My doubts about the US mission in Afghanistan, like those of many other Americans, have grown substantially over the past several years. While I think America was justified in toppling the Taliban government in 2001 for harboring the Al Qaeda criminals who killed 3000 US citizens and foreigners through their suicidal airplane assaults on New York and Washington, at the same time today I am wondering whether the cause we are fighting for in Afghanistan now is the same that Washington embraced eight years ago -- namely, to eliminate Al Qaeda.
First, the remnants of Al Qaeda have over the past half-decade scattered and most reside in Pakistan, so we are now mainly fighting the Taliban, a local, not a global fundamentalist insurgency, in Afghanistan.
Second, we have already about 68,000 troops in that country but we are primarily defending the nation's few big cities, and little of the countryside, making our mission, in geopolitical terms, a limited one and one no longer concerned about liberating a nation.
Third, General Stanley McChrystal's strategy, to provide security for Afghans while we build up the Afghan military and police forces, doesn't seem very workable as long as the Afghans realize the US will ultimately leave the country.
Fourth, the Karzai regime on whose behalf we are fighting, is corrupt, and, after a rigged election, also illegitimate, so we no longer are working with a truly legal government.
Fifth, in pursuing all of these policies, we are spending billions of tax dollars a day, which could be put to use in solving our vast economic problems at home.
It is time that we should be insisting on two things -- first, that major changes be carried out by the Afghan government to stamp out graft and bribery and institute democratic reforms and that our assistance be contingent on such changes being implemented.
Second, we should also demand that the burden of our Afghan undertaking now be shared more broadly than just between us and our few NATO allies. It is time that the nations in the region, including Russia, Iran, China, and the various "Stans", who are putatively supporting our fight, should now be engaged themselves in this struggle, supplying forces and resources to defeat the enemy. After all, we are safeguarding them right now them against their own bitter enemies -- religious extremists and drug smugglers but getting little thanks in return.
If this situation does not change, then President Obama's reappraisal should certainly forgo any troop increase and instead aim toward gradually pulling out US and NATO forces and handing over to the Afghans the sole responsibility for settling their own internal conflicts.
to get out the 14th century, but America should not and cannot be the only force
to stabilize the country. America is being "suckered" by the rest of the world.
Divide the country into international zones and get the other "big"powers to
step-up and bear some responsibility. We are borrowing money from our
grand children. at some point we will go broke, what then?
Please "big ol strong America" go help those poor Afghanistan's, while
we in the rest of the world benefit from the "peace" that you provide with
your soldiers lives and of course lots and lots of money.
America is and will remain the leader of the world for a long time
but there is no reasons for America to do all the heavy lifting."
I think we just have to make that clear!
There are some major questions which few, if any, in the mainstream media are raising:
(1) Why are we so concerned about spending money on a broken health care system but nobody quesitons the huge increase in deficit spending caused by the billions on this war? It seems that spending money to kill people is fine but spending money to heal peop[le is not.
(2) There are so many places that Al Qaeda can find a "safe haven" in this world that all the attention on one old place of theirs doesn't make sense anymore. The world - and Al Qaeda - have moved on.
(3) This is not about protecting the USA but nation building in Afganistan. Al Qaeda can attack from almost anywhere. We are playing - univited - the "world's policeman" again.
Obama is quite right to question what we are doing there before taking any actions.
America is risking the lives, limbs and blood of young Americans in Afghanistan.
For what purpose?
What is the best outcome that we could possibly achieve? A stable Afghanistan? And, so what?
The source of Terrorist capability is not people. It is money. Without money they cannot travel, cannot buy weapons, cannot function.
United States forces have chased them for eight years into Pakistan. In Pakistan they are free to act and train as they wish. After eight years what has changed that would make this strategy successful?
Even if you argue that the terrorists were, then, eight years ago, in Afghanistan, they are no longer there. What is the logical connection between their location - then - and current activity now? At this point is seems rather like a coincidental condition.
