Thread: His McMaster's Voice: Is Trump's Afghanistan Policy THAT Different from Obama's?

His McMaster’s Voice: Is Trump’s Afghanistan Policy THAT Different from Obama’s?


by Raheem Kassam 21 Aug 2017

Stanislaw Lem’s 1968 book, His Master’s Voice, portrayed first contact between an extra-terrestrial species and the efforts needed to translate the language they used, for human understanding.

Today’s Afghanistan speech by President Trump may be equally alien to his electoral base, though it was not difficult to figure out whose influence led to the speech’s neoconservative bent.

HR McMaster’s voice was clear to hear. It’s a voice that appears to have been carried over from the George W. Bush administration, and even the Obama White House.
Today, President Trump tried to explain himself, and even excuse himself, to the base who voted for his non-interventionist streak.

My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusion about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.

This isn’t about changing his perspective on the war. POTUS is a remarkably astute and stubborn individual. This was about the swamp getting to him.

Compare it to President Obama in 2015

Following consultations with my entire national security team, as well as our international partners and members of Congress, President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah, I’m therefore announcing the following steps, which I am convinced offer the best possibility for lasting progress in Afghanistan. First, I’ve decided to maintain our current posture of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through most of next year, 2016.

Now President Trump says he won’t put numbers on his involvement, nor would he put specifics regarding victory on the table.


In 2015, Obama gave very little detail about what victory looked like for the United States. Tonight, President Trump attempted to allay the concerns of the war-weary American people, but was equally vague in his rhetoric:

“Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition. — attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop[s] and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.

None of these are real measurables. Indeed, the insistence upon a “conditions” based strategy leaves the door even further open than Obama did. This was the only substantive difference between the pair. Obama gave numbers — probably an error — where President Trump would not. But Trump’s Afghanistan war — which I warned back in May was actually ‘McMaster’s War’ — is actually more open-ended. Even an ex-Obama advisor has admitted so:


None of this is to deny the importance of tackling radical Islamic terrorism and its harboring nations, but when President Trump “our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check”, this flies in complete contravention to the earlier statement. It can only either be a measurable victory, not based on “conditions” on the ground, or it is a not a blank check. It cannot be both.


And guess who used the same rhetoric in 2009? You got it… Obama:

“This effort must be based on performance,” he said. “The days of providing a blank check are over.”

Nor can it be a success with what we know the White House is discussing — an extra 4,000 troops. As Erik Prince told Breitbart News Daily:

The presidency by its nature lives in a bubble. When you fill it with former general officers, you’re going to get that stream of advice. And so tonight, I would predict, sadly, that we will hear more of the same of the last 16 years and, sadly, exactly what the president campaigned against last year in the presidential election,” he said.

How, by the way, can a “conditions” based policy be antithetical to nation building, as we are being asked to believe? Conditions on the ground in Afghanistan will not change without the nation being built? Without their police and military being trained? Without their institutions growing up and becoming secure? Too many comments in this speech make no sense in the real world.


And consider who the talking heads are congratulating President Trump for his speech tonight. Sen. Lindsay Graham — Obama’s favorite Republican to dine with — burst out of the blocks praising President Trump. So did the RNC, and watch the media response — for once not hysterical about President Trump’s policies. What does that say, that the establishment has consensus amongst itself on this issue? Nothing good, if you ask me.


The dwindling crowd of Wilsonians and Scoop Jacksonites will no doubt laud President Trump’s decision to have an open-ended, vague commitment to this foreign quagmire, but his base will unlikely be as rewarding.


What was evident during the wending and sometimes contradictory speech, was the alien language and policy as far was POTUS’s supporters are concerned: it was McMaster’s Voice, and does not require a team of scientists in Nevada — per Lem’s novel — to figure that out.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...nistan-policy/

How, by the way, can a “conditions” based policy be antithetical to nation building, as we are being asked to believe? Conditions on the ground in Afghanistan will not change without the nation being built? Without their police and military being trained? Without their institutions growing up and becoming secure? Too many comments in this speech make no sense in the real world.

It wasn't supposed to make sense. The enemy gets CNN, they're listening to the speech. The message was very simple, we're coming after you, we're going to crush you, we're using every tool and ally available to do that. You won't know where we are, what we're doing or when we're doing it, all you will know is you're going to be chased, hunted, trapped, corralled, surrounded and terminated.

When questioned this morning, a former military commander from that area answered in the affirmative that America would be there for decades. Our ongoing presence there would be similar to other areas of the world where we still remain after decades beyond conflicts.

How very costly in many ways.

