Huckleberries Online

Obama Defends Afghanistan War

Posted by DFO

Dec. 10, 2009 5:30 p.m. • 20 comments

In a speech that was both somber and soaring, he returned again and again to Afghanistan, arguing that the war was morally just and strategically necessary to defend the United States and others from more terrorist attacks. In a moving passage, he invoked the memories of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying that without Dr. King’s vision, leadership and sacrifice, he never would have been standing at that lectern in Oslo. But he said he could not be guided by their examples alone: “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms”/New York Times editorial. More here.

Question: Do you consider the fighting in Afghanistan to be a just war?

20 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Stickman on December 10 at 5:52 p.m.
Yes.
empyrius on December 10 at 6:25 p.m.
No.
hmoffsuite on December 10 at 6:43 p.m.
empyrius. What would you suggest be done in Afghanistan? Just bring the boys home and call it a day? Are you being critical of Obama’s judgement?
Lizard_People on December 10 at 8:00 p.m.
NO!!

hmoffsuite - YES!!

That’s what the real conservatives over at amconmag.com are calling for.
Escapee on December 10 at 9:07 p.m.
‘Just’ War? Isn’t that what Dubya wanted the public to think regarding Iraq?
Don_Sausser on December 10 at 10:16 p.m.
Yes, Obama told it like it is.
Lynne on December 11 at 8:11 a.m.
Wasn’t the gist of his campaign platform “BRING THE TROOPS HOME”?
Arch_Druid on December 11 at 8:28 a.m.
From IRAQ, Lynn. Apparently some people on this blog have a very selective memory.
richard on December 11 at 9:48 a.m.
How quaint. Druid is now supportive of war - the war in Afghanistan.

Funny she was not a supporter of the same war when the only thing different now is the name of the president in charge.

How are we to interpret that? Druid now has a better appreciation for war? Druid now has a better perspective on this war? Druid … has flip-flopped merely because the name on the mailbox at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue has changed?
MatthewRoot on December 11 at 9:59 a.m.
Yes.
Arch is exactly right. Pres. Obama said he would pursue the war in Afghanistan throughout the campaign.
Afghanistan is not Iraq. We were attacked from Afghanistan. Iraq was never a threat to the us.
If we do not destroy Al Qaeda, they will attack us again.
Sisyphus on December 11 at 10:00 a.m.
That’s not what I remember richard. I thought Archie is a vet and a Republican. But she’s been consistent in her positions.

Obama campaigned on removing our resources from the war of choice and finishing the job in Afghanistan. He’s keeping that promise.
lewis8457 on December 11 at 10:06 a.m.
what a boob who elected this guy into office?
Sisyphus on December 11 at 10:13 a.m.
“If we do not destroy Al Qaeda, they will attack us again.”—this is probably not an achievable goal. What Obama has sought to do since taking office is to destroy the underlying reasons for terrorists to recruit and flourish. The fallacy of Bush’s approach was to think this can be accomplished by force alone. This changed after the ‘06 elections, the firing of Rumsfeld and the hiring of Gates. Gates was kept on because his multi faceted approach met with more success in Iraq. Trouble is that every one of those family members of the hundred thousand civilian dead in Iraq have a newly formed hatred for the US. Not to mention the million refugees. Also the virulent xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the GOP doesn’t help the cause at all. Those five Americans recently arrested in Pakistan should be a real concern.
MatthewRoot on December 11 at 10:16 a.m.
“who elected this guy into office?”

answer: the majority of U.S. citizens who voted, that’s who. Do you have a problem with democracy?
MatthewRoot on December 11 at 10:22 a.m.
Sis – I basically agree. We can not win by military force alone. American humanitarian aid in the region will do more to eliminate the underlying roots of terrorism than military force.
Taking out bin Laden and other top terrorist leaders needs to be done as well.
Sisyphus on December 11 at 10:34 a.m.
Agreed. Bringing bin Laden to justice was Bush’s greatest failure. I’m still surprised the Iraq War diversion didn’t manifest itself into a political loss sooner than it did. Smoke and mirrors were very successful.

I strongly agree that poverty is a root cause for terrorist recruitment. In many countries in the middle east, education by the state is not provided to all. The poor are obligated then to find it where they can and the Mahdi Muslim clerics are more than happy to fill the void. Their radical and violent form of Islam has proven quite potent in the minds of the young. Ironically, before the invasion, Iraq had the largest and most vibrant middle class in the middle east. Now that’s scattered to the wind adding to the problem. But it’ll take something different than humanitarian aid to correct this systemic problem.
keithincda on December 11 at 10:48 a.m.
Sis>>>”Iraq had the largest and most vibrant middle class in the middle east. Now that’s scattered to the wind adding to the problem”

Since you brought it up how about directing me to some FACTS that back your assertion up on this Sis? Did you find a credible source somewhere on the net with some statistics on this?Thanks.
Sisyphus on December 11 at 11:04 a.m.
I didn’t have anything particular in mind, it was a factoid I’d gleaned along the way. But teh google readily pulled up many articles. And by ‘vibrant’ I probably should have said ‘educated.’

http://hnn.us/articles/34133.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/africa/19iht-exodus.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120553610561238057.html
fortboise on December 11 at 11:38 a.m.
I consider the question of just war to be more complex than True/False, and if True, saddle up.

Our reason for going to war in Afghanistan was morally justified as a response to the attack by Al-Qaeda. The theory of Just War requires, as Obama said, that it be “waged as a last resort or in self-defense; [that] the force used is proportional; and [that], whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

“Last resort” or self-defense could be debatable. I do believe the U.S. military has endeavored to use force proportionally, and to spare civilians from violence. Whether or not we’ve succeeded in that is also debatable. (I expect it’s a lot easier to suppose so from Idaho or eastern Washington than from a village in Afghanistan.)

More of my response to the speech (with links to the WH transcript, and video) on my blog:
http://fortboise.org/blog/200912.html#p12110
richard on December 11 at 6:12 p.m.
<<also the=”” virulent=”” xenophobic=”” anti-muslim=”” rhetoric=”” coming=”” from=”” the=”” gop=”” doesn’t=”” help=”” the=”” cause=”” at=”“ all.=”“>>

I am just wondering Sis; give me one example of the “virulent xenophobic anti-Muslim rhetoric” coming from the Republic Party.

Or do you just feel very “intellectual” saying “virulent xenophobic blah-blah-blah”?

If I am not mistaken, I believe those are the exact words used by Keith Olberman.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.