world

Obama promises to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan

67 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

67 Comments
Login to comment

here's one we have all heard before... 'we' means the americans that are supposed to be being productive and fueling the economy, bringing life into the world, and making the world a better place... not running half way around the world to bring death and destruction... I thought 'change' was in the air...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

while money is involved nothing will change, only the way the message gets delivered. its not 2009 you know its really 1984.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good luck boss, we're all behind you. Really.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finish the job. What is job's main vision/task, actually?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One problem with modern-day warfare is that it's not longer politically correct to be utterly ruthless. That went out with Richard Nixon and his "Christmas Bombing" of Hanoi back in 1972. And it bought the South Vietnamese government what? A little over two years more time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A decision at last, the wait was intolerable. Now hopefully the military can start getting on with the job without being second-guessed by every politician in Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It is my intention to finish the job,”

Then he better change the constitution so he can serve more than two terms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr Obama is sending a clear, strong message: it's become too cold for any more golf playing!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems like he is saying the American assistance will be pulling out in a while. Possibly a bit like the Canadain Troops through UN.

All UN troops do NOT know how to fight tribes of various Afghanistan tribs to religious to war lords & such. If the UN troobs fight the same as the enemie then according to all they will be breaking the laws to Geniva Convention rules.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well, I think that if president obama wants to bring more destruction to afghanistan in the name of finishing whatever he thinks needs done which in my opinion is to repay the monetary favors that put him in office by opening and protecting u.s. exploitation of south eastern european oil reserves and fanning the economy by kicking the military industrial complex into gear then he should get out there n do the shooting himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finish the job sounds like what happened in WWII to end the war :(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smythe, the CanadIAN troops are with NATO not the UN. Get a clue mate. And it's clear that Obama is after that oil pipeline to feed oil to the world and make that military industrial complex a well oiled machine. It's a vicious circle that he is entangled in but all too willing to participate in to fill his own evil coffers. Hakujinsensei knows the deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama with his war team has come up with a strategy to put in 30K+ troops, another 7K from NATO and then get the job done.

Not only this but there's going to be an exit strategy. Shall I repeat, an exit strategy. Some george bush never ever considered.

It must be terrible to see Obama come up with strategy that never crossed the minds of the republicans who had the charge of running the war. Oh no, it was pull the troops out of Afghanistan, start a war in Iraq and fail at it. Then leaves office as a war failure.

Barack Obama and his team have come up with a strategy of getting out of the mid-east and bring our troops home.

So when are we going to raise taxes to pay for these wars? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[Shall I repeat, an exit strategy. Some george bush never ever considered.]

Yes that is right. because he wants to defend the pipeline for the next 100 years. There never was an exit strategy for that reason. Remember that military industrial machine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

8 years of war. And let us not forget that the Taliban (who GWB thought was a rock band)offered to hand over OBL to the Saudi's after 9-11. But oh no, George wanted his war. And here we are 8 years later. Thanks George for your wise and thoughtful decision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The tax you speak of is already on the table. The "war surtax" -but many think of it as a way to end the war.

I still think they will try for Venezuela soon since it is so easy. Afghanistan is hard, because the people have always been independent warload groups that don't think as a nation + all the mountains = Iran is actually easier if they could get the populace behind the idea + they have money + oil.

Oil use is down right now -Giving them time. A War in Venezuela will help spike the price and make them money. Pipeline thru Iran longterm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"With the war worsening on Obama's watch"

How can this be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We're still paying for other wars. We haven't even started to pay for these two wars. The money is just borrowed.

I'll be glad when our troops are home. It'll still be a while, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Question: How did we end the war in the Pacific, thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives...and mostly American GI lives? I do not consider this a vulgar answer. Why was it removed? Someone complain? I have relatives over there and do not want them there."

Obama can finish the job this way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Several key thoughts.

Had Bush properly focused on the Taliban this problem would not exist today. Instead we were in Iraq for ages accomplishing nothing but the creation of yet another unstable mid east nation.

We have no choice now but to resolve Afghanistan. The Taliban issue in Pakistan would become a global conflagration if we fail to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a nuclear armed state, Pakistan cannot become too unstable without taking out the entire region. Better to spend money now on a managable war than to allow it to spread and engulf Pakistan as it will if we pull out too soon.

