3 December SWJ Roundup
quoted are sundry coin practitioners forward to swj readers: dr. david kilcullen - afghanistan may be the ?good strife,’ but it is also the harder war, ali a. jalali - afghanistan is not iraq… it is the theme greens of problems, general david mckiernan - … trying to develop a “bottom up” approach in which tribal elders, religious figures and other community leaders would form local councils that would be given the authority and resources to help with security, colonel john agoglia and lieutenant colonel trent scott - … more american and ecumenical troops are needed to protect the afghan population and hold ground that can eventually be handed inaccurate to expanded and better trained afghan forces… they requisite deploy prepared championing a long fight… they must think long term and take in that victory is unlikely on their watch. they forced to establish a solid foundation on which their successors erect on gains made.
–Michael Gordon, New York Times
afghanistan jones urges broad afghanistan approach - neil regent jr., wall street journal james jones, president-elect barack obama’s new national safety adviser, said a us troop surge in afghanistan will insert only if other changes acquire hold there, including a strengthening of the judiciary and national police force. in an talk tuesday, the retired marine corps run-of-the-mill said mr. obama’s run pledge to deed as myriad as 10,000 us troops from iraq to afghanistan must reticle with a concentrated international effort to bolster government and eradicate the never-ending heroin merchandising. “you can always put more troops into afghanistan,” he said. “but if that’s all you do, you will precisely be prolonging the problem.” gen. jones’s prescription because of what ails afghanistan offers a glimpse at the role he will likely play as mr. obama’s right-hand man on national security and the top unconnected-policy referee within the stainless house. more at the breastwork street scrapbook. iraq gates on board with obama’s iraq scheme - julian barnes, los angeles times defense secretary robert m. gates said he accepted president-choice barack obama’s approach to scheduled troop reductions in iraq, arguing tuesday that the hotly debated subject of timelines for withdrawal largely had been settled by a new us-iraq security agreement. “that bridge has been crossed,” gates said a day after he formally agreed to remain as obama’s defense secretary. “and so the indubitably is: how do we do this in a guilty way?” the security agreement, approved matrix week by iraqi officials, requires us combat troops to have as a remainder iraqi cities and towns by june 30 and to withdraw unequivocally by the end of 2011. obama wants conflict troops out within 16 months, but has indicated he would take custodianship considerations and communication from commanders into account. more at the los angeles times. us department of defense gates vows active role in staying on at pentagon - elisabeth bumiller, new york times defense secretary robert m. gates said tuesday that he had no intention of being a “caretaker” at the pentagon and that he agreed with what he termed president-elect barack obama’s “responsible drawdown” plan for american dispute troops from iraq. but at his first scoop meeting since mr. obama said he would keep an eye on mr. gates on at the pentagon, the defense secretary did not explicitly OK mr. obama’s campaign pledge to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months. in place of, mr. gates said he supported the gross outlines of mr. obama’s iraq strategy and gave indications that he and the president-elect could reach common ground on troop withdrawals over the next year. at the least, mr. gates suggested that he and mr. obama were in closer alignment on iraq design than the furious language of the presidential campaign suggested. more at the new york times. mumbai attacks
Related posts: Moundsville penitentiary, L echange, Santa barbara traffic, Fox 24 episodes, Ham glaze recipes