeat as top goal in Afghanistan
- Pak, Taliban in "ambiguous" relationship: Eikenberry
- Pak- Afghan Taliban shed differences to step up campaign, +
- Karzai hails U.S. new strategy, asks removing Taliban names from black list Xinhua
- 'All hail Obama' - Obama's Afghan strategy wins neo-con plaudits The Spectator (03/27/2009)
- Karzai: US using my reputation as leverage Press TV, Iran (03/27/2009)
- Obama: Safety of world at stake in Afghanistan CNN (03/27/2009)
- Pakistani and Afghan Taliban unify in face of U.S. influx +International Herald Tribune
- Taliban leader plans to reclaim Afghanistan, U.S. says +Los Angeles Times (03/27/2009)
- Karzai is no longer part of the solution in Afghanistan +The Spectator, UK (03/26/2009)
- Karzai declares assets to offset corruption smear Reuters (03/26/2009)
- U.S. says agents of Pakistan aid Afghan Taliban The New York Times (03/26/2009)
- Experts say plan to separate moderate Afghan Taliban from hardliners could work'VOANews,
- Reweaving Afghan structure is as important as defeating the Taliban Today's Zaman
- Obama Outlines Afghan Strategy He Pushes Stability and Regional PartnershipsWASHINGTON POST http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032700836.html?wpisrc=newsletter
- Obama to Boost Forces in Afghanistan, Set Benchmarks BLOOMBERG
- Analysis: US outlines new Afghanistan strategy
- Islamabad, Kabul hail Obama plan http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=281241&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23
- Obama: Anti-terror plans focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan
- Official: Intel predicts rising Afghan violence
- New Afghan local force to guard against Taliban
- Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan unite +
- Obama's Afghan Spaghetti Western +
- Ghosts of US's unilateralist past rise
- Treasury reserve raid to fund Afghan surge
- COMMENT: why Pakistan is stumbling block +
- Obama: Pakistan is now part of our war
- There's nothing new in Barack Obama's foreign policy - but the way it is knitted together offers hope
- Afghans welcome recognition that Taliban safe havens create big problems
- Afghanistan: More fire, less power +
- How many troops does each country send to Afghanistan?
- When will Afghanistan stand up?
- A surge won't work in Afghanistan
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/27/afghanistan-pakistan-surge-obama +
- 4,000 new troops, more civilian experts for Afghanistan, says Obama
_________________PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Good morning. Please be seated.
Obama Announces New Afghanistan, Pakistan Strategies
CQ Transcripts Wire
Friday, March 27, 2009; 10:46 AM
Obama Announces New Afghanistan, Pakistan Strategies
CQ Transcripts Wire
Friday, March 27, 2009; 10:46 AM
Before I begin today, let me acknowledge, first of all, Your Excellencies, all the ambassadors who are in attendance. I also want to acknowledge both the civilians and our military personnel that are about to be deployed to the region. And I am very grateful to all of you for your extraordinary work.
I want to acknowledge General David Petraeus, who's here, and has been doing an outstanding job at CENTCOM. We appreciate him. I want to thank Bruce Riedel. Bruce is down at the end here, who has worked extensively on our strategic review.
I want to acknowledge Carl Eikenberry, who's here, and is our ambassador designate to Afghanistan, and to my national security team. Thanks for their outstanding work.
Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of careful policy review led by Bruce that I ordered as soon as I took office. My administration has heard from our military commanders as well as our diplomats. We consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners, and our NATO allies and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home.
And now I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people. The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power yet war rages on and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghanistan government has risen steadily.
And, most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces. Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrifices so much have a simple question. What is our purpose in Afghanistan? Of so many years, they ask why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.
So let me be clear. Al Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.
The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, Al Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes Al Qaida's leadership, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan.
For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. But this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead, international security challenge of the highest order.
Terrorist attacks in London, in Bali were tied to Al Qaida and its allies in Pakistan as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city it, too, is likely to have ties to Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan.
The safety of people around the world is at stake. For the Afghan people, the return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially, women and girls.
A return in force of Al Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.
OBAMA: 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. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.
So 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. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.