The key to winning this conflict is economic opportunity and stability for the Afghan rural people. If they become invested in their own economic future with our help, the Taliban will see their support disappear all together. To achieve this we need to provide real security for people to get on with their lives.

The outcome of this conflict is in the best interests of nearly every other nation. The UN should do far more than it is.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is terribly sad. The US is fiscally bankrupt and its armed forces are literally running on fumes. Nothing good will come from protracted war in Afghanistan or anywhere else. The bottom line will be a further decline in the standard of living at home and weakening of US power and influence abroad, trends that are already well under way. The march of folly continues...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We haven't even started to pay for these two wars." They could let us pay directly to the military or they could start using that un-used stimulus money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr Obama had to distance himself from Mr Bush. He had to be the UnDecider.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For all the talk about McChrystal's new strategy, the extra troops are still way below what the US Army's own counter-insurgency manual says are needed, even if they figure don't have to cover the whole country and just focus on the Pashtun area. So they still need NATO and the Afghans to make up the difference, and it still comes down to the old "Afghans will provide for their own security" plan. So what exactly has changed - it is still the same old "we will stay until we don't have to stay", just with more troops staying there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So he has vowed to finish something that never should have started: destroying and looting a country just because the leaders did not want to hand over 9/11 suspects without seeing the evidence. Yes we can... do more of the same...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How was the war stopped in the Pacific during WWII? Want to save American lives? I do. Seems like some people here don't and that is a shame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yelnats. Nuclear war is a foolish option. Impossible on so many levels that should be obvious.

Bottom line. Find a working resolution to the conflicts in Afghanistan and with the Taliban in Pakistan or face the risk of a wide spread conflagration. Period. Left or Right wing doesn't matter here. We are there and failure risks a war that will cost far more and involve many other nations. So you can decide. Pay a bit now or pay through the nose later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only "exit strategy" that Obama has considered, is the destruction of the U.S. and his exit back to his native Africa. Obama is the most naive president that the U.S. has ever had, and we can see this very clearly from his behavior and actions. When a country is in a recession, and has massive unemployment, creating massive entitlements and raising taxes does not solve problems (historically, they make it worse). Further, he's broken every campaign promise, and is now at historically low approval numbers (worse than any president in modern history, including GW Bush).

Obama is an empty suit and 2012 can't come soon enough...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtimjones-----So which is your stance? Continue the war forever thus piling up the debt or finding ways to end the war? Is there anything he can do that you the far right wouldn't complain? And where is the money that you want him to use for all these problems you guys left? Why didn't you pay for those you started or at least tell us how it was supposed to be paid for

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The rot was set in by Reagan, and made worse by his successors.Bush was too busy fighting Papa's war to pay attention to anything else. Obama at least understands that appeasing corrupt leaders does not get you far.I guess carrot and stick policy is a bit hard for the GOP types to understand. Yelnats, you are smoking some dangerous stuff there, better quit before its too late.

The only "exit strategy" that Obama has considered, is the destruction of the U.S. and his exit back to his native Africa

Single digit IQs are working overtime today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McC72 - "where is the money that you want him to use for all these problems you guys left?"

That's a real good question, and one conservatives don't want you to think about.

The size of the Afghanistan problem is in direct proportion to the degree that bush and co. ignored it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I was reading this article, my computer is playing the song "Who'll stop the rain?". That song was popular during the anti Vietnam war movement. The war started at 2002. It is longer than Second World War and Vietnam War. Too much resource has been drained and so many lives has been lost. It is time to stop the rain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama promises to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan" A good idea would be to pull everyone back and fight the war where it should be fought - inside the US.

Watch what happens when the trial begin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When will this war stop? Already a lot of lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Why a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan? When Barack Obama was contesting for elections, he had promised if elected he will get troops back home. The bringing down of Guantanamo Bay was a really good decision. But continuing war in Afghanistan is really going to hurt people & their pockets. Deploying 30000 plus troops in Afghanistan alone would cost a bomb to the U.S. Needless to say every month has been more and more deadly for the U.S troops. Please save innocent lives. Stop this deadly war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How was the war stopped in the Pacific during WWII? Want to save American lives? I do.

