Obama says his goal in Afghanistan is U.S. national defense, not nation building and democracy spreading

Not that one can believe anything Obama says, but this, from the New York Times, is interesting.

In the end the plan [to increase troops in Afghanistan] is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among [Obama’s] advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world.

By contrast, at a White House news conference in which he invoked concerns of another possible terrorist attack on United States soil, Mr. Obama framed the issue as one that relies on one central tenet: protecting Americans from attacks like the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

To do so, he said he would increase aid to Pakistan and would, for the first time, set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both countries. “The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said Friday in announcing his decision. “Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.

“So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies—the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks—are in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” he said. “We have 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.”

- end of initial entry -

April 1

James W. writes:

All that Obama does is show, and in the aid of another purpose.

He considers, correctly, the great impediment to his goals is the military. He unwisely revealed that in his speech advocating organizing brownshirts to be at least as powerful as the military.

Cutting budgets is not enough to marginilize them. So his only true goal in Afghanistan can be to humiliate the military.

A revolutionary does not advocate winning wars, except civil wars.

LA replies:

That’s a dark view. I hope you’re wrong.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 31, 2009 09:17 AM | Send