Obama Warned That the Taliban are Ready for U.S. Troops in Afganistan

Taliban leaders are defiantly asserting that if the United States sends more troops to Afghanistan they will defeat U.S. forces and cause many Americans to die

Taliban leader, Mullah Mohamad Rasul, a survivor of the 2001 conflicts with the United States in Afghanistan, made his remarks to media representatives of Al Jazeera in an area located between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is ruled over by tribal chieftans.

President Obama Gives Interview to Al-Arabia

President Barack Obama gave his first presidential interview to an unlikely media outlet this past Monday when he sat down in the White House and was interviewed by Hisham Melhem of the Al-Arabiya television cable network.

During the interview, President Obama emphasized that United States foreign affairs with Middle Eastern countries will change under his administration because in the past; any American dialogue with the Middle East "all too often the United States starts by dictating."

President Obama also explained that: "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." Obama cited his pledge to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center as a sign to Muslims and the world that he should be judged by his actions which will signal his true policy intentions Muslims.

Reiterating an appeal he made in his inaugural address, Obama stressed that his administration will freely extend an offer of peace to a country such as Iran if the Iranians take advantage of the United States offer and decides it is wise if it "unclenched its fist."

President Obama expressed his approach to the Middle East from a greater perspective when he said: "It is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Regarding Iran, Obama provided a brief but succinct overview: "Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful, " Obama voiced optimism: "It is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but (also) where there are potential avenues for progress. If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

Obama explained during the interview that he has sent his special envoy, George Mitchell to the Middle East to "get engaged right away" by becoming involved in discussions with "all the major parties involved."

Remarking on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Obama explained: "We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people."

Obama said: "Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."

In remarking on Saudi King Abdullah's peace proposal regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; Obama said: "I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that,... I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace."

To read a full transcript of President Obama's interview with the Al-Arabiya television cable network; click here.

The Hidden Danger Posed By Afghanistan

Bob Herbert has uncovered a ticking time bomb set by Bush and set to go off during the early stages of Barack Obama's presidency. Afghanistan, a nation that borders Iran and Pakistan; two nations that pose their own conundrums for American strategists. With the shifting sands of Iraq still holding our commitment of masses of troops, contractors, and civilians, the perceived plan is for Obama to deploy thousands of American forces to a region of the world populated by a fierce population known for its ability to ward off numerous invades for centuries. The American's chances do not appear better than their predecessors. For support of this "quagmire" thesis Herbert quotes: "Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who is now a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, (who) wrote an important piece for Newsweek warning against the proposed buildup. “Afghanistan will be a sinkhole,” he said, “consuming resources neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government can afford to waste.” Another expert; "Michael Gordon noted that “Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain." Afghanistan would not be an easy military mission for the U.S. even if we were well prepared for extended conflict; however, because of our long military engagement in Iraq, we are not ready. Our troops are too few in numbers and need rest while our war equipment is in need of repair and replacement. We missed our time for victory in Afghanistan and the possibility to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when Bush withdrew and incredulously switched his war efforts to Iraq. If we fight in Afghanistan, we will also be drawn into Pakistan because "radical Islamists" may fight in Afghanistan, but they use Pakistan as a safe haven to collect their forces. Going back into Afghanistan means we have wasted five years and are back to square one after Bush's diversionary mission to Iraq achieved nothing but to make us militarily and diplomatically weaker. Sure, we have an America-friendly government in Afghanistan led by President Hamid Karzai; but that's only because Bush created a puppet government when he installed Karzai in office. But Karzai's authority only extends over the major cities in Afghanistan including the capital city Kabul; beyond, in the more rural areas of the country that amount to perhaps 80% of the total landmass; the Taliban is back in complete control. Still, Mr. Herbert and many other Americans see the inevitability of our military presence in Afghanistan escalating, leaving Herbert with the following advice for Obama: "If Mr. Obama does send more troops to Afghanistan, he should go on television and tell the American people, in the clearest possible language, what he is trying to achieve. He should spell out the mission’s goals, and lay out an exit strategy. He will owe that to the public because he will own the conflict at that point. It will be Barack Obama’s war." My advice is if it is to be war, let it be a war led by a ferocious diplomatic offensive that involves the Taliban warlords who will listen to reason and the leaders of Iran and Pakistan who seek stability in the Central Asian region as a whole. We must not discount the potential for a diplomatic solution in a region that is unafraid of lasting wars of attrition.