Best way to save American lives is to keep them home. Plus, we should be more concerned with saving Afghan lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yelnats: sabiwabi is bang on in his last post -- the best way to save lives is to bring Americans home, and the sooner they do the more lives they'll save. Oh, and by the way, killing millions with nuclear weapons while the bad guys hide in caves isn't 'saving lives' in any way whatsoever.

Anyway, sorry to see Obama spewing out the next rhetorical catch-phrases in this idiotic war, but adaydream is right to an extent -- he didn't start this thing, and the guy who did had no exit plan, but at least he has an exit plan laid out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, all this comparing Obama to Bush is getting a bit boring especially since so many things Bush put have NOT been changed/closed.

smith: your right, he didn't start it but he did take the job. Excuse time is over at this point. Close down the war or fight it right. win or lose are two words I could care less about anymore. .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan did not attack us. All they did was harbor a group that did. Just get out and let them get back to killing eachother. Its what they are best at. The place is hopeless. Just keep a better eye on their guests from now on. Bring our boys home.

Sorry to see Obama pandering to the warlovers on this. Hmmm...then again, maybe we should let warlovers continue the useless fight if the wish...perhaps draft the people who still seem to think its a great idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who is financing the formidable and very well-armed Taliban forces, large numbers of which are not native Afghanis?

Any criticism of those backing the other side?

Sorry to see Obama pandering to the warlovers on this.

And the Taliban and Al Qaeda love peace?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what is the "job" the genius leader of the free world wants to "finish" in Afghanistan?

Establishing a pro-western, modern, democratic system in country that has written the Sharia into its constitution?

If that is it, is is almost the definition of insanity.

He can keep pouring ressources into this black hole, until his country is bankrupt (or, in the event, until the Chinese stop bankrolling his bankrupt country...)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Chinese have to bankroll it, or they go in the black hole. It is one big giant circle. Small tactile nuclear weapon over a small area on a mountain with a long forewarning just to show what we can do, as they do not have tv and internet out on the poppy farms, just might make some changes. We could have done that in Japan and not have blown away two cities. Could have just said...watch this and then make a choice. Do not know why we didn't, but it was war and both the Germans and the Japanese were close to the bomb themselves. Killed hundreds of thousands, but saved millions. Put on a show in my opinion, and then if the Taliban and the AlQuds decide to continue on with the war, then so be it. Blow the hell out of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing....now we're hearing the GOP and their conservative base saying that the fight in Afghanistan is important.

Where were they during the last 8 years when bush and cheney were in charge?

Where was the gaping, red-faced outrage from the the GOP and conservatives when their hero - bush - started this war?

I'll tell you where.

They weren't complaining then, but boy - they sure are going off now.

We are now seeing feigned outrage from the GOP and its supporters.....nearly a decade late.

That just can't be beat. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yelnats:

" Put on a show in my opinion, and then if the Taliban and the AlQuds decide to continue on with the war, then so be it. Blow the hell out of them. "

Talk about a non-solution! Your idea is to threaten death to the jihadis? So, a death threat would have stopped Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 bombers??? Good grief.

But thanks for the illustration of how Westerners are unable to think outside their own cultural norms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan is the grave yard of empires and so it will be once more. Till the credit lines to America are cut by Japan and China the war will continue. Obama is not antiwar, his puppet masters are the same as Bush`s. He is just a better salesman that took the steam out of the movement temporarily.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Afghanistan is the graveyards of empires"

Good thing we're not an empire then.

"Mr. Obama had to distance himself from Mr. Bush. He had to be the UnDecider."

Heh.

"Obama is the most naive president the U.S. has ever had... Obama is an empty suit and 2012 can't come soon enough."

Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama at least understands that appeasing corrupt leaders does not get you far.

So far Obama has had a wonderful time with Chavez and bowed to that Saudi dictator "king" who doesn't even let women drive cars, let alone vote. He willingly goes into a Chinese "town meeting" where the attendees are hand picked to parrot the govenment. Obama isn't appeasing corrupt leaders, he's kissing every butt he can find.

In the meantime the idea that the problem of Afganistan is going to be solved in four years is really short sighted and displays a poor understanding of history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is being dragged - kicking and screaming - into making a decision on Afghanistan. He's the Peter Principle personafide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't Obama get the Chinese to contribute 20,000 or 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Afghanistan is the graveyards of empires"

Including the original Afghan one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In order to fight a protracted war you need two fairly strong sides to maximize debt. Afghanistan is not really strong in any way so you need to go with the "terrorist" angle and that they could attack at any time. Afghanistan doesn't really have any resources besides poppy plants, people are uneducated, not alot of money. Right now they use Afghanistan to suck in terrorists in order to kill them (a honey-pot, miasma)

Position-wise Afghanistan has some value, but Iran would be better + money and resources. A better position + easier to build the pipelines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The shallow partisanship of the GOP and conservatives is coming all too clear now.

They said next to nothing when the Afghanistan war started tanking under bush's watch, but now that there's a guy they hate in the Oval Office, suddenly an issue that they should have been talking about 5-6 years ago(if they had actually been serious about it) becomes an issue now.

The feigned concern of the GOP and conservatives is about as lame as their concern for ordinary Iraqis in that war.

I'd put money on the conservatives doing what some of them

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I’ll begin my posting by saying that when it comes to the military and our troops, I definitely lean to the right and support them in total. But I’m surprise at the number of posting here stating what needs to be done if we are to ‘win’ the war in Afghanistan. Even the staunchest supporters and the most right wing of individuals must surely realize by now that such a war is unwinnable, even if the President were to put in three times as many troops.

Since the end of the Second World War America has labored under the delusion that every nation on earth craves American-style democracy and that all that needs to be done is to push out the bad elements and win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the remaining populace. This wasn’t an issue in liberating French villages – or even German ones – from the Nazis (although the latter was more problematic). But we haven’t really won a war since 1945 for this precise reason. It didn’t work in Vietnam; it didn’t work in Iraq and won’t work in Afghanistan. We’ve learned nothing from our own previous experiences, nothing from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and nothing from the history of the region and armed conflicts that have been going on there for decades prior to WWII. The Afghanis don’t wish to be ruled by us, and don’t want our American democracy. And not to belittle them by that fact, it’s just how it is. Just because we as Americans love it does not mean it’s suited for everyone everywhere, nor that they even want this. We are seen as foreign invaders, not great liberators. Add to that the fact that the region is traditionally full of factions, warlords and various internal entities all vying for control of a particular region. I think even the suggestion of a rain of nuclear weapons – despite all of the myriad of reasons why this would be a bad idea – would only have the nasty buggers crawling out of their caves and shooting at the first troops to step foot on ground.

I don’t envy the President. If he escalates troop numbers – which seems most likely – the result is more American and Afghani deaths for ultimately no reason and his liberal supporters cry foul. If he were to somehow find the where-with-all to say enough is enough and pull all troops out, he would effectively be sacrificing his further career (additional terms) and would be the whipping boy of the rabid right for the rest of his term – not to mention all of the fallout from allied support. It would take a person of immense internal fortitude and strength of spirit to do such a thing. Although part of me thinks there would be a great relief and world-wide sigh of relief to be done with it all and work on making things right again.

All fantasy and we’re pretty much screwed to lose many more troops and spend trillions we don’t have for a satisfactory end that will never come.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's just eating the republicans up is that Barack Obama might just get enough fire out of his decision in Afghanistan that he might get reelected. With health care being fought tooth and nail by the republicans, ending the Iraq war and bringing us closer to the finish line in Afghanistan that we might be seeing Obama win another election in 2012.

That's exactly why you haven't read anything good from the republicans. They'd rather fail in Afghanistan and maybe see Palin, Huckaby or some other republican get elected, then win in Afghanistan. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama: The Bill Gates of Politics. One day he'll get something right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's good to see that President Obama is finally getting around to escalating the war and sending more troops to Afghanistan. This on top of the thousands sent in last Spring's escalation indicates that there are at least some grown-ups in charge in his administration. Give credit to Obama for seeing the light and not getting too caught up in all of his campaign rhetoric from last year and just pulling the plug as his Liberal allies in Congress would like him to do.

The key now is to see how many troops he is able to get from our NATO allies. This is an area that he pounded former President Bush for and it should be expected that he can get a significant commitment from our allies. Hopefully he will be able to get more than 10,000 soldiers from our European allies. Anything significantly less than that would mean that all of his groveling and apologies over the past year did more harm than good.

