MLK, Malcolm X, And Assassinations

We know both were super closely watched by the intelligence agencies. Their every move was followed. Their associates were watched. Their phones were tapped. Not only the agencies micro watched, but they also intervened here and there at will. Like, fire that staffer of yours. As in, it was important for them to let MLK know he was being watched. That was psychological warfare designed to unnerve him, to perhaps break his will.

There is a reason why the right to privacy is a basic human right. The right to privacy is essential to a human being’s sense of self. Unless you have a probable cause that you are shadowing a criminal, in which case you get approval from a judge with an intent to persecute, you have no business shadowing a human being. The agencies violating MLK’s right to privacy was gross and racist. America’s heart stopped in the 60s because JFK, MLK, RFK all got killed. It was not assassination. It was heart attack. Why do conservative elements on the political spectrum have ready and entrenched allies in the state apparatus? The state is supposed to stay neutral.

If you violate a human being’s privacy enough, in the organized and thorough ways that an intelligence agency’s resources make possible, at some point they no longer feel like human beings. You could snuff their life and not even feel a thing. It is objectification of the highest order. It is kind of like, those who commit hate crimes first have to dehumanize their objects of interest. I am not sure if the MLK assassination was a hate crime or a genocide. A people’s dream got wiped out just like that. The world had to wait for a BHO. Those were long decades.

It is not hard to kill and not leave a trace. There is no proof. How hard is that to do? Most murders in America (and the world) go unsolved. And these are loner criminals doing the deed, or maybe some organized gangs. Intelligence agencies have way more resources than the mightiest cartels down south. See in the movies how it gets done. There is no trace. There is no way to find out.

I am not pointing fingers. I have no proof. But I am tempted to connect the dots. The intelligence agencies totally, thoroughly violating MLK’s right to privacy was gross beyond words can describe. He was never suspected of any crime, so why was he followed around like he ran a cell for the Al Qaeda? It is not like they were throwing a security blanket around him. The country should have given him bodyguards. The Dalai Lama gets bodyguards in India. And he has no sworn enemy. MLK received death threats like you and I receive phone calls. MLK was let out to pasture. It was deliberate.

MLK’s right to privacy being violated is not like a public figure’s right to privacy being violated. The public figure chooses to go into the public domain. The public figure is not micro shadowed like he/she were a terrorist. There is no agency collecting relentless data and analyzing and making counter moves as if the public figure is a criminal. What MLK deserved was a security blanket provided for by the state, what they call Z grade security in India. Instead he got monkeys tapping on his phone.

The surveillance state can get out of hand. It is like the top Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan got held at an airport in New Jersey for hours because his name showed up on some list. I am sure his last name is on every list! But you just wronged a billion strong nation.

The surveillance state can get out of hand and ordinary people can suffer in scores. Racial profiling can be taken to a whole new level through the surveillance state. No community deserves to be harassed.

There has to be a way for you to get your name off a list if you suspect maybe your name is on some list and erroneously so. Like you have a right to know what your credit history is. You have a right to know if your name has been put on any list. Muslims are the blacks today.

The right to privacy is like the right to free speech, like the right to follow the faith of your choice. If a community is being harassed for being Muslim, that right to follow the faith of one’s choice is being violated, and that’s a no no. The American state impinging on the fundamental rights is the American state doing the bidding of the people it is at war with. Their attack is on values, not on some physical structure. Values are hard to hold, and that is why they have to be held to in a tight embrace.

An Erdos Number by other means. https://t.co/JIykKJFVYi

— Dan Kaminsky (@dakami) January 12, 2016

The Paris Attack Builds Political Pressure For A Direct Attack On ISIS

There was no way America could not have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. An attack like 9/11 builds so much pressure. The Paris attacks are not 9/11 size, but they are still big, and such a frontal assault on the French capital city.

I believe Arabs have genuine grievances, foremost among them being that most of them are ruled by dictators. But ISIS is dictatorship and primitiveness all in one. The ISIS is no solution to Arab grievances.

This was not just an attack on Paris. These attacks have been targeted at the gathering that will be the Paris climate talks.

World leaders will now find it hard not to build a coalition to go after ISIS. A direct, sustained aerial assault on ISIS territory perhaps is now imminent.

The Al Qaeda has never had its own country. Afghanistan under Taliban rule was a host country. It was a parasite situation. Al Qaeda was mobile. ISIS has a territory it directly rules. It generates massive revenue. It is not a country though. It is not seeking a seat at the UN. It is a deformity passing for a state.

