"Should More Troops Be Sent to Afghanistan? NO!"

As outlined in a new Cato study, Escaping the "Graveyard of Empires": A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan, the United States should narrow its objectives in the region and decrease troop levels as soon as possible.

The United States has drifted into an amorphous nation building mission with unlimited scope and unlimited duration. Our objective must be narrowed to disrupting al Qaeda. To accomplish that goal, America does not need to transform Afghanistan into a stable, modern, democratic society with a strong central government in Kabul, nor does it require the U.S. military to pacify and forcibly democratize the entire country. Today, we can target al Qaeda where they do emerge via airstrikes and covert raids.

The group poses a manageable security problem, not an existential threat to America. Yet, as I mention here, policymakers tend to conflate al Qaeda with indigenous Pashtun-dominated militias. America's security, however, will not be at risk even if an oppressive regime takes over a contiguous fraction of Afghan territory; if the Taliban were to provide sanctuary to al Qaeda once again, it would be easier to strike at the group within Afghanistan than in neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Beltway orthodoxy tells us that America's security depends on rebuilding failed states, but that logic ignores the fact that terrorists can move to governed spaces. Rather than setting up in weak, ungoverned states, enemies can flourish in strong states because these countries have formally recognized governments with the sovereignty to reject foreign interference in their domestic affairs. This is one reason why terrorists find sanctuary across the border in Pakistan. [Note: 9/11 was planned in many other countries, Germany and the United States included].

Committing still more U.S. personnel to Afghanistan undermines the already weak authority of Afghan leaders, interferes with our ability to deal with other security challenges, and pulls us deeper into a bloody and protracted guerilla war with no end in sight.

This post originally appeared on The Hill's Congress Blog, September 23, 2009

 

 

Comments

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

A couple weeks ago CSPAN had a panel discussing how we need to be very aggressive in Afghanistan. They were obviously trying to drum up support for the coming troop increase. However when they took answers from the audience, their PR effort turned into a disaster. They ended up admiting the election has gone bad. Also they explained if the elections are seen as fraudulant then the foreign troops will be seen as occupiers. They admited we would certainly fail if the foreign troops are seen as occupiers. Connecting the dots leads to the conclusion more troops are not going to help. Several days later CSPAN re-aired to same program but this time the disasterous questions and answers were seamlessly deleted from the other questions and answers. I was surprised to see CSPAN re-enact a page out of the book "Animal Farm"

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

Al Queda is not in Afghanistan.

[Zenpilot]

If there's one place in the world for the US to have a military presence, it's around epicenter of global terrorism. It was extremely misguided and wrong to invade Iraq. Afghanistan is a completely different story, as anyone who studies the nuances of foreign policy and this region and views military operations as something beyond a political issue will tell you.

Hopefully, Obama won't be swayed by progressives who spout this Cheney/Halliburton garbage, or Republicans who see defeating Obama as more important than anything else. As long as the mission in Afghanistan is defined clearly and not some half-assed attempt to build democracy in this Sharia wasteland, an increase in the number of troops is irrelevant. What matters is what those troops are being used for. Guarding checkpoints and other Iraq-like operations are a waste of precious lives. Killing al Qaeda is worth it.

[terramartom]

Al Qaeda is in Pakistan!
The Taliban are fighting for Afghanistan top dog position now.
The Mujahideen whom we were supporting monetarily, were fighting the Russians for 10 years in teh 90's, now they are called the Taliban and they are fighting the USA.
How long do you want troops to be in Afghanistan? 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?
Because as soon as we go, they will return in force.
Why wouldn't they, it's their country not ours!
If they want to brutalise their own people under a repressive Islamic religion, than blame GOD!

[Zenpilot]

Part of the problem is that progressives pushing the "Out of Afghanistan" mantra are mostly uninformed on the region. "Al Qaeda is in Pakistan" illuminates this. Read the intelligence.

[BlueZoo]

Not one more pair of American feet in this country! Haven't any of our Congress seen the films of the Russians leaving Afghanistan in their tanks with their tails between their legs? Even Alexander the Great couldn't tame this killing field! We as a country just never learn from history!

[terramartom]

Out of Afghanistan now!
This is a Bush/ Cheney failure, and war for profit. Big Oil, Halliburton, Military Industrial stocks did very well with these two wars and always will.
Pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible.
We have accomplished nothing, and in the end the Taliban will return and take over again.
Bin laden, and Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, and Somalia, send special opts only.
These two wars cost the American taxpayer $$TRILLIONS for nothing in return, except 5,000 dead soldiers, and a collapsed economy.
All the while Bush, and Cheney have made $100's of millions in profit and their families are safe and having steak for dinner while your soldier son or daughter lives in the dirt overseas protecting Islamic dirt and artificial boundries.­!
Criminal charges for Bush and Cheney, and the Bush regime.

http://www.richmonk31.blogspot.com