Another important issue is how he plays the "exit strategy" issue that is beginning to be bandied about so much lately. The exit strategy in war should be defined as defeating the enemy, not just getting out before some arbitrary date. That is more of a retreat than an exit strategy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Anything significantly less than that would mean that all of his groveling and apologies over the past year did more harm than good."

Often the ase when you've shat on your friends!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

health care being fought tooth and nail by the republicans...

Wow, that is a daydream. The democrats control the presidency and BOTH houses of congress and they still can't get a bill through. That's not the republicans fighting, that's a total lack of leadership. The same reason why it's taken months to decide what to do about Afghanistan. Or close Gitmo. Sheesh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didn't see a single republican vote in the senate to open debate on the health care bill. Not a one. And if they could have gotten that 40 and 41 vote, they'd be squawking about how they stopped it.

The republican party is the party of "NO". I'm waiting to hear how the republicans will take Obama's announcement on the troops. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If "winning the war" means indebting America and ultimately the world --> Obama has done an exceptional job and you really need to give GWB and the "terrorists" some credit also, -Libs.

When I hear someone say "finish the job" = crime syndicate talk, but since Obama is the face of the world's largest crime syndicate it sort of makes sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama and his party declared throughout the election that Afghanistan was the right war, and now he wants to finish it.

But not a word on how this "finish" is supposed to look like. What exactly does he want to achieve? A democratic, modern, pro-Western Afghanistan? That will NEVER happen, as long as the Sharia is written into its constitution. It is a contradiction in terms.

If it is something else he imagines, then what? Why does nobody ask him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

was the right war, and now he wants to finish it.

You want this war to last how long? 8 more years. How about forever?

He hasn't released how yet. He'll tell us his full plan Tuesday night. You know that, but you whine. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's turning out to be a great Repbulican don't you think?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is on track to complete no task while he's in office. And speaking as a reasonable person, I'm okay with that. At least Bush had a backbone...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

" You want this war to last how long? 8 more years. How about forever? "

I?? I do not want this stupid war at all. Remember, it was Obama and the Democrats who consistently called this the "right" war and promised to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Now he is stuck with his "right" war and just as clueless as his predecessor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is quite amusing that someone would even suggest that Obama might "finish the job" when this clown has never had a job of any significance. He's been an embarrassment since day one in the White House. People are quick to criticize Bush for coming off as a little dopey at times, but at least he put his country first... unlike the buffoon in office now. I never thought a man would get elected based purely on his race but it has happened and America is suffering as a result. More damage from this stupid affirmative action nonsense. He not only has no spine, he can't make a difficult decision, and his loyalties are clearly not with America. I'm not saying you have to be pompous but at least stop apologizing and stop appeasing the Muslim terrorists who want to kill all of us. I can't wait for 2012 because he will be GONE!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, Tigermoth, look at what has happened to the world in the last 40 years. How can you say what the Afghanis want or don't want? Have you spoken to any?

The outcome of these wars that we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan have consequences that reach beyond those borders. Those opposed to us fear what will happen if the people they want to subjugate see that a functioning democracy that protects people's fundamental human rights is compatible with Islam. If we can set the condition right for that to happen and then leave to demonstrate that we are not an occupying force, it shows people that America is serious about improving the world rather than just getting what it wants and then disappearing. If we fail here, we lose all credibility. It will result in more terrorism and eventually a much bigger war in a short time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ironic, isn't it, that the people who are now decrying "Republicans", "conservatives", or those "ignorant oafs on the right" slamming Obama were the very same people who did that and much more for Bush and his government?

Say what you want about Bush but he was a president in a time when the US was attacked, and it's so easy to second guess his decisions now. The US has made quite a few questionable decisions in all of the wars that we have fought, both before and after. Foreign policy blunders set the stage for wars. Take VietNam - what might have happened if VietNam was granted independence from the French after being liberated from the Japanese? Or if Truman had not caved in to the Russians in Eastern Europe and Korea? What might have happened if we had really helped Afghanistan after the Russians left? If we had insisted that Saddam surrender himself and installed a democratic system in Iraq the first time? All of these mistakes were made because the US cares entirely too much as being portrayed as the good guy instead of following through.

Food for thought – every major war we have had in the last century was preceded by a Democratic presidency

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites