I graduated officially!
This arrived in the mail the other day, finally.
Started working on this in 2000 - Yes it took me 9 years to get a Masters degree - shut up.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Rick Astley vs Nirvana Never gonna give/smells like teen spirit MSAH UP!
Rick Astley vs Nirvana Never gonna give/smells like teen spirit MSAH UP!
Stimulus package
Okay, okay... so I've been on a crazy kick this past week or so about drugs, and the sad news is I'm still not over it. At least not as marijuana is concerned.
If the government wants to stimulate the economy then we need a "new" industry to replace all the jobs that have been decimated. Legalize marijuana, but carefully regulate it.
Hundreds of thousands could be employed from the growers (who have to purchase licenses and pay taxes besides the fact they will need seeds, fertilizer, and employ harvesters), producers who turn the raw plant into a usable product (who will need licenses and will be taxed, besides the fact they will need buildings and equipment to make the products and workers to manage and maintain the machines, manage inventory, quality control, sales, marketing, accounting...etc.,) and finally the point of sales locations such as "coffee houses" or tobacco stores (ditto on licenses, taxes and employees).
Why should drug traffickers get the hundreds of millions of dollars illegally, which the launder and promptly smuggle out of the country?
Gate way drug? Health issues? People are responsible for themselves. Governments cannot regulate stupidity (cigarettes and alcohol) nor should the government be expected to protect us from ourselves. Stop putting people in jail for marijuana and clogging our legal system. Drop all the chargers specific to marijuana use, trafficking, and growing (obviously if they were other narcotics of cocaine drug involved then those charges remain).
NOW, and here is the important part, the average amount of money budgeted specifically for the past three years on law enforcement and incarceration of marijuana related offenses should immediately be transfered WITHIN the police and detention facilities to other programs... namely officers pension and health care funds, better and newer police equipment, maintenance of facilities and better funding PREVENTION programs. We're already budgeting the money, lets not just turn if off, but keep it going to the police, but in other areas so they can serve and protect against violent crimes and injustices.
Millions will be put to work, many other businesses will indirectly benefit (most notably the fast food "munchie" establishments) as well as agriculture, marketing and advertising, accounting, and legal (never can have enough lawyers).
But what do I know? Any thoughts?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Back to drugs...
I've been on this subject for a while, but as I keep getting new information, I can't help but feel it strengthens my arguments that drugs should be legalized. I do not use nor condone the illegal use of drugs, but believe common sense has to be used when it comes to making sound fiscal and governmental decisions and policies. The money we spend against drugs, specifically for law enforcement and penitentiaries, is staggering and wasteful. The main arguments for the outlawing of drugs is hypocritical, naive, and not based on sound scientific evidence.
From Illegal Drugs: America's Anguish, 2003 Edition, as part of the Information Series on Current Topics published by Miklos Laci.
"Tobacco and alcohol, both legal substances, cause many more deaths per year than drugs (See Figure 5.2.) An estimated 430,000 people die yearly as a result of smoking cigarettes, and 81,000 die as a result of drinking alcohol, not including motor vehicle deaths included by drunken driving. Drug use produces 14,000 deaths a year. The vast majority of these fatalities occur according to SAMHSA mortality data, as a result of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drug use, with or without the involvement of alcohol. Marijuana, which is preponderately the drug used by the majority of those classified as drug users, causes few fatalities. (Mortality Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2001, SAMHSA, January 2003)."
---
As estimated by the FBI in its annual Crime in the United States report, nearly 13.7 million total arrests took place in 2001;
From Illegal Drugs: America's Anguish, 2003 Edition, as part of the Information Series on Current Topics published by Miklos Laci.
"Tobacco and alcohol, both legal substances, cause many more deaths per year than drugs (See Figure 5.2.) An estimated 430,000 people die yearly as a result of smoking cigarettes, and 81,000 die as a result of drinking alcohol, not including motor vehicle deaths included by drunken driving. Drug use produces 14,000 deaths a year. The vast majority of these fatalities occur according to SAMHSA mortality data, as a result of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drug use, with or without the involvement of alcohol. Marijuana, which is preponderately the drug used by the majority of those classified as drug users, causes few fatalities. (Mortality Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2001, SAMHSA, January 2003)."
---
As estimated by the FBI in its annual Crime in the United States report, nearly 13.7 million total arrests took place in 2001;
- 1.6 million people... were arrested for drug abuse violations. ...
- 1.4 million for driving under the influence (drugs or alcohol);
- 1.4 million for driving under the influence (drugs or alcohol);
- Drunkenness for 618,668; and
- liquor law violations 610,591.
