Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview. "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained. "We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."

The United States and Afghanistan are struggling to shore up security in the country, amid increasing violence. The Obama administration this year stepped up U.S. military operations in the country as the U.S. military presence begins to wind down in Iraq.

Full Article :

link



[edit on 23-7-2009 by phi1618]

Finally i can point to this and say " It was hopeless and pointless to fight there".

we originally went in to secure their freedom, and in essence give the Afghan people a better life.

But each day it seems like the only thing we have accomplished there is throwing the entire country out of whack.

Eventually we will not be able to maintain our influence there and everything our soldiers have fought for and died for will be lost. A new dictator or oppressive ruler will just step into the vacuum we have created. All they would need to do is promise stability and safety to the people.

Also Obama mentions the allies of Al'Qaeda. Hopefully this doesnt pave the way to attack other troubled countries that may be dubbed allies to this organization.

i hope im wrong, but history does tend to repeat itself.





[edit on 23-7-2009 by phi1618]

[edit on 23-7-2009 by phi1618]

reply to post by phi1618


This is a b!t@h-slap to the face of every man, woman in uniform. The war may be unjust who cares. We have our people over there and the least, POTUS could do was define it in any way other than this.

This makes me fracking sick!

Originally posted by phi1618
we originally went in to secure their freedom, and in essence give the Iraqi people a better life.

He was talking about Afghanistan. What do you mean Iraqi people?

But each day it seems like the only thing we have accomplished there is removing a dictator and throwing the entire country out of whack.

Eventually we will not be able to maintain our influence there and everything our soldiers have fought for and died for will be lost. A new dictator or oppressive ruler will just step into the vacuum we have created. All they would need to do is promise stability and safety to the people.

It has become apparent to me that in the Middle East, they only understand/respect overwhelming force. If you let up on the people in most of those countries, you will be out of power in no time. So, it is a matter of which dictator you like. I just don't see a democratic government lasting in those countries. It seems to always devolve into a religious sect war between Shiites and Sunni.

Also Obama mentions the allies of Al'Qaeda. Hopefully this doesnt pave the way to attack other troubled countries that may be dubbed allies to this organization.

With Obama in power in the US, there is no telling what might happen. He has gone back on almost every campaign promise he made. So to figure out who the real Obama is and what he might do is folly.

reply to post by phi1618

Finally i can point to this and say " It was hopeless and pointless to fight there".

we originally went in to secure their freedom, and in essence give the Iraqi people a better life.

Isn't Obama talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq?

Should our goal be victory or prevent an attack on the US?

IMO, It should be victory. But they are not going to accomplish that in Afghanistan.

As for preventing an attack on the US, waging a war in Afghanistan is not a 100% guarantee we won't be attacked, especially since the enemy is operating from Pakistan.

I don't know how you've arrived at your stated position based on the president's statement, but I suspect that you were looking for justification of your opinion and this one is good enough.

What the president is saying is that we are not seeking victory in Afghanistan because we are not at war with Afghanistan.

We cannot expect for there to be a surrender in the sense that Japan surrendered to the US in Japan.

Our enemy is not a nation-state, so our goals must be different in that sense.

I thought the statement was very clear, unlike the president's blather festival last night regarding nationalized health care.

My fault, change has been made for some reason i was reading it as Iraq. Slight typo on my part, apologies. I tend to view the entire conflict revolving around Iraq, so sometimes things get jumbled up in my head.

It seemed to me that the Invasion or Afghanistan was a precursor to the invasion of iraq. Both invasions in my mind where total rubbish



[edit on 23-7-2009 by phi1618]

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview. "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

Well, I tend to think victory means obtaining the goals set forth in bringing our troops to fight in that country. In other words, we never meant victory was over Afghanistan. Victory was getting the Taliban out of power, and stabilizing the government is a natural follow on to that effort. Also, victory will be decimating Al Qaeda to the point they are no longer a threat. That is what the troops are fighting for and when that happens, we will be Victorious.

Obama stating it the way he did sounds defeatist and that emboldens the terrorists to keep their fight up and thereby killing more of our troops.

[edit on 23/7/09 by spirit_horse]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know how you've arrived at your stated position based on the president's statement, but I suspect that you were looking for justification of your opinion and this one is good enough.

What the president is saying is that we are not seeking victory in Afghanistan because we are not at war with Afghanistan.

We cannot expect for there to be a surrender in the sense that Japan surrendered to the US in Japan.

Our enemy is not a nation-state, so our goals must be different in that sense.

I thought the statement was very clear, unlike the president's blather festival last night regarding nationalized health care.

Yes, well thats exactly how i arrived at my opinion. Since we arent fighting the country, we are fighting terrorism. But so far, nothing positive has come out of the war in general. There where no WMD's, we didnt get Osama, Al-Qaeda is still around.

We are spending money and losing lives, while no recognizable progress is being made ( other than the objectives already accomplished, which could of bee done without US troop involvement).
We have ignored bigger threats such as north korea, and our troops are being stretched.

Base on that, if we never invaded in the first place, the outcome would have been the same. Minus thousands of dead soldier and tons of money wasted.

I guess i jst dont agree wit the War(s). Or war in general.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by phi1618]

What are we(U.S. and allies) doing in a land no army has ever taken over.

We are bankrupt.

bring our brave kids home and guard our borders!!!!!!!!!!!!!