ISIS is atrocious to the population it rules. And that should have been reason enough to go after it. Previously I have called ISIS Rwanda in the making. If they can't keep expanding, they will turn upon themselves, like a cult.

Driving ISIS out of its territory would liberate people.

I don't believe in violence, but ISIS is so evil, there seems to be no other choice. Society permits lawful police action against evil members. Humanity has an obligation to use force against ISIS and take war to its territory.

Boots on the ground is always a tricky proposition. But aerial assaults can be decisive, and might pave the way for boots on the ground. To clean up, and to set up a proper, democratic, modern state.

Use of force is sometimes necessary, and the only way to combat evil.

If Assad has to go, Assad has to go. It could be a package deal. Syria deserves democracy as much as anyone else.

But the military assault can not be open ended. It has to be precise and time bound. You don't "liberate" and then clean up ground just for chaos. There has to be a clear plan involving local populations. Syria left to fester gives you ISIS. ISIS left to fester gives you Paris.

ISIS Holds Territory

Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on 25 June 1996. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Al Qaeda never did. It was like a parasite. The host was Taliban.

The ISIS is not a state, the way you and I think about states. For example, it has no desire to join the United Nations. It is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. The virus has mutated.

ISIS Territory Is The New Rwanda

ISIS commanding territory, and generating huge daily revenues from oil and drug trafficking and what have you has got to be on the radar.

It was only a matter of time. These attacks were going to come.

When the fight between capitalism and communism started, it did not end with communism losing. Capitalism itself morphed. It digested some elements of communism. There were things like the welfare state.

Islam seeks respect. We want to move towards a world where Muslims are not living in the slums of democracies. They are in the mainstream. But that has to be brought about by the forces of democracy.

ISIS is a physical attacks problem. I am no military expert.

ISIS can not be allowed to hold territory. ISIS can not be allowed revenues. Right now it is collecting millions per day.

ISIS is going to force the US to think maybe Arab monarchies are anachronisms.

The US is not exactly winning the War On Terror right now. This is a new virus. And it is deadlier than the Al Qaeda. Bin Laden's death was but a blip. Now it looks like.

The bottom line is this is an ideological struggle. An ideological struggle with clear physical components. But primarily an ideological struggle. This is a war of words first and foremost.

These guys will not stop at anything. If they can build a dirty bomb, they w-i-l-l detonate it. That is how clear they are in their intentions. If they can't bring that dirty bomb to America, they will detonate it in Africa, or in some Arab country. That event will make 9/11 look like a picnic.

The Cold War lasted almost half a century. The War On Terror was never going to be over in 10 years.

I still think beaming the internet from the skies and flooding the Muslim world with cheap Android phones is the number one and best tool. Elon Musk has a pan. Fund it. It is the cheapest and the least bloody.

Also, there is no avoiding the fact that the only way to tackle Climate Change is by creating a genuine 21st century world government. Climate Change and terrorism are twin challenges. They are similar. They only have global solutions.

ISIS claims deadly mosque attack in Kuwait Terrorist Attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait Kill Dozens

“The Kuwait operation is especially dangerous, as this is ISIS’ first operation in a gulf state,” Mr. Riedel said in an email. “The others will be deeply alarmed.” ..... “Muslims, embark and hasten toward jihad,” said the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, in an audio message released this week. “O mujahedeen everywhere, rush and go to make Ramadan a month of disasters for the infidels.” ...... United States intelligence and counterterrorism officials were scrambling on Friday to assess the connections, if any, between the attacks in France, Kuwait and Tunisia. Officials said that if the assessment found that the attacks were linked, officials would seek to determine whether the Islamic State had actively directed, coordinated or inspired them...... the assault resembled others launched by ISIS recently on Shiite mosques in neighboring Saudi Arabia ..... “This is something that was planned,” she said. “It was not just one guy who decided to put on a suicide belt and go in there.”

