President Obama on Afghanistan, General McChrystal & General Petraeus

NEWS
President Obama on Afghanistan, General McChrystal & General Petraeus
Obama relieves McChrystal of command
Gen. David Petraeus named to take over troubled Afghan war
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

••• The White House says the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan made an ‘enormous mistake’ in an unflattering magazine article, and ‘all options are on the table’ with regard to General Stanley McChrystal’s job.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs repeatedly refused on Tuesday to say that McChrystal is safe in his post or could be considered by President Barack Obama to continue as an effective commander in Afghanistan.

The president summoned McChrystal to Washington to attend, in person, on Wednesday a meeting on the war and explain the comments in the story.
“We’ll have more to say after that meeting,” Gibbs said of McChrystal’s future.

In one part of the story, McChrystal complained about Obama’s preparedness in one of their first meetings. Gibbs responded tartly to that: “He’ll have his undivided attention tomorrow.”

This afternoon the President spoke on new leadership for the mission in Afghanistan, full remarks below:

Good afternoon. Today I accepted General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military, and for our country.

I’m also pleased to nominate General David Petraeus to take command in Afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the momentum and leadership that we need to succeed.

I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I’ve got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform.

Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation’s finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence, and his love of country. I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal’s remarkable career in uniform.

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security.

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

My multiple responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I’ve been elected to lead. I’ve got no greater honor than serving as Commander-in-Chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out.

That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.

Second, I have a responsibility to do what is – whatever is necessary to succeed in Afghanistan, and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. I believe that this mission demands unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team. And I don’t think that we can sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in Afghanistan without making this change. That, too, has guided my decision.I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. All of us have personal interests; all of us have opinions. Our politics often fuels conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another, and to our troops who are in harm’s way, and to our country.

We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan. But Americans don’t flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. We persist and we persevere. We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world.

So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.

That’s the strategy that we agreed to last fall; that is the policy that we are carrying out, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In that effort, we are honored to be joined by allies and partners who have stood by us and paid the ultimate price through the loss of their young people at war. They are with us because the interests and values that we share, and because this mission is fundamental to the ability of free people to live in peace and security in the 21st century.

General Petraeus and I were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. I’m extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. It should be clear to everybody, he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. And he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post.

Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. In his current post at Central Command, he has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has worked closely with the Afghan and Pakistan governments and with all our partners in the region. He has my full confidence, and I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible.

Let me conclude by saying that it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that I’ve made today. Indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who I’ve come to respect and admire. But the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding.

So, once again, I thank General McChrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation and to the success of our mission in Afghanistan. I look forward to working with General Petraeus and my entire national security team to succeed in our mission. And I reaffirm that America stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend it.

Thank you very much.

• Latest News & Headlines » Home «
• Source(s): The White House

President Obama Announces the New START Treaty

NEWS
President Obama Announces the New START Treaty
Friday, March 26, 2010

••• Climaxing months of hard negotiations, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed today to sharp cuts in the nuclear arsenals of both nations in the most comprehensive arms control treaty in two decades. “We have turned words into action,” Obama declared.

The completion of this agreement gives Obama his biggest foreign policy achievement just days after his biggest domestic accomplishment: winning approval of his health care overhaul.

Obama said the pact, to be signed on April 8 in Prague, was part of his effort to reset relations with Russia and a step toward “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

The agreement would require both sides to reduce their arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons by about a third, from 2,200 now to 1,550 each. The pact, replacing and expanding the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, which expired in December, was a significant gesture toward improved US-Russian relations that have been badly frayed.

The reductions would still leave both sides with immense arsenals – and the ability to easily annihilate each other.

“In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time,” Obama said at the White House. “Today, we have taken another step forward in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children.”

In Russia, Medvedev’s spokeswoman Natalya Timakova told the Interfax news agency, “This treaty reflects the balance of interests of both nations.”

A Kremlin statement said, “The new treaty stipulates that strategic arms will be based exclusively on the territories of each of the nations.”

Both sides would have seven years after the treaty’s ratification to carry out the approximately 30 per cent reduction in long-range nuclear warheads. The agreement also calls for cutting by about half the missiles and bombers that carry the weapons to their targets.

“We have turned words into action. We have made progress that is clear and concrete. And we have demonstrated the importance of American leadership – and American partnership – on behalf of our own security, and the world’s,” Obama said.
Though the agreement must still be ratified by the Senate and both houses of the Russian Parliament before it takes effect, Obama and Medvedev plan to sign it next month in Prague, the city where last April, Obama delivered his signature speech on arms control.

For his administration, a major value of the treaty is in setting the stage for potential further successes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, standing with Defence Secretary Robert Gates alongside Obama, noted next month’s international meeting of leaders on nuclear proliferation being hosted by the president in Washington, focused on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists and rogue states.

“We come with more credibility, Russia comes with more credibility, having negotiated this treaty,” she said.

Ratification in the Senate will require 67 votes, two thirds of the Senate, meaning Obama will need support from Republicans. Some Republican senators had previously expressed concerns about concessions being made by U.S. negotiators.

Clinton, asked whether approval could be achieved given the recent fierce partisan battles and close votes over health care, said it could.

“National security has always produced large bipartisan majorities, and I see no reason why this should be any different,” she said. “I believe that a vast majority of the Senate, at the end of the day, will see that this is in America’s interest. And it goes way beyond politics.”

In Russia, the treaty goes first to the State Duma, the lower house, and then to the Federation Council.

Speaking in the White House briefing room, Obama said the treaty by the globe’s two largest nuclear powers would “send a clear signal that we intend to lead” the rest of the world in reducing the nuclear threat.

Clinton noted that the U.S. and Russia still possess more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons. “We do not need such large arsenals to protect our nation,” she said.

She emphasized the verification mechanism in the treaty, a key demand of the US that was resisted by Russia and was one of the sticking points that delayed completion of the deal. It will “reduce the chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations,” she told reporters.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that by helping to build trust “this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do – protect and defend the citizens of the United States.”

He said U.S. commanders around the world “stand solidly behind the treaty.”

Gates cautioned the treaty – and an accompanying review of nuclear posture – will require more spending to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal. At the same time, the defense secretary called it an “important milestone” in consigning Cold War nightmares to the past.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband welcomed the “historic” agreement.

He said the U.K. was committed to a world free from nuclear weapons and “stands ready” to take part in a future multilateral disarmament process.

He said: “As the Prime Minister told President (Barack) Obama when they spoke yesterday, the U.K. welcomes this agreement which is an important further step towards a world free from nuclear weapons.

“The international community must now seize the opportunity this creates for the 2010 NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference and beyond.

“That means continued efforts by all states possessing nuclear weapons to work towards their total elimination.

“It means concerted action from the international community to tackle countries like North Korea and Iran which seek to develop nuclear weapons in breach of their treaty commitments.

“And it means the safe expansion of nuclear power.”

The new treaty will also set out new verification procedures that are considered less cumbersome and expensive than those in Start.