Skip to main content

Notes Made During the President's Speech on Afghanistan

Image result for teleprompter

I've made no effort to edit or make sense of this. It's just what I jotted down at the time.

He is in his reading-carefully-from-the-teleprompter mode.

"Horrors on the scale of September 11, and we can never forget that, have not been repeated on our shores."

"The American people are weary of war without victory." 

Criticized nation building, not interested in re-creating other countries so that they are "in our own image." 

His first instinct was "to pull out," but ...  he has come to distrust his instincts. 

Three conclusions
1) our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome... 
2) consequences of a rapid exit are predictable and unacceptable.  [But isn't this what HRC was saying? She took flak on that both from Sanders and then from Trump himself.]
3) security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense. 

With regard to the "broader region," he soon brings in Pakistan and a little later brings in India.

US can't allow safe havens for terrorists and can't allow nuclear materials to get into their hands. 

"Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary time tables ..." must be our guide. 

It may be possible to have a "political settlement" that includes "elements of the Taliban," though nobody knows whether that can happen. 

He comes back to Pakistan, and how "we can no longer be silent" about how it has been harboring criminals and terrorists. "The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism." 
The US has been paying the govt there, while they are "housing the very terrorists that we are fighting." That will change. 

Further development of a strategic relationship with India. India makes "billions of dollars in trade" with the US, and Trump thinks the US is entitled to greater cooperation from them. 

Our troops "will fight to win" he says, then repeats the phrase. Question: did it appear twice here in the text. 

Calls his view "principled realism," which sounds like he wants it to be The Take-Away.

"The government of Afghanistan must cover their share of the ... burden." The patience of the US government "is not unlimited." 

My take-away? Trump wants to bully both Pakistan and India into bearing the onus of the war in Afghanistan. In the case of India, he is proposing to use the threat of a trade war to do the bullying. 

The good this will do? None whatsoever. But our President is not motivated by any desire to accomplish anything, other than attention and ego gratification.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more