VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHIN #1423/01 3370935
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 030935Z DEC 09
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2854
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 9558
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0949

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