President Obama is preparing to announce his strategy for the 8-year-old Afghanistan war. "It is my intention to finish the job," he declared Tuesday. Most Washington observers predict he will order another 30,000 U.S. troops into the remote mountain killing zone, while setting guidelines for eventual U.S. withdrawal.
President Obama is preparing to announce his strategy for the 8-year-old Afghanistan war. "It is my intention to finish the job," he declared Tuesday. Most Washington observers predict he will order another 30,000 U.S. troops into the remote mountain killing zone, while setting guidelines for eventual U.S. withdrawal.
In truth, Obama has no good option. Every possible choice is bad for America. Removal of U.S. firepower would let extremist Muslim Taliban seize Afghanistan a second time -- but boosting the number of American soldiers won't "finish the job," it will simply prolong the dismal stalemate, costing more American lives.
Former Gen. Karl Eikenberry, America's ambassador to Afghanistan, sent a secret report telling the White House of the situation's futility. Columnist Richard Reeves said Eikenberry "told the president there might be no point in sending more young men and women in uniform to win an unwinnable war in a vast country largely ungoverned or governed by unfathomable corruption."
Military hawks contend that enlarging U.S. forces will enable Afghanistan's feeble government to build a stronger army to defeat suicidal fanatics. But former State Department intelligence chief Morton Abramowitz asked in exasperation: "Can anyone tell me why it takes so long to train Afghan soldiers? The Taliban seems to have no trouble training them in a few weeks."
Abramowitz added that America wouldn't be fighting in either Afghanistan or Iraq "if we had a draft and people were worried about their children." America's all-volunteer military removes war peril from most families, except for those of the few who enlist. Thus it's easier for the Pentagon to push more troops into combat without public distress.
Last month, a State Department operative quit his post in Afghanistan, saying America can't win because it is an outside intruder amid age-old tribal hatreds. Former Marine Capt. Matthew Hoh wrote that the rugged land's recurring civil warfare "has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional."
Ironically, a quarter-century ago, Washington helped create today's nightmare by supporting the "rural, religious, illiterate and traditional" segment of Afghanistan. After Russia occupied the tormented country to rescue its "urban, secular" government, the Reagan White House secretly sent the CIA to arm fundamentalist hill tribesmen to drive out the Russians. President Reagan called the zealots "freedom fighters." His strategy worked -- but it also produced a haven for Muslim militants who wage jihad (holy war) against the West. Now, America is fighting the barbaric forces it unwittingly unleashed.
President Obama is expected to hurl more soldiers against descendants of yesterday's White House allies. It's a lose-lose situation. Since all his choices are bad, he should take the course that saves American lives: Remove troops instead of putting more into danger.
President Obama is preparing to announce his strategy for the 8-year-old Afghanistan war. "It is my intention to finish the job," he declared Tuesday. Most Washington observers predict he will order another 30,000 U.S. troops into the remote mountain killing zone, while setting guidelines for eventual U.S. withdrawal.
In truth, Obama has no good option. Every possible choice is bad for America. Removal of U.S. firepower would let extremist Muslim Taliban seize Afghanistan a second time -- but boosting the number of American soldiers won't "finish the job," it will simply prolong the dismal stalemate, costing more American lives.
Former Gen. Karl Eikenberry, America's ambassador to Afghanistan, sent a secret report telling the White House of the situation's futility. Columnist Richard Reeves said Eikenberry "told the president there might be no point in sending more young men and women in uniform to win an unwinnable war in a vast country largely ungoverned or governed by unfathomable corruption."
Military hawks contend that enlarging U.S. forces will enable Afghanistan's feeble government to build a stronger army to defeat suicidal fanatics. But former State Department intelligence chief Morton Abramowitz asked in exasperation: "Can anyone tell me why it takes so long to train Afghan soldiers? The Taliban seems to have no trouble training them in a few weeks."
Abramowitz added that America wouldn't be fighting in either Afghanistan or Iraq "if we had a draft and people were worried about their children." America's all-volunteer military removes war peril from most families, except for those of the few who enlist. Thus it's easier for the Pentagon to push more troops into combat without public distress.
Last month, a State Department operative quit his post in Afghanistan, saying America can't win because it is an outside intruder amid age-old tribal hatreds. Former Marine Capt. Matthew Hoh wrote that the rugged land's recurring civil warfare "has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional."
Ironically, a quarter-century ago, Washington helped create today's nightmare by supporting the "rural, religious, illiterate and traditional" segment of Afghanistan. After Russia occupied the tormented country to rescue its "urban, secular" government, the Reagan White House secretly sent the CIA to arm fundamentalist hill tribesmen to drive out the Russians. President Reagan called the zealots "freedom fighters." His strategy worked -- but it also produced a haven for Muslim militants who wage jihad (holy war) against the West. Now, America is fighting the barbaric forces it unwittingly unleashed.
President Obama is expected to hurl more soldiers against descendants of yesterday's White House allies. It's a lose-lose situation. Since all his choices are bad, he should take the course that saves American lives: Remove troops instead of putting more into danger.
Post a comment
“At the Potsdam Conference (July 16 to August 2, 1945), …. The intended governing body of Germany was called the Allied Control Council. The commanders-in-chief exercised supreme authority in their respective zones and acted in concert on questions affecting the whole country. the first federal government was formed on 20 September 1949, … granting powers of self-government with certain exceptions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_(1945%E2%80%931990)
“The role played by the United States during the Allied force occupation in Japan from September 1945 through 1952 changed the face and fate of Japan. Japan was firstly demilitarized, and steps were taken to bring forth "a peacefully inclined and responsible government." http://www.empereur.com/DOC/Japan_occup.html
The compassionate lefty liberals only know how to screw things up, to wit:
Afghanistan and Iraq, both frigging quagmires.
Obviously the milItary ain't getting to the nub of the problem: bringing individuals to justice.
Do it right: Use letters of marquis and reprisal, withdraw from the region.
America can show the world a proper way to live safely and prosperously.We do it best when we stay on our side of the fence.We have a lousy track record when we step over the fence.There are many ways for a country to change its trajectory,but we shouldn't expect a country to benefit from change forced on it by ThEsTaTe--it has a lousy enough record forcing change in this country.
If we are to win in Afghanistan, we must employ all weapons and tactics necessary--including the use of nuclear weapons and terrorist actions against civilian targets--to achieve total victory; if we are unwilling to do so, then the whole area is lost.
The plots were hatched in Germany by Saudi Arabians but we didn't attack either of those countries.
The army should not be used to install democracy or build nations.That's not in its mission statement.The army kills people and blows things up-to the point of surrender.Let the survivors figure out what kind of government they want.The survivors presumably would know best how to mold their society so as to ensure they were not killed and destroyed again by their neighbors.The American government has always been quite happy installing tyrants-but I guess a corrupt election is the next best thing.Perhaps the Afghans don't want democracy.Perhaps were are trying to put a square peg into a round hole in Afghanistan.The meagre results so far would support this.
If not for America's entry into WWII,we'd all be required to send our 1040's to Tokyo and have our gun license applications approved by Berlin today in 2009.