The mission in Afghanistan to eradicate Al Qaeda seems to be deeply flawed by optimism bias. Rather like chasing the vermin on your neighbor's property down the street in a vain hope of eliminating them from your property.
If there's no point, why do we continue to risk the lives, limbs, and blood of our precious people. And, why do we continue to waste our fortune and build a deficit for the benefit of the Afghans?
The vaunted US might has been sold out to profitteers and religious fundamentalists, while America's business leaders systematically looted, destroying the stock market, privatising and looting much of the military, and running amok through what was supposed to have been an attempt to rebuild iraq, instead turned into a combination kindergarten for post-adolescent evangelistics and looters' paradise.
Not a very noble cause but easy enough to achieve given that Afghanistan has never been able to stop invasions. But then poor Bush got sucked in by his own claptrap and justifications and failed to leave after a few months of mindless destruction.
Big mistake. Domination is achieved by the invaders decapitating the heads of state and taking over the apparatus of government. Afghanistan has never really had a cohesive system of government to take over. Just a motely collection of tribes and warlords vieing for survival and power.
It is like playing the war game of chess, but the opponent doesn't have a king on the board. If we cant even describe what a win would look like, we are unlikely to achieve it.
An effective military intervention is to achieve a large effect with a little force.
The sad history of US military interventions have achieved little/no/counter effect with massive force and cost.
We cant win. We cant solve Afghanistan's problems because we dont understand them. Let's go home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SEo5uHDKV0&feature=related
FDR had it right.
As for a war against Islamic terrorists, that's in cyberspace these days.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/08/cyberspace-gives-al-qaeda-refuge.html
Once we invaded Iraq - the neo-cons' long-awaited plan for once a Republican president was installed - Turrkkkeee let us use their country as a staging ground. It explains who did 9/11, why Tuurkkee insisted on allowing the skirmishes with the Kurds in Iraq, and how the poppy production got back to pre-war levels in spite of our military presence there.
What the hell has happened to this country? I think that T-shirt showing Geronimo with three of his compatriots all brandishing rifles and titled, "Homeland Security", says it best. I wouldn't expect anything less from the Afghanis ..... and I as far as the potential of that population to embrace the benefits of a democracy, that's a joke. They just aren't ready to have that rammed down their throats; not that the U.S. is a shining example, mind you.
We're the LAST country that should be waving the banner of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, yet everyone from Reagan through and including Obama keeps belting those terms out from their soapboxes. Liars and hypocrites, every one.
the misdirection called nation building is a fantastic ruse. the us of a always has a sympathy angle, a noble new democracy angle, an independent nation-building angle, a keeping the world safe from nukes angle, a revenge angle (9/11, the shah, the attack on our 'ally' kuwait, the uss cole).
there is only one goal: hegemony, which is a polite way of saying racism and economic and environmental tyranny.
fear of the 'other' is still the reptilian brain driver. nothing has changed in that arena.
The area called Afghanistan has NEVER really been an effectively centrally-governed "country" in the traditional sense and its tribal and religious fanatics are not about to go that route now!
I'm with Biden!
G-E-T O-U-T!
A-S-A-P!
Feinstein's "miraculous" involvement in brokering that pre election deal between Hilary and Obama; that's when I wish I could have been a fly on the wall. Obama's charismatic Christ-like demeanor changed after that. Now he looks down his nose at everyone.
I voted for Obama because the media muscled Ron Paul right off the stage, but, that said, I had objected to Obama because no one could pin him down about the Trade Agreements. He just WOULD NOT answer and questions on them. Now we know why. The T/As were probably the single-most disruptive multi-administration influence in sabotaging our country's manufacturing base ......... and now this idiot is doing the same thing.
We're not getting out of Afghanistan because there's still too many people/lobbyists/defense contractors/politicians who need to propagate the belief that Obama and al-Qaeda are threats to our security. The real threat to our country's security is in Washington DC. THEY were ones who destabilized the global security.