About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Afghan Refugee Family Seeks Housing

Pam Varkony is a writer, speaker and woman's advocate who has travelled at least twice to Afghanistan. She has asked if anyone can help a family of refugees find housing. Here's what she has to say.

"The following is one of those "shot in the dark" inquiries...

"As you may know, I've been working with and writing about Afghans who escaped in August of '21. The Balkhi family was stranded in Uzbekistan for a year, finally making it to the US when the father was granted a scholarship by Lehigh U. which entitled him and the family to student visas. They arrived here with nothing. Lehigh provided housing. A group we affectionately call "Team Balkhi" formed around them for support...food, clothing, transportation.

"The father, Rohullah, graduated in May with his MBA. He has a job offer from Vitaulic effective as soon as his asylum claim is approved. The family's Lehigh housing ends Aug 30. They need a three bedroom apartment or house they can afford, nothing fancy. They would like to be in Nazareth or nearby. When Maria told me she met with you, the light went off... Bernie lives in Nazareth and he knows everyone."

"They are lovely people and the kids are very well behaved. If you have any thoughts or leads as to where this family might find housing, I'd be very grateful for the information.

Thank you...

Pam

Pam can be reached at Pam@PamelaVarkony.com.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Is It Time to Pull Out of Afghanistan?

Right now, there are approximately 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. By the end of the year, there will be 90,000. And next year, another 23,000 troops will come home, right before the election.

“America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” says President Obama.

But that's not why we're there. Anybody who thinks we're in Afghanistan to raise the standards of living or improve the status of Afghan women, is nuts. We're there because we perceive it to be in our interests to be there. And for good reason.

Let me lay it out. We screwed up the balance of power in the Middle East the second we set foot in Iraq, and now there's no turning back. We've done a fine job driving that country into the arms of Iran, and while doing that, completely forgot about Afghanistan, the one country that should have worried us. As a result, the Taliban has strengthened in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So what? Who cares what they do, right? Wrong.

Pakistan has been completely destabilized. Things are so bad that Obama decided against telling its leaders he'd be dropping by with a Navy Seal team for bin Laden. And right after that, the Taliban waged a 12-hour attack on a Pakistan military base.

Did I mention that Pakistan has nukes? A Taliban resurgence almost guarantees that some of those nukes will fall into Taliban and al-Qaeda hands.

So what? They can't launch missiles that can reach the U.S., so who cares, right? Wrong again.

It would be amazingly easy to launch a nuke at the U.S. from a scud mounted on something as unsophisticated as a fishing trawler off the Atlantic coast.

That's why we're there. The soldiers who die there are saving countless lives here.

But there's an election coming.

LV Congressman Charlie Dent, in a statement released late last night, wants to know what the military thinks. Noting that President Obama's surge was motivated by the recommendation of military commanders, he questions whether Obama's decision is politically motivated. "I hope the President’s decision to begin drawing-down our troop presence in Afghanistan, with the goal of returning to pre-surge levels by the end of 2012, is similarly based on changing conditions on the ground and the recommendations of American commanders, rather than political advisers." Dent wants to hear from the military. "I am eager to be briefed by Department of Defense officials on today’s decision by the President and expect to receive regular updates on the effect the drawdown is having on American and Afghan security.”

Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, echoes Dent. "This decision should not be based on politics or economics. America's brave men and women in uniform have fought to achieve significant progress in Afghanistan, some having paid the ultimate price. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our military commanders in the days ahead." But there are GOP presidential contenders, like former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who want us pull out now. "We need a safe but rapid withdrawal which encourages Afghans to assume responsibility, while leaving in place a strong counter intelligence and special forces effort proportionate to the threat."

What do you think?

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Dent: Afghanistan Has Two Seasons - Winter & Fighting Season

"There are two seasons in Afghanistan - Winter and Fighting Season."

That's Congressman Charlie Dent's Afghanistan assessment, distilled into a single sentence. He said that during a telephone news conference with reporters on September 8, at the conclusion of a whirlwind, bi-partisan tour of Southwest Asia.