- liquor law violations 610,591.
In all, a total of 4.3 million arrests, or 31 percent of all arrests for the year, are tied directly to drug and alcohol use.
"In 2001 more people were arrested for drug and alcohol violations than were arrested for murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, car theft, arson, forgery, fraud, embezzlement, prostitution and vice, gambling offenses against family and children (usually domestic violence), and curfew/loitering-law violations combined." (p 55-57)
---
Brief history of U.S. drug laws:
1914 - Harrison Narcotic Act (PL 63-223), which called for the strict control of opium and coca.
Throughout the 1920's the Treasury Department was the lead agency against drugs.
In 1930 President Hoover created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
1937 - Marijuana Tax Act (PL 75-238)
1938 - Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (52 Stat. 1040) gave FDA authority to regulate many drugs from the 1940s-1960s.
In 1968 the FDA's drug responsibilities were transfered to the Justice Department
Also in 1968, Richard Nixon ran for Presidnet on a strong anti-drug platform, using for the first time the term "war on drugs."
As president, Nixon established the National Commission on Marihuana [variant spelling] and Drug Abuse - but ignored the commissions findings when it recommended the legalization of marijuana.
1973 - Congress authorizes the formation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
1974 - Congress establishes National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Th budget to fight drugs rose from $1.5 billion a year in 1981 to $4.2 billion a year in 1989.
1984 - The Crime Control Act increased the penalties for drug use and trafficking
1988 - The Anti-Drug Abuse Act (PL 100-690) created the Office of National Drug Policy (ONDCP) where the director is often referred to as the "Drug Czar."
Under George H. W. Bush (the first Bush president), spending on the war on drugs rose to $12.2 billion a year
By 1998, the budget for these anti-drug and law enforcement efforts reached $16.1 billion a year.
(p. 1-5)
Monday, December 21, 2009
Snowed out on the east coast
So i really should check my emails before i risk life and limb to get to work. I mean, really, i get up this morning, pissed off and grumpy becuase i have to go to work today and it is so damn ugly and cold out there, and half way to the train station i decide to check the blackberry for my emails and low and behold, like a message from GOD, is the "no work today, DC is closed" email. i'm such a dumb ass.
Now I'm on blip
What the blip is blip? Not really sure yet, but I signed up anyway because i thought it interact with all my other attempts to keep it together online and interact with my other sites. well yes it sort of did, it borrowed he emials of all my friends and put them in its database to spam out messages of "join us."
here's my new site:http://blip.fm/beewade
here's my new site:http://blip.fm/beewade
Sunday, December 20, 2009
biblical battles
Mesopotamia's Palestinian campaign circa 1500 b.c.
Genesis chapter 14 is the first battle described in the bible.
Abraham and Lot were wealthy herdsmen of the day.
Wealthy herdsmen of the day had things that needed protecting from thieves, wild animals and the such. So they had an armed force to protect their interest. The bible refers to these armed men as "trained men" which in the original Hebrew is hānīk, or "armed retainer."
Biblical historian Victor P. Hamilton notes"the term is applied to a slave or servant whose major function is to provide military assistance. They are not shepherds who grabbed a spear or a sling and headed north for some 125 miles. They are individuals capable of making a successful attack against imposing odds."
When Abraham learns his nephew Lot was captured and all his belongings taken by these foreign armies. Abraham calls together all the men of his house to arms, which the bible says was 318 men. Abraham "called out the 318 trained men born in his household...".
The bible says he formed alliances with other local herdsmen, but does not specify if they gave loaned additional men to the purpose or not. Nevertheless, Abraham and his 300 plus army goes after the invaders and plunderers. He finds he enemy camp and decides one two interesting and important things of military interest.
1. He splits his force to attack from different angles and, (Genesis 14:15-16)
2. He attacks at night in a guerrilla fashion.
It was a complete rout. The surprise attack causes the soldiers to flee for their lives. Abraham's men chase them for 50 miles to north of Damascus. However, Abraham's objective is not to destroy the enemy army, but only to rescue Lot, the other captives, and the property seized by the Mesopotamians. Abraham achieves his objective.
This is a limited military engagement with limited objectives... very much in line with tribal values and capabilities.
Since this is the first battle referenced in the bible, this offers us a unique glimpse into the military capabilities and tactics of the ancient Hebrews. Unfortunately, there is a lot we do not know and can only guess.
We do not know the size of the enemy force. Whether Abraham and his men were attacking a rear element force, perhaps one returning to a base camp or Mesopotamia itself with their spoils and wounded, or the main force. Why did the enemy force run for 50 miles before giving up Lot and Lot's belongings? Traveling on foot with prisoners and possibly animals, the army would be good to make 10 to 15 miles miles per day on open terrain. Perhaps as much as 25 miles a day without wounded or animals. That means they still would have had to been pursued for at least two days by Abraham's forces. The only engagement the bible tells us of is the attack on the one night, and then pursuing them. Abraham has a force of about 300. It doesn't sound likely that he was attacking a much larger element than the size of his own force. We can speculate that it was in fact a rear element he attacked, or perhaps more Hebrews joined the fight. Where was the enemy army going? Were they trying to catch up with a larger element or get to a defensible area? And what was it that finally caused the Mesopotamian army to turn Lot over.
Likely, this army was more of a show of force than an actual combat force to be reckoned with. Why do I say that? Well, if we go back a little earlier in chapter 14 of Geniuses, we learn that the Mesopotamian kings had mounted this expedition into Palestine to punish vassal cities that stopped paying. When the Army arrived at the gates of the cities who had not paid their taxes, the cities would quickly pay up as opposed to go to war and have their cities potentially sacked. Along the way, the Army took what it needed from the land and from the nomads in the area as far as slaves, animals, and other property. Lot was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up by this army.
The Mesopotamia army's objective was to get the city-states to pay up, and having accomplished this, were on their way home having shed relatively little blood with a lot of treasure to show for it. When they were attacked by Abraham, this was indeed an unexpected surprise. The Mesopotamia kings had two choices obviously, stand and fight Abraham and his force of 300 or find out what this pesky herdsman wants. Since Lot was not critical to their military and political objectives, it was likely easier to just give Lot and his stuff back. We simply do not know any details on how Abraham was able to work out getting Lot and his property back.
From other sources, we know a little about the weapons. The Mesopotamians used the spear and sickle sword. The Hebrews had spears and clubs, but likely did not have swords, at least not in large numbers. This probably had a lot to do with the tactics Abraham chose.
There is much more than can be discussed and inferred from this event, and it would be interesting to look at this event and compare it to something like the Art of a War.
The History Channel has an interesting show which goes into a lot more of this event as well as others. Once I find the link to the episode, I'll add it to this post or a later post. Interesting stuff.
Genesis chapter 14 is the first battle described in the bible.
Abraham and Lot were wealthy herdsmen of the day.
Wealthy herdsmen of the day had things that needed protecting from thieves, wild animals and the such. So they had an armed force to protect their interest. The bible refers to these armed men as "trained men" which in the original Hebrew is hānīk, or "armed retainer."
Biblical historian Victor P. Hamilton notes"the term is applied to a slave or servant whose major function is to provide military assistance. They are not shepherds who grabbed a spear or a sling and headed north for some 125 miles. They are individuals capable of making a successful attack against imposing odds."
When Abraham learns his nephew Lot was captured and all his belongings taken by these foreign armies. Abraham calls together all the men of his house to arms, which the bible says was 318 men. Abraham "called out the 318 trained men born in his household...".
The bible says he formed alliances with other local herdsmen, but does not specify if they gave loaned additional men to the purpose or not. Nevertheless, Abraham and his 300 plus army goes after the invaders and plunderers. He finds he enemy camp and decides one two interesting and important things of military interest.
1. He splits his force to attack from different angles and, (Genesis 14:15-16)
2. He attacks at night in a guerrilla fashion.
It was a complete rout. The surprise attack causes the soldiers to flee for their lives. Abraham's men chase them for 50 miles to north of Damascus. However, Abraham's objective is not to destroy the enemy army, but only to rescue Lot, the other captives, and the property seized by the Mesopotamians. Abraham achieves his objective.
This is a limited military engagement with limited objectives... very much in line with tribal values and capabilities.
Since this is the first battle referenced in the bible, this offers us a unique glimpse into the military capabilities and tactics of the ancient Hebrews. Unfortunately, there is a lot we do not know and can only guess.
We do not know the size of the enemy force. Whether Abraham and his men were attacking a rear element force, perhaps one returning to a base camp or Mesopotamia itself with their spoils and wounded, or the main force. Why did the enemy force run for 50 miles before giving up Lot and Lot's belongings? Traveling on foot with prisoners and possibly animals, the army would be good to make 10 to 15 miles miles per day on open terrain. Perhaps as much as 25 miles a day without wounded or animals. That means they still would have had to been pursued for at least two days by Abraham's forces. The only engagement the bible tells us of is the attack on the one night, and then pursuing them. Abraham has a force of about 300. It doesn't sound likely that he was attacking a much larger element than the size of his own force. We can speculate that it was in fact a rear element he attacked, or perhaps more Hebrews joined the fight. Where was the enemy army going? Were they trying to catch up with a larger element or get to a defensible area? And what was it that finally caused the Mesopotamian army to turn Lot over.
Likely, this army was more of a show of force than an actual combat force to be reckoned with. Why do I say that? Well, if we go back a little earlier in chapter 14 of Geniuses, we learn that the Mesopotamian kings had mounted this expedition into Palestine to punish vassal cities that stopped paying. When the Army arrived at the gates of the cities who had not paid their taxes, the cities would quickly pay up as opposed to go to war and have their cities potentially sacked. Along the way, the Army took what it needed from the land and from the nomads in the area as far as slaves, animals, and other property. Lot was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up by this army.
The Mesopotamia army's objective was to get the city-states to pay up, and having accomplished this, were on their way home having shed relatively little blood with a lot of treasure to show for it. When they were attacked by Abraham, this was indeed an unexpected surprise. The Mesopotamia kings had two choices obviously, stand and fight Abraham and his force of 300 or find out what this pesky herdsman wants. Since Lot was not critical to their military and political objectives, it was likely easier to just give Lot and his stuff back. We simply do not know any details on how Abraham was able to work out getting Lot and his property back.
From other sources, we know a little about the weapons. The Mesopotamians used the spear and sickle sword. The Hebrews had spears and clubs, but likely did not have swords, at least not in large numbers. This probably had a lot to do with the tactics Abraham chose.
There is much more than can be discussed and inferred from this event, and it would be interesting to look at this event and compare it to something like the Art of a War.
The History Channel has an interesting show which goes into a lot more of this event as well as others. Once I find the link to the episode, I'll add it to this post or a later post. Interesting stuff.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Legalize it all!
I read about how much money is spent on prevention, health care, law enforcement, and detention related to drugs and it was in the trillions. Seriously, lets legalize it all - heroin, cocaine, marijuana... all of it.
Legalize it, regulate it, tax the hell out of it. Put all the government warnings on it you want, ensure the quality, sell business licenses to the street thugs for growing, distribution, export and import, selling... do you see what I'm saying here?
The biggest reason for emergency room visits related to drugs is the lack of quality assurance of the drugs. There is no oversight at all. Drug dealers may cut that stuff with Draino. Its the stuff that its cut with more often that ends people up in the emergency room.
Think about it. We have hundreds of thousands addicted already (remember its illegal), thousands go to the ERs every month, and billions go to drug lords in South America. Why not keep that money here at home? Lets grow, produce and sell American made drugs? We could create millions of jobs, create tax revenue to pay off the national debt, and a million chilled out Americans.
Driving drunk
Driving home after a few drinks, I saw a sign for reporting drunk drivers. I called on myself, and the operator actually asked me to describe my car and give her the tag. I gave her the one to the guy in front of me.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Admiral Gary Roughead
so my son wanted to know if I had any photos of anyone famous. i found this one i took in hawaii several years ago on some website i never heard of.
U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Gary Roughead, Deputy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, left, sits in a portable F-22 Raptor flight simulator cockpit, as John McDonald, Lockheed Martin director for the F-22, right, explains the controls of the aircraft, June 15, 2005. Several representatives from Lockheed Martin brought the mobile demonstration unit to Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii so that senior leadership could view the capabilities of the aircraft first hand. Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Bryan Beach
U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Gary Roughead, Deputy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, left, sits in a portable F-22 Raptor flight simulator cockpit, as John McDonald, Lockheed Martin director for the F-22, right, explains the controls of the aircraft, June 15, 2005. Several representatives from Lockheed Martin brought the mobile demonstration unit to Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii so that senior leadership could view the capabilities of the aircraft first hand. Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Bryan Beach
Friday, December 04, 2009
'Deployment Fatigue'
The following is an articel written by a journalist I spent time with in Cuba. She writes for the NY Daily News. Her article happened to make the Army's Early Bird (a daily selection of all the news stories about the Military prepared for military Leaders and Soldiers). Anyway, here it is.
'Deployment Fatigue'
How much more can we endure? Fort Drum asks amid troop surge
By Stephanie Gaskell,
Daily News Staff Writer
FORT DRUM, N.Y. — The 10th Mountain Division is the most deployed unit in the Army’s history — and 212 of its soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice in eight years of war.
With President Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan, families here are bracing for their toughest test.
That means more holidays apart, more missed birthdays and anniversaries — and more sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones in harm’s way.