I think a translation of the President's speech would read -

"I really thought I was going to be President and be able to actually do something to make this country better. I actually thought since the American people voted for me, at least the so call Republicans would back me.

Now that I'm here, I realize the President is only a figurehead, the Republicans are as reprehensible as the other side of the party, and neither the people nor their elected officials are running this government.

Boy was I naive - I've been to Camp David and got my orders.

The orders are -------

The war profiteers must be kept rolling in money.

We must continue to kill and maim our young people. It's easier to rule a country if many of the best of each generation are destroyed in one way or another.

We must keep the poppy fields safe."

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I think a translation of the President's speech would read -

"I really thought I was going to be President and be able to actually do something to make this country better. I actually thought since the American people voted for me, at least the so call Republicans would back me.

Now that I'm here, I realize the President is only a figurehead, the Republicans are as reprehensible as the other side of the party, and neither the people nor their elected officials are running this government.

Boy was I naive - I've been to Camp David and got my orders.

The orders are -------

The war profiteers must be kept rolling in money.

We must continue to kill and maim our young people. It's easier to rule a country if many of the best of each generation are destroyed in one way or another.

We must keep the poppy fields safe."

So you're advocating for our complete withdraw? You do realize pulling out would create a vacuum that would allow the Taliban and other terrorist groups to crush the Afghanistan security forces, don't you? Once that is done the terrorist groups will once again have a free hand to plot, scheme, and execute terrorist acts against us and our allies.

I understand your position, however, I'm just not sure a complete withdrawl at this time is a viable option. Additionally, I don't see how 4,000 more troops is going to give us a so-called victory. Options are limited and we're damned if we do and will probably be damned if we don't. With that said though, I think I'd rather see our trained military forces providing support to the Afghanistan security forces vice the probable alternative. That alternative would be to completely pull out and increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks on our own soil and that of our allies.

It's a tough situation, but doing nothing doesn't seem like a choice to me at this time.

We would do well to remember 9/11.

<font size="3">

This is just my opinion and observations -

We are not now, nor have we ever been in Afghanistan (or anywhere else these days) to 'win' anything. We are there to keep a prolonged war going. We are there for corporations to rape and pillage the resources of those countries. It's good for the economy. It's good for many corporations - that makes it good for politicians who are getting paid by said corporations to keep the war/spending going.

The 'we must stay there' is the same rationale used to keep that horror going in Vietnam.

Do we really know what the 'Afghan Security Force' is? Is it good or bad? Remember, we are not above supporting the bad guy - that's one lesson we surely have learned.

From reports I have read, they have a proclivity to child abuse - especially young boys - which our soldiers are told not to report.
Would our leaving stop that? Maybe if we were not there to protect the 'security forces', the people might take the action against them that is justified.

What exactly do they 'secure'? - besides young boys for their sickness. Do they protect the people or do they oppress the people? The poppy fields, maybe?

Do we know? I suggest we don't.

So should we continue to stay there, wage war, kill civilians with drones, and on ground fighting, or should we get out and allow the Afghanis to make their own decisions and govern in their own way. Will civilians die? Probably, and I believe their blood is on our hands. If we stay will Afghanis die - without a doubt.

Do we really have any idea of how many Americans have died since we went hunting for those ethereal WMD? Do we know how many have been wounded? Do we know how many have been emotionally damaged? That's a big chunk of the best of that American generation. By design??

We need to find out - we need to put a sign up above our computer, our kitchen sinks, our TV/s, our front doors and read it everyday before we jump on the war wagon and start beating our chests talking about how tough we are.

Then, as we claim to be doing all this for humanitarian reasons, find out exactly how many foreigners, civilians and children, have been killed and maimed., and will continue to be. We need to find out how many babies are born deformed because of the kind of weaponry we are using.

Before we back a government that wants to go to war - maybe we better look at their track record at home. Are they 'securing' this country? Or are they giving it away?

And that needs to change, nntrixie. We won WWII in 4 years. To still be in Afghanistan and Iraq after all these years means they were just more Vietnams to as you say, keep the war going and the money flowing. Trump is going to end this and end it fast. He's not going to say how or when, he's just going to do it. He's done it in Syria, almost done it in Iraq and now he's going to purge this crap out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. At least I'm confident that is his goal and the purpose of the new strategy.

I hope you are right - at this point, I am very skeptical.

If he had sent his son, his daughter, his son in law in with the troops to fight, then I would believe he thinks it's for the good of the country and very necessary.

The same standard I had for Bush and Obama, I set for him. Unless he has something very dear to loose, I question his actions.