Streams

Afghan Endgame

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The President continues to weigh his options for Afghanistan when it comes to troop levels and basic strategy. Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, who writes the popular blog The Washington Note, discusses the latest in mid-east policy.

Guests:

Steve Clemons
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [8]

Joe Bilby from Wall Township, NJ

I heard one listener comment that he believed sending another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would establish a "strong central government" there. He did not, needless to say, explain how this would happen, short of establishing a colonial occupation and American imposed rule, which would actually exacerbate the situation. Such obliviousness is appalling.

Likewise, he did not volunteer to go to Afghanistan himself, or encourage his friends and relatives to enlist and go, and neither did he suggest a way to pay for the 100 billion dollar a year price tag. Perhaps a 25% income tax surcharge for folks like him might prove the answer?

Nov. 18 2009 10:37 AM
Yourgo from Astoria

Karzai has ties to oil companies and was placed as president of Afghanistan by Cheney to insure the construction of an oil pipe line. the taliban visited the white house in the first year of the bush administration. To discuss this very pipeline.

Nov. 18 2009 10:34 AM
kay boyd from Brooklyn, NY

Strategically, perhaps, it would make sense to position our forces in Afghanistan, along the Hindu Kush "frontier" (hence an increase in our forces)as much as I am loathe to admit. The clear and present danger is in Pakistan; forget "AlQaeda"; clip the zealots at the shoot... It's a cinder bloc worse than the Middle East imbroglio.
kay B.

Nov. 18 2009 10:24 AM
Ann Hall Every, CCP from Forest Hills

To the critics of the decision to hold the trials of those accused of planning the 9-11 attacks in NYC : These criminals should have been put on trial here in NYC shortly after they were captured - they would have been convicted and either put to death or held in solitary for the remainder their existance. Instead, the previous administration decided to put them in jail in our part of Cuba - & torture them - to no avail. If we really had learned anything of strategic value from their torture to thwart the terrorists , would we still be fighting them in Afganistan in 2009?

In addition to that, had we also re-built the WTC towers as soon as the area was cleared, we all would have suffered less trauma these past years....while politicians squabbled and the culprits of that horrible day lived on.

Nov. 18 2009 10:22 AM
Mary Bon from USA

Can we please refer to McChrystal as the Bush administration's point man regarding the Pat Tilman cover-up?

Nov. 18 2009 10:17 AM
tF from 10075

peter,
you're right ten months and he has not solved all the world's problems (some of which have been festering for 100 years!). he's not the miracle worker some promised, impeach him

Nov. 18 2009 10:11 AM
Alex from Queens

I do not believe that there is any “unfinished business” when dealing with KSM. The day he was captured by Pakistanis and then handed over to the US, he stopped being an issue. The real unfinished business is capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden or his assistants.

Nov. 18 2009 10:11 AM
Peter from Sunset Park

When campaigning for president, Senator Obama promised Jerusalem to the Israelis and then the next morning was forced to send out a fax saying he made a mistake. Now President Obama orders Israel not to build homes for its citizens and has been rightfully put in his place by Israel. President Obama just doesn’t seem up to Middle East peacemaking and the challenges that international diplomacy demand. The fact that President Obama can’t make a decision on Afghanistan and is caving in to Israel once again suggests that President Obama just doesn’t have what it takes for such complicated and delicate issues.

How will President Obama respond from being put in his place by Israel and what will this mean for President Obama’s wavering and indecisive international "policy"?

Nov. 18 2009 08:47 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.