Live (Okay, Sort Of Live) Blogging Barack Obama's Afghanistan Speech (Updated Below)

I had to go to a department dinner, so I missed Obama's speech as he delivered it, but thanks to the wonders of technology, I am going to watch it on the NYT website. I will blog my thoughts as I watch it "live". Before we begin, I think I should stipulate for the record that this is Obama's earliest, biggest and dumbest mistake. 30k additional troops for counter-insurgency in a poor, rural country that's been at war for more than thirty years, has no viable central government, and has never been subdued by foreign forces? Right. Anyway, I'm beginning the speech at 10:30 p.m., just so you know where I am during the speech.

10:30 p.m. Man, the cadets at West Point look like they're dressed for an alien movie.

10:31 p.m. "We did not ask for this fight." Ok, fair enough. But you do realize the fight that was started on 9/11/2001 bears no resemblance whatsoever to the war today, right?

10:32 p.m. My friend, al-Qaeda's base may have been in Afghanistan, and they may have gotten sanctuary from the Taliban, but you know where they got their flight training? Florida. In fact the list of training centers for al-Qaeda terrorists in the last ten years include: London, Spain, Indonesia, Germany, the U.S., Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt...and that's just off the top of my head. The safe haven argument doesn't make much sense. But what do I know?

10:34 p.m. Hahaha. Nice job not reliving the Iraq war debate at West Point. Kudos.

10:37 p.m. Here's the nicest thing I can say about this strategy: he's sticking to his word. Anyone who followed the campaign even superficially knew that he wanted to wind down the war in Iraq only to transfer resources to Afghanistan. This is not a surprise.

10:38 p.m. "The status quo is not sustainable". Alright, so we agree on one thing.

10:40 p.m. So he's sending 30,000 troops to bring them back in three years? Does anyone believe that will actually happen? I'm not saying he's lying, I'm just saying he's being disingenuous. Wars have their own momentum. Remember, Rummy and Condi and Cheney thought the U.S. would leave Iraq in a few weeks or months. That was almost seven years ago.

10:42 p.m. His argument is that Central Asia is "vital" to American security because that's where the last attack came from and where, presumably, the next attack is being planned. But what global terrorism has shown is that having a safe haven on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for terrorist attacks. So in what sense are American security interests vital?

10:44 p.m. Poor Lynd...er, sorry, I mean poor Barack.

10:45 p.m. So the objectives are: strengthen the central Afghan government; draw back the influence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, advise, assist and train Afghan security forces; encourage competence from the Karzai regime; focus on agriculture.

10:49 p.m. Uh, Barry? You know no Afghan is watching this, right? There's no need to address them directly.

10:50 p.m. Oh, shit. The P-word.

10:51 p.m. Honestly? I know some of my readers are going to bite my head off, but I really liked the Pakistan section. Hit all the right notes, described the situation accurately, suggested the right solutions. Not saying it will work, mind, just saying I liked the words.

10:53 p.m. With the whole this isn't Vietnam/but the status quo won't work either/but a strong and open-ended escalation won't work either, it's clear what he's trying to do: chart a middle ground amongst strawmen position on the extremes. That's the classic Obamaist rhetorical technique.The only problem with this is that war isn't healthcare: middling policies is great politics, but doesn't always make for smart war. You're either all in or all out.

10:56 p.m. Ok, he at least understands that war abroad has real costs at home -- at least that's what I take from the discussion on the cost of the war and the budget deficit.

10:59 p.m. Hillary sighting! Nice.

11:00 p.m. Haha. I love that the U.S. president actually has to "prohibit torture". Good times.

11:01 p.m. Ah, American exceptionalism. I never get tired of hearing it. Listen, guys, seriously: you're like other empires in more ways than you think. Seriously. Just admit it and move on.

11:03 p.m. Bloody hell, he stopped talking about Afghanistan like ten minutes ago -- he's been talking about how great America is since then. Is this really necessary?

11:05 p.m. He closes the speech by staring into the camera and channeling George W. Bush. Seriously, watch that last minute, close your eyes, imagine it's George Bush's voice, and tell me the words don't sound out of place. For better or worse.

Well, that's that. As I said, I think this decision is his worst mistake -- easily -- from a U.S. perspective. From a Pakistani point of view, I'm not 100% sure of the implications to be honest. They could be very bad but they could improve the situation slightly in important ways. I'll probably take a day or two to gather my thoughts and write a proper post then.

UPDATE: This is the problem with liveblogging. While you're busy typing, you end up missing some of what is said. I take back my endorsement of the Pakistan section of his speech, mainly because of the stuff about nukes, and his implication that al-Qaeda could end up in control of a deliverable weapon. It's a stupid and false assertion.

Also, contrast his rhetoric in public with what the CIA is planning in private:

In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.

The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan.

“The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against Al Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorism safe havens,” said one American official. “More people, more places, more operations.”

That was the message delivered in recent weeks to Pakistani officials by Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser. But the Pakistanis, suspicious of Mr. Obama’s intentions and his staying power, have not yet agreed.

Well, no shit. The obvious question becomes: where does this end? It started with FATA, it appears to be expanding into Balochistan (if the U.S. has its way). So, again, where does this end? If the U.S. believes they have actionable intelligence on al-Qaeda operatives in Karachi, will they bomb the city with drones? Rural southern Punjab? Urban northern Punjab? Because, let me tell you, the way the U.S. defines "al-Qaeda", al-Qaeda operatives are in each of those places.