“It’s a lot to put up with,” said Watertown Mayor Jeff Graham. “I think there’s a certain amount of deployment fatigue. There’s a point at which you kind of run out of yellow ribbons.
“But they’re committed to it. It’s their job and they’re going to do it,” he said.
Francine Harsh had two young children and another one on the way when her husband, Jonathan, shipped out to Iraq a year ago. He’s home now, but they’re already worried he will be sent to Afghanistan next.
“If he has to go, he has to go,” said Harsh, 30.
The division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team was expected to go to Iraq next month but recently got put into a pool of troops slated for Obama’s Afghan surge.
The 2nd Brigade just shipped out to Iraq for a year-long deployment, and the 3rd Brigade is nearing the end of a tough tour in eastern Afghanistan.
“It’s just one deployment after another,” Graham said. “Some are on their fourth and fifth deployment. Obviously, it takes its toll. But what can you do? It’s a light infantry division, so they get sent out a lot.”
The community has rallied around each, with neighbors and friends quick to lend a helping hand to the families with members deployed to the war zone.
“We kind of stick together,” Harsh said. “Even the people who aren’t in the military stay close and try to help.”
“Some days are harder than others,” she added.
Like many military spouses here, Harsh is used to taking care of things back home while her 32-year-old husband is away.
“I don’t have a choice, really,” she said. “It bothered him when he came home that I was so used to doing things on my own.”
At home with his wife and kids, Jonathan Harsh tries to ignore thoughts of shipping out again.
“I can’t think about it or I’ll just be miserable,” said Harsh, 32, who repairs weapons for the 10th Mountain Aviation Brigade. “It’s not even an when.”
Civilians outside the base in Watertown marvel at the fortitude of the soldiers — and their families.
“I’m surprised with how long this war has gone on, they’re still positive,” said Bill McKinney, who runs a supply store off-base. “I’m surprised at how resilient they are.
“They roll with the punches,” he said.
'Deployment Fatigue'
How much more can we endure? Fort Drum asks amid troop surge
By Stephanie Gaskell,
Daily News Staff Writer
FORT DRUM, N.Y. — The 10th Mountain Division is the most deployed unit in the Army’s history — and 212 of its soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice in eight years of war.
With President Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan, families here are bracing for their toughest test.
That means more holidays apart, more missed birthdays and anniversaries — and more sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones in harm’s way.
“It’s a lot to put up with,” said Watertown Mayor Jeff Graham. “I think there’s a certain amount of deployment fatigue. There’s a point at which you kind of run out of yellow ribbons.
“But they’re committed to it. It’s their job and they’re going to do it,” he said.
Francine Harsh had two young children and another one on the way when her husband, Jonathan, shipped out to Iraq a year ago. He’s home now, but they’re already worried he will be sent to Afghanistan next.
“If he has to go, he has to go,” said Harsh, 30.
The division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team was expected to go to Iraq next month but recently got put into a pool of troops slated for Obama’s Afghan surge.
The 2nd Brigade just shipped out to Iraq for a year-long deployment, and the 3rd Brigade is nearing the end of a tough tour in eastern Afghanistan.
“It’s just one deployment after another,” Graham said. “Some are on their fourth and fifth deployment. Obviously, it takes its toll. But what can you do? It’s a light infantry division, so they get sent out a lot.”
The community has rallied around each, with neighbors and friends quick to lend a helping hand to the families with members deployed to the war zone.
“We kind of stick together,” Harsh said. “Even the people who aren’t in the military stay close and try to help.”
“Some days are harder than others,” she added.
Like many military spouses here, Harsh is used to taking care of things back home while her 32-year-old husband is away.
“I don’t have a choice, really,” she said. “It bothered him when he came home that I was so used to doing things on my own.”
At home with his wife and kids, Jonathan Harsh tries to ignore thoughts of shipping out again.
“I can’t think about it or I’ll just be miserable,” said Harsh, 32, who repairs weapons for the 10th Mountain Aviation Brigade. “It’s not even an when.”
Civilians outside the base in Watertown marvel at the fortitude of the soldiers — and their families.
“I’m surprised with how long this war has gone on, they’re still positive,” said Bill McKinney, who runs a supply store off-base. “I’m surprised at how resilient they are.
“They roll with the punches,” he said.
Apple iPhone
Just have to say that I absoluly love the iPhone and our iPod Touch. These are possibly the most incredible devices ever invinted since the Gutenberg Printing Press.
POTUS Speech @ West Point
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility — what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict — not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them — because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we're not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America — we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility — what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict — not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them — because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we're not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America — we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)