Attacks hit three continents amid fears of escalating Islamist violence

Emergency security meetings were called across Europe, and French police were dispatched to protect “sensitive sites” ..... Tunisian authorities reeled with another blow to its vital tourism industry, three months after 22 people were gunned down at the world-famous Bardo museum in the capital, Tunis. In Kuwait, the prime minister, Sheik Jaber al-Sabah, denounced the blast at a Shiite mosque as a direct attack at “national unity.” ..... France’s interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, also said a suspect arrested — identified by French media as Yassin Sahli — was on a watch list between 2006 and 2008 of potential followers of a radical branch of Islam, but had been taken off surveillance. ...... In a communique circulated by Islamic State-linked social media accounts online, the group said one of its members, Abu Suleiman al-Mowahid, detonated a belt of explosives at a “gathering of apostates.” ...... The Kuwait attacks followed similar mosque blasts in neighboring Saudi Arabia targeting Shiite worshipers. The Saudi attacks also were claimed by the Islamic State, whose extremist Sunni followers view Shiites as heretics.

Islamic State said to kill scores in Syrian border city

Islamic State jihadists engaged in a bloody rampage in the Kurdish-majority Syrian city of Kobani and its environs on Friday, officials said, executing at least 142 civilians before withdrawing as vicious fighting continued in the town for a second day........ described the attack as "a crime against humanity ... it's a barbaric massacre" ....... "The executions were perpetrated against entire families, [they were] completely exterminated," he said, adding that the death total would make this the second largest massacre perpetrated by the group. At least 28 Islamic State militants were killed in the clashes.

Related articles

• Al-Qaeda: US Killed No. 2
• Al Qaeda Confirms US Drone Strike Killed its Yemen Leader; Announces New Chief
• al-Qaeda Operative Killed in US Airstrike in Libya
• Top al Qaeda leader killed
• Yemen Al Qaeda execute 2 Saudis accused of spying for US
• Would a Drone Strike on Congress Be a Bad Thing?
• Leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen 'Killed' in US Drone Attack
• Libya: High ranking Al-Qaeda member killed during US air raid
• US strike on 'Al-Qaeda-associated terrorist' in Libya: Pentagon
• US drone attack abolishes Al-Qaeda second boss

Blaming Hillary For Benghazi = Blaming W For 9/11

Obama's Peace With Iran = Less Threat For Israel

It was George W's responsibility to protect the World Trade Center and he failed. It was Hillary's job to protect the ambassador in Libya, and she failed. Blaming Hilary for Benghazi: all is fair in love, war and a sexist country. If you ask me, W's failure was much greater. One life lost versus 3,000 lives lost. Not to say the damage to property, the economy and prestige. I don't see anyone, Republican or Democrat, blaming W for 9/11. How come? Blaming Hillary for Benghazi does not make you patriotic (I could argue the opposite might be true, you are sending a message to ISIS: kill someone and they will just blame it on Hillary! How convenient! .... okay, okay, I got confused between ISIS and the Al Qaeda there, but I don't expect the Republicans to figure that out), it makes you a facts-free sexist. Facts-free, as in someone completely unhinged from facts and logic. While you are at it, let's also blame Hillary for the 2008 recession. She was in the Senate at the time, was she not? What did she do to prevent the Great Recession? Why hurt the feelings of the white guys on Wall Street? Or the white guys in the White House, for that matter. I would not be surprised if Dick Cheney comes out to blame Hillary for the recession. Where is Dick when you need him?

Wait, maybe it was not her job to protect the ambassador. Maybe it was the job of the Department of Defense. Sorry for being a facts-free sexist in the paragraph above. My bad.

Related articles

• New Documents Reveal that Hillary Knew Key Details about Benghazi Attack within Hours of It Happening
• Smoking gun! Hillary knew Benghazi attack planned 10 days in advance
• Post-Benghazi Memo to Hillary Blamed Muslim Brotherhood Linked Militia
• RAND PAUL: Benghazi Should 'Forever Preclude' Hillary from the Presidency
• Rand Paul brings out Benghazi big guns; should 'FOREVER preclude' Hillary from the presidency
• New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack
• Article: Ex-aide Blumenthal e-mailed Hillary on Benghazi
• Obama knew jihadis were planning Benghazi attack 10 days in advance
• Smoking Gun! Hillary Knew Benghazi Attack Planned 10 Days in Advance
• Smoking gun! Hillary knew Benghazi attack planned 10 days in advance

Boots On The Ground?

My blog post on February 2: Boots On The Ground?

News today, February 11: Obama opens door to 'limited' ground combat operations against ISIS.

"If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said. ........ Obama is offering to limit authorization to three years, extending to the next president the powers and the debate over renewal for what he envisions as a long-range battle.