Afghanistan - We'll know more in December

Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Some might argue it's imperial ambition. Others might claim it is a reaction to the 9/11 attacks, which were originally planned in that desolate country. But it's very likely that, believe it or not, nuclear deterrence is a major reason as well. If Afghanistan continues to spiral out of control, the Taliban will soon be in control. From there, it will have a safe haven from which it can continue to destabilize Pakistan, which just happens to have 90 nuclear warheads.

So how are we doing? Too soon to say, according to Dent. He was briefed by General David Petraeus on "village stabilization efforts," where a relationship is developed with tribal elders, after which local police are recruited and trained. This has happened successfully in about 20 villagers, but Dent cautions there are a few thousand. He visited two of these "stabilized" villages, but adds "it's still very dangerous there."

The chief goal is to empower local governments. Historically, Afghanistan has never really had a central government. Another goal is to prevent the country from becoming a "breeding ground for terrorists."

Although generally supportive of President Obama's strategy, Dent considers the timeline for withdrawal as "problematic" because "it confuses people. Some think it is a signal we are running out."

General Petraeus will assess conditions on the ground in December, to determine how much more time is needed. Dent claims that "we're there to be successful," but acknowledges "we will have to draw down at some point."

Pakistan - Floods Are Greater Threat Than Insurgency

Dent is very concerned about Pakistan's continued stability. Its greatest threat had been the insurgency in tribal areas, but that has been replaced by the catastrophic floods and the government's "inability to respond effectively." Pakistani television is broadcasting images of President Asif Ali Zardari's sojourn in France and England, while 20 million of his countrymen have been left homeless.

Dent reports there are rumors of an impending military coup, but he doubts that will happens because generals are already running the county.

Although Pakistan has a professional army and is willing to work with us, Dent is discouraged by the government's seeming indifference to the Haqqani, an independent group based in Pakistan ans a known threat to coalition forces in Afghanistan. That situation is "unacceptable," Dent said.

The only silver lining in Pakistan's dark cloud is the sight of U.S. Special Forces, working side-by-side with the Pakistani Army to help flood victims.

In Georgia, Dent witnessed a ceremony honoring the first soldier from that pro-American country killed in Afghanistan. In Lebanon, he had discussions with government leaders on the best way to protect that country's territorial integrity.
Updated 1:00 1 AM: Blogger Chris Casey had a one-on-one with Congressman Dent.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Dent: U.S. Special Forces Embedded With Pakistani Troops

He won't say how many, but LV Congressman Charlie Dent this morning confirmed the presence if U.S. Special Forces, "embedded" with the Pakistani military. "They're training. They're not doing the fighting," he said.

This appears to be part of a trend in the Obama administration to lend Special Forces to help conduct counter terrorism operations in countries reluctant to admit they are pro-American. A small contingent of Special Forces is also training in Yemen.

Dent discussed Pakistan and Afghanistan in some detail,and I'll have more about that later.

Charlie Dent to Report on Middle East Tour Today

LV Congressman Charlie Dent is currently winding up a tour of Afghanistan, Georgia, Lebanon and Pakistan. Over the years, I've learned he has a real passion for foreign affairs. At Penn State, he earned a degree in Foreign Service & International Politics, and has developed a surprising knowledge and understanding of international security. A few years ago, he actually called me from Islamabad, and spent the first 15 minutes regaling me with tales of the desolate landscape of Afghanistan and the brightly decorated buses so common in Pakistan. The hotel he called from was hit with a bomb attack about a year after that conversation.

His most recent tour has included meetings with American military and diplomatic officials, including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General David Petraeus, Commander of the U.S. Forces in Afghanistan; and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. He also participated in meetings with the Prime Ministers of Georgia, Lebanon, and Pakistan.

Can Lebanon, caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah, ever find peace? His district is full of Lebanese expatriates who have fled the violence to start new lives here.

Is the Russian Bear violating terms of a cease fire with Georgia by deploying sophisticated missile-defense systems in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as claimed by Prime Minister Nika Gilauri?

Is there a danger that failure in Afghanistan will result in a Taliban takeover in Pakistan, a nation of 170 million people and 90 nuclear warheads?

Will Vladimir Putin please put on a shirt?

Congressman Dent will be speaking to the media today, and I'll try to pose those questions.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Dent: Afghanistan is America's War, Not Obama's War

What national leaders are unwilling to say publicly is that, if we leave, we make it that much easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destabilize Pakistan and grab the nukes there. Then we'll have problems that will make 9/11 seem like a church picnic.

RNC Chair Michael Steele, unable to open his mouth without inserting a foot in it, has chosen to politicize this admittedly unpopular conflict, calling it "a war of Obama's choosing". He adds, "[T]he one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan."

LV Congrssman Charlie Dent has just issued a statement siding with President Obama over his own party chair.

“First, the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, with aid and sanctuary provided by the Afghan Taliban, the governing coalition of Afghanistan at the time. These facts are irrefutable and led to America's military involvement in Afghanistan. Any suggestion that America's role in the region was motivated by some other purpose must be corrected immediately.

"Second, this war is America's war, not President Obama's war. To suggest otherwise is simply unfair and incorrect.

"American and allied troops are engaged in an ongoing struggle to ensure that radical, Islamist extremists may never launch future attacks on our homeland or find aid, comfort and sanctuary in Afghanistan.

"During this critical transition of military command, it is essential and imperative that Congress demonstrate resolve and show solidarity with the troops, their new Commander, General David Petraeus, and their mission.”

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Dent Respects Obama Decision to Replace MacChrystal

LV Congressman Charlie Dent has issued this statement responding to President Obama’s decision to dump General Stanley McChrystal:

“I am extremely grateful for General McChrystal’s leadership in Afghanistan. He has led our troops through an extremely difficult and complex conflict with a spirit of determination. However, I respect the President’s decision, as Commander-in-Chief, to make a personnel change he found necessary for ensuring our success abroad. I am confident in the abilities and resolve of General Petraeus, and agree he is the best leader to assume command of our mission in Afghanistan.”

Friday, March 12, 2010

Dent: Why We're Needed in Afghanistan

On Wednesday, a Dennis Kucinich resolution to remove all troops from Afghanistan by year's end, fell on its face, 356 to 65. His losing argument is that we can't win there. "The military escalation cements the path of the United States down the road of previous occupiers that earned Afghanistan its nickname as the 'graveyard of empires."

LV Congressman Charlie Dent participated in the three-hour debate, and this is his speech from the House floor.

“There is clear and present danger in removing our men and women from the field while they are engaged in the first major assault of President Obama’s re-affirmed counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan. But here’s another danger: Damaging the morale of the troops who sacrifice their safety and wellbeing to fight to protect our homeland and our freedoms by not providing them with the support and the resources they need to complete their mission.”

“This is a dangerous business, moving troops out of a country. I sat with Secretary Gates on more than one occasion over the years talking about withdrawing troops, in this case from Iraq, and how complex a situation this is and how dangerous it is and the logistical realities of moving this many people safely.

“But don't take my word for it. I think we should listen to the words of the Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, who on December 1 in his address to the nation, said, ‘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 we were attacked on 9/11 and it's 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 apprehended those within our borders who were sent here 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 pressure on al Qaeda.’ Again, that was President Obama."


“Furthermore, nearly one year ago, the President stated the following: ‘If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged that country will be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.’ Additionally, Secretary Gates, our very fine Secretary of Defense, said on February 5 of this year, ‘This is a critical moment in Afghanistan.’

“I'm confident we can achieve our objectives if we continue to muster the resolve to continue this mission. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on September 23 said, ‘Some people say al Qaeda is no longer Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast al Qaeda would be back in Afghanistan.’

“I also want to mention what General (David) Petraeus has said. . . “It was in Kandahar that 9/11 attacks were planned, it is important to recall the seriousness of the mission and why it is that we are in Afghanistan in the first place and why we are still there after years of hard work and sacrifices have passed.’ Again, I strongly urge we defeat this resolution. We owe it to our troops who are watching this debate as we speak.”


By the middle of the Summer, we will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Jack Wagner Disagrees With Obama's Afghanistan Surge

Auditor General Jack Wagner, running for the Democratic nomination in the Pennsylvania Governor's race, told a Camp Hill crowd on Saturday night that he opposes President Obama’s recent decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Wagner is a U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran of the Vietnam War.

“I disagree with the President's decision to substantially expand the number of American military personnel in Afghanistan. The previous administration squandered numerous opportunities in Afghanistan, but those mistakes should not be compounded by another.”

Wagner is also concerned about the war’s horrific impact on U.S. soldiers and their families, noting that more than 5,100 military personnel have been killed and more than 32,000 wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I fear that this is another mistake that will fall most heavily on the soldiers and their families who will bear the burden of this dangerous deployment,” said Wagner. “No matter where you stand on the political aspects of the war, we must keep our troops and military families in our thoughts and prayers for their ultimate sacrifice in protecting our freedom.”

I disagree with Wagner, but am gratified to see a candidate willing to take a position and lead from the front. Wagner may be running for a state office, but is willing to risk losing a few votes by saying what he thinks.

John Callahan, who is running for Congress, is still hiding in his city hall office, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Dent Supports Afghanistan Surge, Questions Withdrawal Timetable

Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent has released the following statement in reaction to President Barack Obama's proposal to bolster troop presence in Afghanistan:

“I support the President’s decision to increase our force presence in Afghanistan to resist the resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces in that country and along the Pakistani border. President Obama has referred to the war in Afghanistan as a ‘war of necessity,’ and I agree.

“However, the President’s address Tuesday night raised many questions – including whether 30,000 troops are adequate to the mission. I am also concerned that we would set a withdrawal timetable before we know specific strategic goals have been achieved.

“I look forward to hearing the testimony of Secretary of State Clinton, Defense Secretary Gates, General McChrystal and other policy experts to help address the questions and concerns of Members of Congress and the American people.”

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Obama Listens to His Generals

The following are excerpts of the President's address to the nation, being delivered from West Point at 8 PM:

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will 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 have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are 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. 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.”

“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 will 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.”

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Jake Towne: Let's Treat al-Qaeda Like Barbary Pirates

In his most recent news release, independent Congressional candidate Jake Towne is now suggesting we pull out of Afghanistan and treat al-Qaeda like Barbary pirates. Here's an excerpt.

"To deal with the problem of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, Towne believes that constitutional letters of marque and reprisal – used previously to deal with the Barbary pirates – are the best solution to deal with small groups. Letters of marque and reprisal are warrants issued by Congress to specified parties giving them permission to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts as they capture 'marked' enemies or seek retribution. America currently has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan to combat less than 100 al-Qaeda members with 'no bases, no means of launching attacks' per National Security Advisor James Jones."

Aaaargh.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Former ET Newsman Killed in Afghanistan

When he worked for the Express Times, Bill Cahir would occasionally send me links to his breaking stories about what was going on in Washington, D.C., especially if it concerned LV Congressman Charlie Dent. He answered every email I sent him, too, giving both encouragement and insights.

I am deeply saddened to learn that Bill was killed killed recently while serving with the Marines in Afghanistan. Editor Joe Owens, a hard=nosed newsman not exactly known for his compliments, called Cahir an "American hero."

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Barack Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategy

I have somehow ended up on the White House press office mailing list. Yesterday afternoon, the office circulated a verbatim transcript of President Barack Obama's new strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let me share it with you.

9:40 A.M. EDT


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Please be seated.

Before I begin today, let me acknowledge, first of all, Your Excellencies, all the ambassadors who are in attendance. I also want to acknowledge both the civilians and our military personnel that are about to be deployed to the region. And I am very grateful to all of you for your extraordinary work.

I want to acknowledge General David Petraeus, who's here, and has been doing an outstanding job at CENTCOM, and we appreciate him. I want to thank Bruce Reidel -- Bruce is down at the end here -- who has worked extensively on our strategic review. I want to acknowledge Karl Eikenberry, who's here, and is our Ambassador-designate to Afghanistan. And to my national security team, thanks for their outstanding work.

Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. And now I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.

The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer.

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. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

But this is not simply an American problem -- far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people -- especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

So I want the American people to understand that 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. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you.

To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is here, to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan.

The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together.

The terrorists within Pakistan's borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan -- they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. So make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.

It's important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, they are rugged, and they are often ungoverned. And that's why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not, and cannot, provide a blank check.

Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken -- one way or another -- when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.

The government's ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners. To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.

A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda's offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years -- resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part -- including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.

I don't ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times. Resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future -- because the security of America and Pakistan is shared. Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people. And these steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our efforts in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.

Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility. And that's why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretaries Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development.

This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home.

For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 -- and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations -- an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. And that's why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run -- because it's far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village than to help a farmer seed a crop -- or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the special inspector generals for Afghan Reconstruction.

And I want to be clear: We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.

In a country with extreme poverty that's been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. Now, I have no illusion that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda in Iraq. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. And that's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans -- including women and girls.

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

None of the steps that I've outlined will be easy; none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it. And what’s at stake at this time is not just our own security -- it's the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago, and that must be our common purpose today.

My administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we will seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan security forces, a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region -- our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.

That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who've borne a burden as great as any other generation’s. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.

I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater number than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- a future without hope or opportunity; a future without justice or peace.

So understand, the road ahead will be long and there will be difficult days ahead. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that promise a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 10:02 A.M. EDT

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

VI. Bennett Falsely Claims Authorship of Iraq Withdrawal Plan

If you could only read one part of the Bennett-Dent debate, this is the part I'd recommend. Nowhere is the difference between these two candidates so striking. One is knowledgeable while the other was ill-informed and deceptive.

When she discussed Israel, Sam Bennett betrayed a serious weakness on matters of foreign policy. That weakness was magnified even more when the subject turned to Iraq. I was shocked when she claimed, falsely, to have written "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq." According to Arianna Huffington, that document is actually the work of "national security experts and retired military generals such as Major Gen. Paul Eaton, the officer in charge of training the Iraqi military immediately after the invasion."

Bennett certainly has endorsed this plan, but it was wrong for her to claim authorship.

Congressman Dent, in contrast, demonstrated a surprisingly commanding knowledge of foreign affairs. Often called an "empty suit," he displays keen insight into our relationships around the world.

Question: Please describe your position and any evolution thereof towards the conduct of the Iraq-Afghanistan operation.

Sam Bennett: [Initial comment included a complaint about Dent's campaign, covered here.] "By the way, Charlie, if you voted one way on bills, it would be very simple. But everything we have said about your voting record is true, and we have the documentation for it.

"But onto Iraq. I've said this before. I'm from a military family. I lived in Saigon. I'm grateful to the men and women that have served this nation. With fourteen hundred casualties coming from Pennsylvania alone, this is a serious matter.

"My opponent went to Washington knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction and still voted with George Bush 100% of the time on the war in Iraq. A hundred billion tax dollars later, and he votes against mandatory rest periods for veterans. When those veterans come home, he votes against health care and job training for those same veterans.

"So what is my plan?

"Well, I believe actions speak louder than words and I wrote A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq and now, fifty-three other challengers have joined me.

"We need to get out of Iraq immediately with a phased drawdown of troops. Those troops that we leave behind in order to fight terrorism and help the Iraqi forces there, they need to be given adequate body armor and adequate rest periods.

"9/11 showed us that we faced a threat without borders and post-Iraq shows us that we cannot go it alone. "

Charlie Dent: "A few things again. My opponent has a hard time with facts. She just said she wrote a book about how to get out of Iraq. Well, when she was asked by a local blogger who the President of Syria was, she couldn't name Mr. Assad. She couldn't name the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, with whom we deal quite a bit. So I really don't believe you wrote a book on how to get out of Iraq.

"I have read a book - the Iraq Study Group, written by [Democrat] Lee Hamilton, with whom I talk on a fairly regular basis, and James Baker, a Republican. That actually provided a blueprint to get out of Iraq.

"You said you supported it, too, but you support the polls that completely contradict what's in that document, whether it is arbitrarily legislated timelines for withdrawal. You talk about rest periods for our troops. It's not for our veterans, it's for our troops. To impose that kind of a rest period - twelve months - at that time, would have extended the deployment of men and women currently serving in Iraq. That's not fair to them. It would have treated men and women serving in Afghanistan differently than in Iraq.

"A few other things I need to add. We need to draw down that presence in Iraq, the combatant presence, and we will. The question is the pace.

"I met with General Petraeus for an hour and a half in Baghdad. I've been to Iraq twice. We are making gains in the security front. We are seeing some political reconciliation there. i was there the day they passed the debathification law, which was absolutely essential. Iran and Syria continue to be a problem in Iraq, particularly Iran.

"With respect to Afghanistan, I've been to Afghanistan and I'll tell you very clearly that we need more help from NATO. NATO is an alliance; it is a collective defense organization. If we fail in Afghanistan, NATO will fail. That would be disaster.

"I believe in NATO, I believe in it so strongly. My opponent likes placing operational controls on our troops. That's what she wanted to do in Iraq. Well, that's what NATO governments do to their troops operating in Afghanistan, whether it be the Germans or the Spaniards. We can't let the Americans and the Canadians and the Australians and the Polish and the British and the Dutch do all the fighting. We need to have less operational controls on our troops in Afghanistan, not more from NATO governments. It is time that we put more pressure on some of our friends in NATO to pick up the slack. We're going to have to add more troops and so will they.

"We can win this thing, and I believe we will."

Friday, May 09, 2008

Sam Bennett Interview: Iraq and Foreign Affairs

On her campaign web page, congressional challenger Sam Bennett claims "Bush Republicans" present us with two false choices in Iraq - "keep a force of more than 100,000 troops there, or pull out suddenly and leave the country in chaos." She endorses a third choice, "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq." That report notes that the "further destabilization of the Middle East is also a growing threat to U.S. national security. Al-Qaeda’s strength is growing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Iran’s power is growing." With that report in mind, I asked Bennett a few questions about our foreign policy.

Question: What is your time table on withdrawal from Iraq? What will you do if Iran continues its nuclear program or if peace fails in Iraq? How will we prevent another Cambodia or South Vietnam if we leave? What's your understanding of "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq."

"The greater question is how can we position ourselves to prevent WWIII? We have to knock off the lone ranger act. By admitting we screwed up, we can engender support from the international community. The Middle East is the powder keg of the globe. We can't do it alone. We need a Tonto. We need a couple of Tontos."

Question: How well-versed are you in foreign affairs?

"Fairly well-versed."

Question: Who is the President of China? France's Prime Minister? Germany's Chancellor? India's Prime Minister? Afghanistan's President? Syria's President? Sudan's President?

"I've got to work on that. I'll research it today."

Me: Is that an unfair question? I don't know most world leaders by name myself. I came up with that question myself.

"No, it's a fair question. But I'm running for Congress, not President."

(Blogger's Note: Some of my friends claim that world leaders question is unfair. Perhaps they are right. But we do have 34,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. Shouldn't a member of Congress be familiar enough with at least that country to know its President is Hamid Karzai? Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent, whose college major was International Politics, was actually there in January. He knows all about Karzai's "divide and conquer" strategy of appealing to moderate chieftains to weaken hard-liners with ties to al-Qaeda fighters.

When it comes to Foreign Affairs, Dent is simply far more knowledgeable than Bennett. My daughter is currently in Iraq. Do you think I want to send a person to Congress who has no idea who the leaders are in that region? I like Sam Bennett, but not that much.)

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Charlie Dent Calls From Islamabad

It seems to have faded from the news. But the fact remains that 160,000 US troops are currently stationed in Iraq, part of a surge that many analysts now consider a success, having reduced both Iraqi and US deaths.

If Iraq is fading from our fickle memories, Afghanistan is totally forgotten.

Yet twenty-seven thousand US troops remain there. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering sending a three thousand soldier "mini-surge" to combat an increasingly violent Taliban insurgency.

President Hamid Karzai has embraced a "divide and conquer" strategy of appealing to moderate chieftains to weaken hard-liners with ties to al-Qaeda fighters. But militants like Baitullah Mehsud, who commands more than twenty thousand fighters, easily crosses the porous borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghan officials would like us to attack safe havens in Pakistan. Should we? George Bush himself has stated that the war on terror "knows no borders," but US-led forces in Afghanistan have no current intention of crossing into troubled Pakistan without invitation.

The biggest question in Pakistan right now is whether democracy can survive, if it ever existed in the first place. A possible death blow has been dealt by the assassination of Benzair Bhutto. Elections have been delayed until February 18. But there's an even bigger fear, at least for us. Al-Qaeda operatives, who have infiltrated the Pakistani government, might seize nuclear warheads.

It's a mess! Much of it is the result of our own foreign policy blunders.

If you're a Republican in Congress, and would like to stay there, your political handlers would undoubtedly be telling you to distance yourself from anything that might awaken a public whose gaze appears to be fixed elsewhere.

Cut a few ribbons! Hand out a few cardboard checks!

But until a few hours ago, Lehigh Valley Congressman Charlie Dent was in Afghanistan. And now he's in Pakistan, part of a Veterans' Affairs Congressional delegation visiting both troubled countries this week.

Instead of doing what's politically expedient, he's doing his job.

The original purpose of his trip was to monitor elections that never occurred. But now, he's met with officials who run Pakistan's nuclear program. In Afghanistan, he's had an opportunity to see our troops. Around noon, Dent telephoned a few reporters from Islamabad, and their reports of that conversation should prove quite interesting. And just a few minutes ago, he called me, a blogger. It was after midnight for him.

Here's part of that fascinating conversation.

Do you think the mini-surge strategy proposed by Defense Secretary Gates will help?

I'm sure the people on the ground there would like a little more help. The military has been building hospitals and schools, working with farmers, treating children, in what is a very rough place. It seems that civilization has passed this country by. People still live in mud huts, but they have some hope. We are bearing more than half the burden there, and are thankful for our allies there. But we could use some additional help from them, too.

Is there any hope for democracy in Pakistan? Some believe elections may be delayed a year, and that those conducted will be rigged. How do you feel?

Pakistan has a very educated population. I can't really tell you how fair they are, but there certainly is a lot of political competition among three major parties. I think the real question is whether we can work with and have a relationship with the victors, and we have a good history with all three major parties. We can work with them all.

There are concerns, especially in the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Al-Qaeda sympathizers have infiltrated the Pakistani government and might seize nuclear warheads. What is your view? Are these concerns real?

I've met with the head of Pakistan's nuclear program. My assessment is that it's a pretty strong program. The state department has stated the chances of a seizure are remote. There are some serious control mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening. The most moderating influence in Pakistan, believe it or not, is its military. The Army has been a moderating influence, a check on the political excesses elsewhere. They are absolutely insistent that this could never happen. There is actually a perception among some Pakistanis that this is being used as an excuse to take over their program. We have no such intentions.

During our conversation, the always cheerful Dent spoke of the jingle trucks in Pakistan that he likes so much and his hopes that we can develop a good working relationship there. He clearly likes both countries and their people. But just today, at least twenty-six Pakistani police officers were killed by a suicide bomber. I'll rest easier when Charlie is back. I'd rather see him facing the slings and arrows of anonymous bloggers here than bomb fragments there.
Update: Charlie Dent's conversation with Capital Cahir is reported here.
Update #2: Pam Varknoy also received a call form Charlie, and her touching account is here.
Update #3: Josh Drobnyk's excellent report, which focues on the nuclear possibilities, is located here.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

"Time To Level Afghanistan Again" - Anonymous Guest Blogger

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingBernie O'Hare is an insufferable little bastard. Don't ever give him money. I lent him $50 a few weeks ago so he could fill up his gas tank, and he spent it on booze. His ugly red jeep hasn't moved for weeks, and every day and night I can hear that frickin' moron singing the same Neil Young songs over and over. O'Hare only does that when he's drunk. When he's really drunk, he thinks he's Jolly Joe Timmer.

"Open that door, you little shit!" I shout as I pound on O'Hare's door. "I know you're in there! Cough up my dough!" I can hear him moving but he's not answering. I push the damn door open just in time to see him jump right out the window. Now he's running in the buff down a dark street, in the middle of the night, singing, "Keep on rockin' in the free world." I hope he gets struck by lightning or run over by a cop or something. What a waste. As I suspected, he's drunk again. There's empty booze bottles all over the place. That and old pennies, for some reason. And lots of old newspapers. Seriously, the guy's a wing nut. I'm going to send a little note to Lamont McClure. That'll fix his ass.

I'm on his PC right now. He was writing about "open government" again. Give me a break! I'm sick of all that crap about this pol and that pol. Bernie, nobody cares! Since O'Hare's not coming back anytime soon, I'm going to write this post for him. Maybe then he'll learn to pay his debts. And he better learn now. What the hell do you think they'll do when he runs up a tab at the casinos? That's right. He'll be singin' soprano, baby. I watch Mafia movies so I know about that stuff.

Instead of talking about stupid boring local government, I'm going to open things up a bit and lay it out on an international scale, baby. I want to talk about Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? We beat their asses faster than you can say Taliban. And we did it for their own good.

Now you'd think that after killing over 250,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, they'd get the message - we're going to set them free no matter how many we have to kill in the process. Freedom ain't cheap, bippy. Let's face it, Saddam was nothing but a two bit dictator who tortured his own people and refused to provide basic necessities like running water or electricity. He had to go. Now, the people of Iraq are secure in the knowledge that if any torturing is to be done, we'll do it. And we'll get those water pipes but have to secure oil pipelines first. The oil must flow.

Things were rough for those Iraqis when Saddam was throwing people out of helicopters, but the women of Afghanistan were living a nightmare. Those wacky Talibans draped their women in 20,000 layers of clothing called a burka, and regularly beat them silly if they stepped out of line. So we bombed the hell out of them so they could bask in the glow of Lady Liberty. I remember the flowers they had for American soldiers or the graves or something. Or were they poppy blossoms?

Well it looks like we're going to have to level Afghanistan again. No it's not about their poppy fields or their increasing opium sales. Let the free market resolve that matter. What has me riled is now they're marrying off their 11 year old daughters to very old men so that they have enough to eat. Give me a break! You know we already killed enough of them so that hunger is not the problem. Besides, look at them. They're skinny. They just don't eat much. No, those demonic Islamic fundamentalists are using hunger and hardships as an excuse to turn their kids into sex objects. Haven't they learned anything? Don't they know that a free nation doesn't turn its females into sex objects until they're 18?

So "Bring it On" baby. Let's rack up a few more dead bodies so that the song of freedom can be heard. It's our Christian duty. And God is on our side.

Now if you don't agree with me, I don't really care. O'Hare can deal with the nasty comments when he sobers up. I'm taking his porn mags and leaving. Bye.