The Bush Years: It’s Been a Rough Eight Years, No Question

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on the Bush years comes up short in its half-hearted attempt to go along with the current White House spin that Bush “is betting history will be kinder to him than any possible present-day assessment of his tenure.” Too many missteps and failures to lead will accompany Bush’s trip through the pages of history yet to be written. As for the numerous assessments of the Bush Administration that have found their way to print; they all share a common theme of disappointment. The Inquirer admits: “Bush departs the White House as one of the least popular presidents in recent times, with some critics confident enough in their historical perspective to nominate him in various "worst" categories.” The editorial writer tries to produce an acceptable reason for such a lackluster record: “Maybe that's because Bush is viewed widely as having stumbled so badly on key policies. By now, it's a familiar litany: Bush led the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq; eroded core freedoms by snooping on Americans without court approval; squandered global goodwill with the harsh interrogation and open-ended detention of terror suspects; undermined environmental protections; favored the rich with tax cuts; and botched the Hurricane Katrina rescue.” It’s a very formidable task the writer takes on to make so many major blunders sound even slightly less disastrous when judging a president’s tenure in office. After eight years of portraying the tough, decisive commander in chief who was hell bent of doing what he felt was right; without regard to historic consequences because, Bush boasted, I’ll be long gone before the history can accurately judge my administration. Tough sentiments: but recently, a different Bush has emerged, one who is suddenly concerned that his legacy is accurately portrayed. This new, more reflective Bush is actually voicing his hope that historians will write their tombs in accordance with Bush’s own memories of how and why events happened as they did. He’s taken great care to lose unimaginably huge numbers of e-mails that might have given historians valuable insights into what actually occurred over the past eight years. He has also launched a “legacy project” that consists of talking points designed to put the Bushies in the most favorable light possible. The most salient and often quoted talking points boast that Bush "kept the American people safe" from further danger after the September 11th, 2001 World Trade Tower tragedy. Bush also claims to have “revived the post-2001 economy with his tax cuts” as well as maintaining "the honor and dignity of his office." What a crock! The Inquirer editorial admits that: “Only after 2,975 were killed on his watch in the worst-ever terrorist attack did Bush respond with stepped up antiterror measures. The Iraq insurgency - a veritable demonstration project for terrorists - never would have happened had U.S. forces not gone after Saddam Hussein on the basis of faulty claims that the brutal dictator had weapons of mass destruction.” The Inquirer further admits that: “The Bush military intervention in the Gulf, coupled with Abu Ghraib abuses, could make Americans less safe, to the extent that they fuel Islamic fanatics' anger. That's an especially grim future for the already suffering families of the more than 4,800 troops killed and thousands more wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan fighting.” Bush also took measures that laid the groundwork for the worst economic conditions in decades: “As for priming the economy with hefty tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest, that maneuver heralded the end of balanced budgeting while shifting to the states the burden for many domestic needs. Then there's the current economic crisis: Bush leaves office with nearly two million more Americans looking for jobs as a result of the recession, two million-plus facing mortgage foreclosures, and untold numbers looking at smaller retirement nest eggs.” And as far as “preserving the honor and dignity of the office, that has to be about more than just avoiding the sex scandal that marred Bill Clinton's presidency,” the Inquirer admits. Finally, at the end of their assessment of the Bush record, the Inquirer makes some laudatory remarks: “There should be less debate about other bullet points from the Bush record: his stellar leadership on fighting AIDS in Africa, his smart focus on school achievement through the No Child Left Behind Act, the groundbreaking achievement of a prescription-drug benefit for retirees and other Medicare recipients, and Bush's unsuccessful call for sweeping immigration reform.” Yes, the Inquirer is right: “It's been a rough eight years, no question.” Now it’s up to Obama to mix Bush’s mess.