Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

President Obama De-Emphasizes Priority of Democracy in Afghanistan

March 28, 2009 12:43 PM

Last December, when President Bush appeared in Kabul with Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, he stated that one of the top priorities of the U.S. is "to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology...It's difficult because extremists refuse to accept the beauty of democracy. They've got a different vision, and so therefore they're willing to kill innocent people to achieve their objectives."

Yesterday, when President Obama announced his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, he made no such declaration.

"Democracy" and "democratic" were mentioned three times -- in relation to Pakistan. But while the president mentioned the "elected" government of Afghanistan -- and his special envoy to the region, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, is working hard on the elections to take place in Afghanistan later this year -- it seems clear that the absence of rhetoric demanding a "flourishing democracy" in the country was not an accident. Though of course the administration will support democratic efforts in the country, the emphasis is now on stability and human rights.

As ABC News' State Department reporter, Kirit Radia, notes, the administration's "white paper" on the new policy makes the distinction even more apparent:

"The following steps must be done in concert to produce the desired end state: the removal of al-Qaeda's sanctuary, effective and democratic government control in Pakistan, and a self-reliant Afghanistan that will enable the withdrawal of combat forces while sustaining our commitment to political and economic development." (Emphasis ours.)

Said the president yesterday: "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."

"We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future," he said at another point in the speech. "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."

-jpt

March 28, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (101)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Democracies and Capitalism are overrated anyway.

Autocracy and Socialism is where REAL liberty and prosperity are at!

Posted by: RR GOP | Mar 29, 2009 11:10:30 PM

I hope there is a good reason (like intelligence info. that we don't know about) for pursuing these guys into the mountains.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | Mar 29, 2009 12:33:52 PM

TJ...

Sub Saharan Africa is not a nor has it ever been a...

[Capitalist Haven]

The Area has Never been Capitalist.

Capitalism & Greed: FAILED in America and Western Europe.

That's a Glaring Reality !!

Have You seen all of Western Europe...

Answer: No

Not Grand at All.

Eastern Europe...

Answer: Terrible, Deplorable...

So much so that The European Union, Refuses to...

[Bail E.Europe out]

Note: Canada & Brazil Both are Thriving and Both Nations have a Surplus.

Not America and Western Europe.

The Brazilian Prime Minister called out American & European Capitalism, for it's Failure Both Here and Abroad.

Posted by: O. | Mar 29, 2009 12:03:27 PM

"They criticize him for trying to befriend our 'enemies'. "

Well, we do have enemies. Radical Muslims like members of al Queda, Taliban and others want to kill us and others as well as destroy western civilization. I haven't seen anyone say the Muslim world, or Muslims in general, are our enemies. If someone says that, they are wrong. You implied that though, saying we had to have a "lasting peace" with Muslims.

Posted by: Sigmond | Mar 29, 2009 11:39:08 AM

"No one is at war with the people of the Muslim world. Most Muslims and countries that are Muslim are peaceful and oppose terrorism, so no need for making peace with anyone."


You wouldn't know that from reading the comments of many Obama critics that post on these pages. Go back and review the comments on the article about his recent New Years address. They criticize him for trying to befriend our 'enemies'.

Posted by: Skip | Mar 29, 2009 11:29:12 AM

"only way to really stop terrorism is to forge some kind of lasting peace with the peoples of the Muslim world."

No one is at war with the people of the Muslim world. Most Muslims and countries that are Muslim are peaceful and oppose terrorism, so no need for making peace with anyone.

Unfortunately, terrorism will be with us a long time - probably forever, much like crime. It can only be contained.

Posted by: Sigmond | Mar 29, 2009 11:04:33 AM

"Couldn't Al Qaeda set up shop somewhere else? Weren't the 9/11 guys Saudis and Yemens? Am I missing something? Do we think the taking this group out will change anything? Can't they just twitter other terrorists?"


We are never going to defeat the terrorists by killing them all. They have a pool of a billion people to draw from. We have to fight terrorism but the only way to really stop terrorism is to forge some kind of lasting peace with the peoples of the Muslim world. To argue for anything else is to commit us to further generations of bloodshed.

Posted by: Skip | Mar 29, 2009 10:39:16 AM

While I no longer support this administration in their bailout plan...to say that republican policies have brought us to this tipping point..Is completely on target..Republicans have morally and economically ...bankrupt this country, and they have offered nothing to indicate that their previous policies are not their present and future policies....don't misconstrue any disagreement with the presidents policies as A acceptance of republicans complete failure as a governing body

Posted by: cowgirl | Mar 29, 2009 9:24:06 AM

Couldn't Al Qaeda set up shop somewhere else? Weren't the 9/11 guys Saudis and Yemens? Am I missing something? Do we think the taking this group out will change anything? Can't they just twitter other terrorists?

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | Mar 29, 2009 9:16:57 AM

Was the reality that the USA has some Al Queda members within its border to mean that they were actively involved with our policy making? No.

During
most of the Bush/Cheney administration conducting the war in Iraq, the liberal controlled Democrat Party had the SAME GOAL as Al Queda, which was for the USA to leave Iraq.

It is true that Al queda and the Democrat Party had different reasons for wanting the USA to leave Iraq, but both had the same goal, as such, Al queda had no need to be "actively" involved in policy making, the Democrats were doing that for them, that is the "inconvienent truth"

Posted by: Neville | Mar 29, 2009 8:32:20 AM

Why in hell would Obama mention Democracy in Afghanistan being he's a Socialist?

Last year President Bush announced 12,000 to 15,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for 2009 which was criticized by almost all the Democrats but now Obama announces additional troops and he's praised up and down.
I guess by putting down some more words like "Diplomatic Surge" makes Obama better than Bush?

Posted by: t hill | Mar 29, 2009 7:40:38 AM

My point remains valid, al queda was in Iraq and liberal democrats wanted to "cut and run" and "surrender" caucus were formed in Congress by liberal democrats. (Out of Iraq Caucus)

****************************************

That is like saying that al Qaeda is in the US. Sure they are here someplace, but actively invold in our policy?

Get real

Posted by: Thinking | Mar 29, 2009 6:24:58 AM

The greatness of our nation has its foundation in the Declaration and the Constitution.

The assistance the USA gave to Iraq in forming its Constitution, provides them also the opprotunity to progress towards "a more perfect union"

I hope that a similar process takes place in Afganistan in the coming years.

I extend my personal thanks, like millions of Americans, to the military, that made and will make that process possible

Posted by: Neville | Mar 29, 2009 1:22:11 AM

While I'm might not be the most moderate of commenters, I have to commend Jake Tapper for playing it down the middle.

Posted by: TJ | Mar 29, 2009 1:00:05 AM

Yeah "O.",
Capitalism didn't actually create the strongest, most diverse and tolerant societies in the history of Man.

Dude, you need to travel and see the rest of the world. I have...during 25 years in the military. Do you want to see a failure, go to sub-Saharan Africa, go visit the former Eastern Europe and smell the stench that still exudes from their factories. Do that, then let me know how you like the US. Perhaps more pampered, spoiled, uninformed and bored Americans need to take that trip with you.

Posted by: TJ | Mar 29, 2009 12:56:32 AM

"Your posting proved my point, thank you"


I gotta tell you that I don't even really know what your point was except to make more baseless saber-rattling attacks on 'liberals'. By far most people in this country are tired of the war in Iraq for a variety of reasons and if that means that most of the people in this country don't have enough determination and resolve for you I think its just too bad. We all have to weigh the enormous responsibility of sending people to die on foreign soil and if you want to insult those who think its not worth it, then why should they listen to you? So good luck getting those votes you want in 2010.

Posted by: Skip | Mar 29, 2009 12:11:12 AM

skip

Your posting proved my point, thank you

Posted by: Neville | Mar 28, 2009 11:36:47 PM

"My point remains valid, al queda was in Iraq and liberal democrats wanted to "cut and run" and "surrender" caucus were formed in Congress by liberal democrats. (Out of Iraq Caucus)"


Where on earth have you been? The 'Out of Iraq Caucus' includes most of the citizens of the United States. They don't want to cut and run, but they want out.

Posted by: Skip | Mar 28, 2009 11:24:24 PM

skip

Even though Al Queda did have a presence in Iraq before the USA invaded, let us accept YOUR premise that they were not.

My point remains valid, al queda was in Iraq and liberal democrats wanted to "cut and run" and "surrender" caucus were formed in Congress by liberal democrats. (Out of Iraq Caucus)

Posted by: Neville | Mar 28, 2009 11:17:50 PM

"I am glad that our military and the resolve of President Bush prevailed in driving the radical Islamic militant Al Queda factions out of Iraq."


There weren't any significant Al Queda factions in Iraq until after we invaded.
-and its very wishful thinking that they are all gone.

Posted by: Skip | Mar 28, 2009 11:05:28 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS