Thread: Thoughts on the Afghanistan Speech by Obama

I'm going to write a bit on the speech and the future as I see it, from a policy perspective.



When trying to understand how things are brought about, there are usually four stages that should be looked for that would bring an idea into reality. The first, is naturally the idea itself - for two ideas that stand in opposition to each other, even if they are processed in the same manner, will definitely result in different outcomes, for if they result in the same outcome then it is impossible to consider things that are different to be different, because they are the same. The second, is how the idea initially manifests itself into reality, or how the idea is first created and gets established into this world. The third, is how the period of creation and initial establishment becomes refined, where the 'clay' is shaped by the designer into a genuine piece of sculpture, and the form starts to be truly manifested in its substance. The fourth, is the physical manifestation of the previous three stages of development, when the entire potential stemming from the idea, through the creative period, then the refining period, gets put into motion.



Additionally, I consider when a distinct body has been formed, whether the body is a collection of Men such as a nation, a sculpture, a stadium, a team, or whatever, it is able to posses distinctness based on its quintessence - that aspect of materials that is invisible, yet defines its relationship with things that are not technically a part of its internal structure. Thus, a Man is more than a series of cells put together in a specific way, and more than atoms; a sculpture bears the vision of its artist, a sports team bears the work of many from a specific area; for when things are put together they become one thing, a unity, which is greater than even all the constituent parts put together. This quintessence has two aspects - its internal, and its external. Its internal relies on how its constituent atoms, or parts, understands the oneness of the group; while its external relies on how others can come into contact with the group.



When using these four stages of reasoning, and the internal and external aspects of the quintessence, I am drawn to several conclusions after listening to the President's speech in West-Point a bit ago:



Internally, what is the President trying to say?



Underlying all of the thoughts here is the idea that the United States is an entity that will always disagree with itself, and that this disagreement will be the cause of much fighting, and that this fighting threatens to derail the unity of the People, as he says:

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 is 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. 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, one people.

This point is of crucial importance - America is diverse, this diversity can lead to 'poison', but that if there is proper reason and leadership given to national decisions, it can serve as a beacon for 'summoning again' this idea of national unity.



In this vane, the President appears to be making the case that the Afghanistan War has entered a new phase of its conflict, and that the previous years of inattention being paid to the war should be looked at again from a national perspective - it was WE who were attacked, it was WE who invaded, and now its WE who are going in to 'finish the job'. And in this pursuit, as the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military, he is ordering 30,000 additional soldiers in for 18 months, as well as the $30 billion per year of cost.



In summation - the United States is one nation, diverse and partisan, but the Government can draw it together if it provides adequate leadership, that a new strategy will provide this leadership, and that such a strategy will serve as a reminder of the unity of the United States.



What about externally?



It appears as though he looks at the United States as being an equal among equals in the International Community - it is a stronger country than most, definitely a leader, and while it has the capacity to operate on its own, it would much rather involve others. To this effect, he glorified the invocation of article 5 of NATO, where 'an attack upon 1 is an attack upon One', talked about how Pakistan was being supported by his administration, how the Afghan government 'conformed to its laws'. It seems to be very similar to his domestic outlook - we may not be Pakistan, but the people and institutions that 'respect the law' in Pakistan and elsewhere are our allies, and the allies combine together to form a '1'.



Some conclusions I have drawn:



Firstly, I see no difference between the ideas laid out in terms of the internal projection when I compare it with its external projection; internally what needs to be avoided is 'partisanship', whereas externally what needs to be avoided is 'Al-Qaeda and the defilers of Islam'; internally we are 'one country', externally we are 'one peoples bound together by mutual respect for each others cultures'; internally he wants 30,000 troops, $30 billion, and 18 months, externally he wants the commitments of others, Pakistanis and Afghanis to step up; internally, we can come together and fight partisanship by fighting Al-Qaeda, and externally, we can come together and fight Al-Qaeda by fighting Partisanship.



Secondly, Obama has claimed this war for his own, and while it may have been initiated during the Bush years, Obama has proclaimed that he will 'refine' the actions of America so that they will be accomplished.



Thirdly, it definitely requires more energy being in the executive of the United States, but it seeks to through being smart enough to bring 'military efficiencies' as well as additional physical resources.



Fourthly, he seeks to portray himself as a 'smart president'.



I will continue this later at some point.



CONTINUED:



If you believe that Obama is a smart President, who is capable of knowing good advice and good strategy when he sees it, then this is a good strategy for you; if you do not believe in his ability to know good advice and follow it, then it is not good. Thus, he has successfully melded together the two sides of the argument into a yes or no question; either we say 'yes' to the effort, or 'no' to the effort, but not 'yes to the war' and 'no to the war'.



Is Obama a person capable of making good judgments? The basis of his ideas, that we are one country which can overcome its partisanship by a 'unity through action' is good - while I believe unity through action is temporary and lasting unity comes from marriage and belief, action can elevate itself to become that; so ultimately the proposal is founded on a solid basis. I do believe that the policy of beefing up the security defenses, the civilian power, as well as bringing more of NATO into the fight, and increasing Pakistan's capability is a good idea - the two ideas will merge to form the beautiful foundation for the necessary unity, if such a task is seen through to the end. I would like to know how they are going to get Afghani people more involved in their own fight, but I suspect that the iraq anti-insurgency model is going to be used; I would like to know how Afghanistan is different than Iraq from a counter-insurgency point of view, because they are necessarily different and should not be treated the same way.



The basis of ideas is good, the initiatives (promoting security in af/pak, promoting their ability to get involved in their fight, getting support from NATO) cannot be argued with in terms of concept for they are good concepts; I would like to know if there are sufficient leaders in Afghanistan to lead the charge, for as I understand it calling the entire region Afghanistan is a misnomer, and Hamid Karzai basically rules Kabul (if that any more thanks to the nice corruption), whether the laws of Afghanistan can be respected, and whether the goal is the ultimate removal of the insurgency in Waziristan or simply the establishment of a stable and strong Afghan state, and a capable Pakistan.



It cannot be answered whether there are sufficient Afghans to assume the role of leadership, but I can only assume from my reading of human nature that all Men are capable of leadership; it cannot be answered whether the laws can be respected, but a law with no power has no respect and thus this is a move to bolster its potential respect; and, if the goal is to establish a strong Afghan state, then I can see how the $30 billion / year + 30,000 troops + 18 months is an accurate number - but, if the goal is to eliminate the insurgency in Waziristan, the cost will be much much higher.



If the intent is to go with the former, I support this proposal, because it is accurate to its purpose - if the intent is the latter, I do not support this proposal, because it is not the proper force for the occasion - either that, or it is going to be a lot harder than the President is letting on.



Ultimately, it looks as if he is going with the former, because this is a measured policy, and not a policy made with the intent of 'all in or bust'. So I support it, until the President shows me that he is incapable of making good judgments about policy and strategy, and ones that are based on unity rather than division, and ideas not individuals.

If he was smart he'd pull out of there,, NOW.