MEDIA REACTION: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADDRESS ON AFGHANISTAN

UNCLAS AIT TAIPEI 001423 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/TC, EAP/P, EAP/PD - THOMAS HAMM DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADDRESS ON AFGHANISTAN ¶1. Summary: Taiwan's major Chinese-language dailies focused news coverage December 3 on the lead-up to the local elections scheduled for December 5; on the National Communications Commission (NCC)'s review of Next Media's applications to establish TV channels; and on the resignation Masaki Saito, Japan's representative to Taiwan. ¶2. In terms of editorial and commentaries, two articles commented on United States President Barack Obama's Tuesday address on Afghanistan. A column in the KMT-leaning "China Times" questioned what the President's strategy was for Afghanistan. The column held a pessimistic view about President Obama's latest announcement to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan because the Afghanistan problem cannot be resolved simply by military means. An editorial in the China-focused "Want Daily" said the war in Afghanistan is a war that the United States cannot fight anymore. The editorial gave five reasons explaining why the United States should not stay in the quagmire of Afghanistan. End summary. A) "What Is Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan" The "International Lookout" column in the KMT-leaning "China Times" [circulation: 120,000] wrote (12/3): "United States President Barack Obama announced his plan to deploy [more United States] troops in Afghanistan. This is absolutely compromise plan in which [he] wants to please everyone. It is hard to say whether [the plan] will have a significant impact on the situation in Afghanistan. ... "The most fundamental issue is that, increasing troops (even if the troops are increased by 80,000 more) cannot reverse the situation in Afghanistan. This is because [the problems in Afghanistan] cannot be resolved by military means. Rather, they are problems that involve various aspects, including politics, economy, and society. Afghanistan is called 'the graveyard of empires.' Could it be said that the [reason why the] military forces of the United Kingdom and the [former] Soviet Union failed [in Afghanistan] was because of the shortage of troops? ... "Afghanistan should not be put on a par with Iraq. Iraq almost produced an atomic bomb. However, three fourths of the population in Afghanistan remains illiterate. There is not even a [decent] highway. There are abundant oil reserves in Iraq. People in Afghanistan can only grow poppy. "It was only a pretense that the United States' attacked Afghanistan wanting to destroy the Taliban and catch Osama bin Laden. Why did the United States cooperate with the Taliban in the past? The real purpose of the United States is the same as that of the former British Empire and the [former] Soviet Union -- to control the strategic hub in Central Asia. "Obama realized that [former President George] Bush's ambitions in Afghanistan were hard to fulfill. [Obama] is either unable to move forward on or retreat from the legacy [left by Bush]. Some people believe that the strategy [of sending more troops] that he announced yesterday was just to pretend to move ahead in order to hide his intention to retreat. That way of thinking is probably true." B) "The War in Afghanistan Can Not be Fought" The China-focused "Want Daily" [circulation: 10,000] editorialized (12/3): "... The problem is that, is it worthwhile to fight this war [in Afghanistan]? Can the war be fought? First of all, according to historical experience, it is unlikely that the United States will win a war without the support of public opinion. ... Second, judging from several wars in the past, it is unlikely [that the United States] will win a war without the support of Congress. ... Third, what is more important is that, can the United States vanquish the enemy? Before James Jones assumed the National Security Adviser [position], he pointed out in a report to the 'Atlantic Council' that it was impossible for NATO forces to win the war in Afghanistan. Jones also held an extremely pessimistic view concerning the prospects for the United States in Afghanistan, believing that 'the United States could send 200,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but they would continue to fall into a quagmire as they had been.' ... "Fourth, [United States President Barack] Obama goal in sending more troops to Afghanistan is to prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda as well as the remnants of the Taliban forces which fled to Pakistan. The ultimate goal is to return responsibility for security and defense to the Afghanistan government as soon as possible. ... The problem is that the Afghanistan government is led by President Hamid Karzai [who] is fatuous and incapable. ... It is only wishful thinking by the United States to [think it can] train 400,000 Afghanistan troops so they can replace the troops of the United States and [its] allies within three or four years. "Fifth, as early as the 'U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue' from April 27-28, Obama hoped China would assist the United States in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Beijing pretended to be a deaf mute [to Obama's hopes]. On November 17, when he met with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama mentioned the issue again. Hu [again] did not respond directly to the issue. Beijing and Washington have a common goal in South Asia and Southeast Asia, which is that they do not want to see Islamic extremist organizations spread and develop in the two regions. Beijing has not yet demonstrated its support for the United States' request to cooperate in fighting terrorism in South Asia out of a concern that the influence of the United States would take root in South Asia. Furthermore, [China is concerned that the United States] will collaborate with India to jointly contain the rise of China. "Finally, if Obama cannot realize his commitment to remove troops from Afghanistan within three years, the United States will definitely fall into the quagmire as it did in the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. If this happens, the United States will have to devote excessive amounts of national power to overseas conflicts, while China, India and Russia [will continue to] develop their economies with their full strength. At that [future] time, it is likely that there will be a new change in the relative national strengths of the global superpowers. STANTON