And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same. We will defeat you.
To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no border or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between of future of Afghanistan and Pakistan which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is here, to serve as special representative from both countries and work closely with General Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.
Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan. The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want. An end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from Al Qaida and their extremist allies. And that is why we must stand together.
The terrorist within Pakistan's border are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan. They are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaida and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state.
So make no mistake, Al Qaida and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.
It's important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after Al Qaida. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, they are rugged, and they are often ungoverned. And that's why we must focus on military assistance on the tools, training, and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists.
And after years of mixed results, we will not and cannot provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out Al Qaida and the violent extremists within its borders.
We will insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets. The government's ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank, and other international partners.
To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people.
And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.
Now a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaida offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something from the time.
So, today, I'm calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy.
I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co- sponsored by Maria Cantwell and Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence.
And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part, including, at the donors' conference in Tokyo next month.
OBAMA: I don't ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times. Resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future because the security of American and Pakistan is shared. Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens, and we must isolate Al Qaida from the Pakistani people.
These steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our efforts in Afghanistan which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border. Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility, and that's why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Our nations will meet regularly with Secretaries Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border while addressing issues of common certain like trade, energy, and economic development.
This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the Al Qaida safe haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.
Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have born a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrifices for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq.
Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals. I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that have been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east and give us a great capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.
This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August. At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security and how we will, ultimately, be able to bring our own troops home. For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change.
The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. And later this spring, we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police.
Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police for the of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011.
And increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward. This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people.
The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encouraged criminality and funds insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future and, one again, we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.
So to advance security, opportunity, and justice, not just in Kabul but from the bottom up in the provinces, we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by elicit drugs.
And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies from the United Nations and the international aid organizations. An effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague.
OBAMA: At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can short change the civilian effort. But make no mistake, our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. And that's why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs.
These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run because it's far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village that to help a farmer seed a crop or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.
As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong inspector general at both State Department and USAID and include robust funding for special inspector generals for Afghan reconstruction.
I want to be clear. We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government to cracks down on corrupt behavior and sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance so that it's used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.
In a country with extreme poverty that's been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. Now, I have no illusion that this will be easy.
In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target Al Qaida in Iraq. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan while understanding that it is a very different country. There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.
But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated.
And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans including women and girls. Going forward, we will not blinded stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We'll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents.
We will measure the growth of Afghanistan's economy and its elicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.
None of the steps that I've outlined will be easy. None should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or Al Qaida operates unchecked.
We have a shared responsibility to act not because we seek to project power to its own sake but because our own peace and security depends on it. And what's at stake at this time is not just our own security; it's the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago, and that must be our common purpose today.
My administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we will seek not simply troops but rather clearly defined capabilities supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan security forces, a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people.
For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance and to strengthen Afghan institutions. And, finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new contact group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region, our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran, Russia, India, and China.
None of these nations benefit from a base for Al Qaida terrorists. And a region that descends into chaos all have a stake in the promise of lasting piece and security and development. That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan side by side with Afghans.
OBAMA: Now, the sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought and worked and bled by our side.
And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform who have born a burden as great as any other generations. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.
I remind everybody the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001 for doing nothing for than going about their daily lives. Al Qaida and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims who Al Qaida has killed and maimed in far greater number than any other people.
That is the future that Al Qaida is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, a future without hope or opportunity, a future without justice or peace. So understand the road ahead will be long, and there will be difficult days ahead. But we will seek lastly partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that promise a new day for their people.
And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat Al Qaida and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future because the United States of America stand for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
_____________________________________I turned on the television Friday, March 27, 2009. It was tuned to C-SPAN. Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan was being televised. Listening only to the words of his introductory comments and ignoring the person who was speaking them, I could have been listening to George Bush. The same old catchphrases appeared: 9-11, terrorism, Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, terrorism, 9-11. A few new words were added. Pakistan and diplomacy were two of them. Yet, the idea behind the supposedly new Obama plan was the same. Washington and its NATO cohorts will stay in Afghanistan until the world is safe from Al-Qaeda. Left unsaid by Obama, just like it was unsaid by George Bush, is the reality that foreign troops killing Afghans and Pakistanis has done very little to end the supposed threat from Al-Qaeda. The proof lies in the fact that foreign troops are still in Afghanistan under the impression that destroying Al-Qaeda is why they are there.
Putting A New Coat on a Failed Strategy
by Ron Jacobs / March 28th, 2009
Putting A New Coat on a Failed Strategy
by Ron Jacobs / March 28th, 2009
The idea that a stateless organization such as Al-Qaeda can be defeated by occupying those regions of the world where it is supposedly headquartered seems foolish. The idea that killing people who live in those regions will further the first idea is equally foolish, of questionable strategic sense, and morally wrong. The predominant argument given by George Bush when US forces attacked Afghanistan in 2001 was that the Taliban government provided a haven to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the entire nation of Afghanistan and its people deserved whatever death Washington rained down on them. This simplistic logic never allowed for the fact that it was quite likely that many Afghans did not support the Taliban. Nor did it acknowledge the obvious question of how bombing villages and cities would cause the capture of the Al-Qaeda leadership. Furthermore, the plan to launch an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by belligerent foreign forces ignored the resentment such an action would bring.
Now, seven and a half years later, the occupying troops and Afghan people live with the results of Washington's response. Occupying troops get killed regularly by villagers, Afghan policemen, Taliban forces, and Afghans aligned with other militias. Afghans face a daily struggle negotiating the ins and outs of life in an occupied country where any element of the armed forces around themoccupying troops, mercenaries, Taliban, members of the US-installed Afghan security forces, or criminalscan make their lives even more miserable. On top of this, the majority of Afghans live in impoverished conditions made worse by years of war. Given these conditions, it is no surprise that Afghan militias opposed to the occupiers are gaining ground. They provide security to ordinary Afghans while appealing to their desire to see the occupying troops leave. It's not that Afghans necessarily accept the fundamentalist doctrines of these militias (Taliban and others) as much as it is that they share a common understanding as Afghans. A somewhat appropriate metaphor regarding Afghans' support of these militias might be found in the situation vis-a-vis Hamas in Gaza. Many Palestinians do not support Hamas' religious agenda, but see them as the only political organization that shares their desire to end the Israeli domination of Palestine and is willing to fight for that end. Obviously, there are great differences between the two sets of circumstances, but I believe the analogy holds up in a very basic way.
Likewise, the people in the so-called tribal regions of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) resent the presence of foreign troops and unmanned rockets in their neighborhood. Consequently, they have opposed their presence, often with armed force. In addition, they have decided to align themselves with the Taliban and others in the region that oppose the foreign presence as well. Unlike Afghanistan, where the Karzai government in Kabul serves at the pleasure of Washington, the government in Islamabad has occasionally been more vocal than Mr. Karzai (who has expressed his own displeasure on occasion) in its opposition to the US forays across its border into the NWFP. This has not prevented Washington from launching its unmanned rockets into the region, but it may have prevented more helicopter and ground forays like the one in fall 2008. It remains safe to assume, however, that the Pakistani government will accede to Obama's plans for the region and allow US forces to operate when and where they want to.
According to Obama, "Washington has 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." Now, Al-Qaeda may or may not be planning to attack targets in the United States, like Mr. Obama claimed in his speech. The fact that this possibility continues to be used as justification for not only occupying Afghanistan, but for escalating the military operation there (and expanding it deeper into Pakistan), proves the fallacy of this strategy, if the true intent is what Obama says it is. No matter how much Mr. Obama and his advisors wish it to be otherwise, continuing the current strategy of occupation and escalation will not cause those Afghans opposed to the presence of US troops to end their opposition. Therefore, it is unlikely to cause the end of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, no matter how badly many of us wish that it would. The likelihood that Washington's strategy will not accomplish the goals elucidated by Mr. Obama (and by George Bush in 2001) points to the possibility that those goals are not the true intention of Washington in the region. Could it be that the goals Mr. Obama explicitly denied (and I quote) "We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future" are the true ones? Only then does his escalation of the battle there begin to make sense.