Obama: U.S. must have "exit strategy" in Afghanistan

[babylonsister]

Source: Reuters

Obama: U.S. must have "exit strategy" in Afghanistan
Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:05pm EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama insisted on Sunday that military force alone would not end the war in Afghanistan and suggested a U.S. "exit strategy" could be part of a new comprehensive policy he is expected to unveil soon.

Obama, in an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" program, previewed in broad terms his administration's review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy based on recommendations from senior U.S. officials and consultations with allies.

He made clear his new approach would call for a greater emphasis on economic development in Afghanistan, diplomacy with neighboring Pakistan and better coordination with international partners than under his predecessor George W. Bush.

"What we can't do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems," Obama said. "So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's got to be an exit strategy ... There's got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift."


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52L1NW20090322

[BeFree]

1. Heh

I said this two months ago. Guess Obama heard me, eh?

[BeFree]

6. Ho boy

Just watched the boob tube with Obama on, and you'd think I was his closest advisor the way his ideas match mine. Nananana!

[LakeSamish706]

2. I seriously think that President Obama gets it, he seems to analyze everything...

before making any hasty decisions. I believe that he knows that we cannot win in Afghanistan with the military but need another solution.

[babylonsister]

4. He's listening to everyone, too, which is a

major requirement, and seems to be making informed decisions. What more can we ask for?

The sooner we get out of there, the better.

[LakeSamish706]

5. "The sooner we get out of there, the better." My exact thoughts... Afghanistan is a no...

win war for sure. I'm pretty sure the UN forces would like to be out as quickly as possible as well.

[Optical.Catalyst]

11. The Republicans analyzed it too

But the Republican objective was to put money in the pockets of big business and defense contractors. Cheney took care of his friends in business with two wars, no bid contracts, and a complete override of oversight for government spending.

[Demeter]

3. "Just Get the Hell Out Yesterday" Works for Me

I am willing to bet that the number of Afghans who want the US army to stay can be counted on the thumb of one hand. And the number who would be willing to flee to America include all the women and children.

[grahamhgreen]

7. Yay!

[babylonsister]

8. No kidding! Yay, too! nt

[tuckessee]

9. The Russians may have a few pointers. n/t

[babylonsister]

10. Yes! At least we have someone smart thinking about history and stuff. nt

[jakeXT]

12. And why do we have to go there?

Geographically and logistically, Pakistan would be an ideal choice. However, a pipeline
through that country could be subject to terrorist attacks. Despite this, China and
Pakistan have been progressing in their discussions on energy cooperation. Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf was discussing the possibility of giving China direct access
to Gwadar port, which is located near the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of
the world’s oil passes.40 China had contributed $198 million while Islamabad contributed
$50 million to the port’s construction, the first phase of which was completed in April
2005. China reportedly will finance phase two as well. In order to give China direct
access to Gwadar port, Pakistan is researching the prospect of transporting crude oil
through its mountainous terrain to China’s border. This could be accomplished via
railway or pipeline. Musharraf is also trying to convert Pakistan into an energy corridor
for China through Gwadar seaport by developing new rail and road networks.
Musharraf said that by linking the two countries by rail and gas pipeline it would ensure
rapid trade and energy development, which would be mutually beneficial.41

Should a crisis occur that disrupts the flow of oil into China, it could prove to have a
powerful negative impact. With China’s exploding economy, fueled by an increase in oil
demand and decreasing domestic supplies of oil, China could be faced with an
economic and socio-economic crisis if it is not able to obtain the resources necessary to
support it. Oil is at the
forefront of its
requirements list, being
integral to myriad
industrial and
consumer needs.
China’s oil stockpiles
are currently very low.
Should China
somehow lose part of
its oil supply, it would
probably impose strict
fuel rationing. Fuel
would be allocated to
food transportation and
other essential means
of transport while private citizens would be denied. China is extremely vulnerable to
that.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/chinasquest0107.pdf