These ISIS folks are not exactly people you have the option to invite to the debate table. The hard nosed truth is force is necessary. Terror attacks in Australia and Paris are all emanating from there. It is only a matter of time before something happens in the United States. They sure have the intention. These people would let go off a dirty bomb the first chance they got at any location of convenience.

The Al Qaeda never had territory. The Taliban had territory, and the Al Qaeda used it like a parasite. These guys are worse than the Al Qaeda, if that is possible, and they command a bigger territory than the Taliban, more strategic, and have robust revenue streams.

Waiting for them to strike when they have a clear intention to do so is like waiting for them to build up their capabilities. It does not take much to blow up one cafe, but the incident scares an entire nation.

The ISIS running a state is not something that can be tolerated.

The Middle East is not some problem that will simply go away if you will ignore it. And it is not an easy problem.

This is the right move by the president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Sometimes you need boots on the ground to keep the peace. It is in his job description.

As to the details, I am no military expert. But it makes political sense to build a large coalition of countries. Because every democracy is a target. It makes sense to have a limited, well defined ground operation where you try and work with local allies. The ISIS offends pretty much everybody in that neighborhood. Air power would play the decisive role. Intelligence would play a big role. But there is no avoiding firefights. That is the sad truth.

I still think beaming internet from the sky and flooding the land with cheap Android phones is the best way to make progress in that part of the world. You want hundreds of millions of Muslims sharing cat videos. That is cheaper, better, and it minimizes the violence.

Obama seeks sweeping Isis authority amid infighting over open-ended war
Obama Sends Letter to Congress Seeking Authorization of ISIS Fight

Related articles

• Obama officially kicks off first new Middle East war in 13 years against ISIS
• Former Defense Sec. Robert Gates: 'Unrealistic' To Say We Will 'Destroy' Al Qaeda, The Taliban
• Viewpoint: Can China bring peace to Afghanistan?

Boots On The Ground?

If ISIS is going to target "soft" targets anywhere and everywhere, I think the western powers might be forced to think in terms of boots on the ground. We might be about to enter a bloody, violent, expensive phase of the War On Terror. There is obviously no easy way out. Bush II stands validated a little.

If the Taliban in power in Afghanistan is a no no, why is ISIS in power anywhere an option, right? ISIS commands a territory, it commands major revenue streams. It has a global reach the likes of which the Taliban or the Al Qaeda never did. And its intentions are clear and apocalyptic.

But even the boots on the ground idea could come with major aerial moves. It does not have to be a major operation like Bush II going into Iraq. I don't know. I am no military expert.

Related articles

• U.S. to begin to train and equip moderate Syria rebels
• ISIS appoints former Taliban commander as its Afghanistan-Pakistan chief
• What will France do about AQAP link?

India Is The New Britain: Thanks To Muslims And China

The oldest democracy of modern times (the first republic was in the time of Buddha) has the historic burden to see through a total spread of democracy as it works its own way to a more perfect union. I hope for peaceful methods and ways, but violence was a part of World War II, the Cold War, and now is a part of the (for lack of a better phrase) War On Terror. When you do the math, China glares you in the face. Should the War on Terror - and the only way it can conclude is after a total spread of democracy has been achieved across the Muslim world - conclude, what is next? China?

When the tussle between capitalism and communism first began, capitalism/democracy first responded by creating an elaborate welfare state. Was that communism's victory? I don't know. But that sure made the case of democracy much stronger. Similarly China makes a clear case for campaign finance reform in political systems like America, even as it fights the losing battle of keeping the lid on political reform.

But if democracy is to be spread across the Muslim/Arab world and democracy is to be spread across China, India finds itself at the center of the universe. India has a huge Muslim population. Not only that, India needs to prove democracy works for Muslims and is right by the Muslims. India also is one of the countries (like Japan, the Phillippines, Vietnam, and others, you could argue Taiwan) with which China likes to pick small fights on border issues. That is little to do with unsettled borders and much to do with the tussle between fundamentally different political systems that can not co-exist forever. In a democracy, the system is designed such that the people get to blame the politicians in power and kick them out. But autocracies are designed in ways that the system necessarily needs to create and sustain external enemies to rally the people behind, kind of like a safety valve. And so China needs to keep picking small fights with Japan and India, and it needs to keep threatening Taiwan. It is the nature of the beast. Curiously the same China seems to have no border problems with Russia, another land starving for democracy.

India has to have one uniform civil code for all its citizens, Hindus, Muslims and everyone else. The Sharia law has no place in a democracy. The separation between church/temple/mosque and the state is fundamental to how a modern democracy works. On the other hand, there is a need for some soul searching as to why Muslims in India lag on all socio-economic indicators. The Indian democracy does not seem to be working for Indian Muslims. That Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh have it rougher is no excuse.

An America-India-Japan-Australia alliance, not to contain or counter China, but to keep the Indian and Pacific oceans open for commerce and rules based order is a welcome step. China's saber rattling has been unnerving too many across too many countries over the years.

The oldest and the largest democracies are but natural partners. India is the new Britain. Two dudes who look like MLK and Gandhi rule the two largest democracies on the planet. We must be living in a post-colonial world.

Related articles

• ISIS Publishes CHILLING Outline of Punishments for Breaking Sharia Law
• Breathing Compassion with the Buddha
• Religion in Russia: What regions believe in Christ, Mohammed and Buddha?

Gaddafi Just Did The Bin Laden Thing: He Threatened America

Image by KarlMarx via Flickr

Business Insider: Qaddafi Says He Will Join Al Qaeda If The West Invades: Qaddafi is switching scare tactics. ....... For weeks he warned that any ouster of himself would let Al Qaeda take control of Libya...... Now he warns that in an invasion he would join forces with Al Qaeda. Qaddafi told Il Giornale: "We will ally ourselves with al-Qaida and declare holy war."

Used to be about do gooderism. Used to be about helping the Libyan people out. Maybe they can't do it themselves in the face of bottomless brutality. Maybe they can't stand in the face of aerial strikes. Not any more.

Now this has become about America. Here is a guy with billions at his disposal now daring America to an Al Qaeda style Holy War.

Look, I am no American stooge. For me democracy is not about America. I have strong views on race relations in America. I have strong views on campaign finance reform. During the apartheid era Gaddafi was one of the few friends Nelson Mandela's African National Congress had. Gaddafi has been at the forefront of the idea of a United States Of Africa. But you have to be elected to be a country's leader. You have to contest elections. You have to respect human rights. You have to respect free speech. You have to respect a people's right to peaceful assembly. And this guy has not been doing it.

For me this is not about doing America'd bidding. I want Iran to become a modern democracy and I want that Iran to ask as to why America has nuclear weapons. We have to complain about the global drug trade, but we also have to complain about the global gun trade where America is the largest supplier. Guns are deadlier than drugs.

For me this is about the people of Libya, for me this is about the people across the Arab world.

And now this guy just crossed a line whereby it is no longer about Libya, this is now about America. What will you do to a guy who sits on billions of dollars and tens of thousands of armed men with a global network who is threatening terrorist strikes upon the US?

You conduct surgical strikes and you take him out, that's what. This is no longer about democracy and Libya and air strikes and no fly zones. We are in the War On Terror territory now.

Democracy's Despair
The Anatomy Of Revolutions For Democracy

Related articles

• Sarkozy has gone mad, says Gaddafi (omaymen.wordpress.com)
• Gaddafi says shocked by former European friends (reuters.com)
• Al Qaeda Operatives Say They Really Are Trying To Co-Opt The Libyan Revolution (businessinsider.com)
• Gaddafi blames Qaeda, says conspiracy over Libya oil (reuters.com)
• Gaddafi shells city, threatens rebel stronghold (reuters.com)
• Al Qaeda vs Qaddafi (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Militant contradicts Libya's version of revolt (reuters.com)
• Qaddafi Says He Will Join Al Qaeda If The West Invades (businessinsider.com)
• Obama's Last Chance on Libya (thedailybeast.com)
• Gaddafi Points Finger at Bin Laden (thepage.time.com)

Twitter For Fundraising

Image via CrunchBaseTweet 1
Tweet 2
Tweet 3
Tweet 4
Tweet 5
Tweet 6
Tweet 7
Tweet 8
Tweet 9
Tweet 10
Tweet 11

Tweet 1
Tweet 2
Tweet 3

My latest push for my fundraising goal for my Iran democracy work has been this list: Prominent Iranian Americans.

If I can get 200 prominent Iranian Americans to give me $1,000 each, that is all I need. That has been my thought. I am still thinking along those lines. But then earlier today I went on Twitter, did a search on "Iran democracy," and sent reply tweets to about 10 people talking about Iran, each time linking to my main Iran democracy page - bit.ly/irandem - and already there is some welcome chatter.

Now I think my preferred method is to get 2,000 people on Twitter to give me $100 each.
I should keep this fundraising two track. I should try both ways.

These two tracks beat trying to get the CIA - the thought did cross my mind; think Bourne - or the State Department, or some NGO to give money. I am saying no to any kind of paperwork. You look at my blog posts and you donate. That's it. Anything more is way too complicated.

My work is a netroots/grassroots thing. We netroots/grassroots people are not big on hierarchies. We want Obama to make as much data public as possible. We don't want to go to the White House. We want the White House to come to us, wherever we are. That's the spirit of grassroots governance.

That is the absolute best way to work on Iran democracy.

I have no desire to launch an organization. No NGO, nothing. So the contributions are not tax deductible.

I want to keep things simple. I have already stated where the 200K will go. And I will report periodically on how much I raise. That much transparency is all you get. And that ought to be enough.

There is no other political challenge on earth I salivate over more than the Iran democracy movement. This is what I want to put most of my time into until a regime change in Iran.

It is possible, or I would not be looking into it.

Let's go raise some money. Help me out.

Of the two stated methods, the Twitter method is perhaps the better one. You talk to people who are already explicitly interested in Iran democracy. That is a good starting point. They are interested enough that they are talking about it.

New York Times: Message to Muslims: I’m Sorry: Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs. ..... “Sorry for Portraying Muslims as Human.” ..... Must coverage of law-abiding Muslims be “balanced” by a discussion of Muslim terrorists? ..... should reporting of Pope Benedict’s trip to Britain be “balanced” by a discussion of Catholic terrorists in Ireland? ..... I also want to defend America against extremists engineering a spasm of religious hatred. ...... Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor and in the end killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did. Consumed by our fears, we lumped together anyone of Japanese ancestry and rounded them up in internment camps. The threat was real, but so were the hysteria and the overreaction. ...... Radicals tend to empower radicals ..... We’ve mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it’s still O.K. to make sweeping statements about “Muslims” as an undifferentiated mass.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Iran Democracy Activist, Tech Blogger, New Yorker (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• The Ayatollah: Guilty Of Blasphemy (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• To Iran, With Love (3) (technbiz.blogspot.com)
• Shopping Around For Iran (technbiz.blogspot.com)
• Iran Feelers To The CIA And The California Society For Democracy In Iran (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Iran, Iran, Iran (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Iran Democracy Organizations (democracyforum.blogspot.com)
• Jewish Minority Is Influential In Iran (npr.org)

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

Image via Wikipedia

Good evening. 

To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here — at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more. 

As we know, these men belonged to al-Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al-Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. 

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al-Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al-Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security. 

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al-Qaeda was scattered, and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. 

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. 

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 

Image via Wikipedia

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al-Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an underdeveloped economy and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al-Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people. 

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the re-emergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. 

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al-Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. 

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al-Qaeda has not re-emerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable. 

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander in Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less. 

This review is now complete. And as Commander in Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. 

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is 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 have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. 

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al-Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al-Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. 

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. 

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. 

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. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the U.N. and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. 

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. 

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron. 

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. 

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. 

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. 

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. 

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

Image by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff via Flickr

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard and which I take very seriously. 

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. 

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. 

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." 

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. 

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. 

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own. 

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies. 

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. 

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. 

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them. 

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. 

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. 

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. 

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — and what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. 

As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy, from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries, from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home, from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad, and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
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, as one people. 

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops and may God bless the United States of America.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Speech and a Poll (dailykos.com)
• Prepared Text of President Obama's Address (blogs.wsj.com)
• U.S. asks: Which enemy is higher priority? (msnbc.msn.com)
• Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan - TIME (time.com)
• Barack Obama's speech - the full text (guardian.co.uk)
• Obama speaks about Afghanistan open thread (americablog.com)
• Talking with the Taliban: Easier Said Than Done (time.com)
• Rory O'Connor: To the "Kabul Class of 2009" (huffingtonpost.com)
• U.S. Officials Get a Taste of Pakistanis' Anger at America (nytimes.com)
• Liveblogging the President's Afghanistan Speech (seminal.firedoglake.com)
• U.S. asks: Which enemy is higher priority? (msnbc.msn.com)
• Barack Obama's speech - the full text (guardian.co.uk)
• Let Afghans solve Afghan problems | Caroline Lucas (guardian.co.uk)