Wednesday, October 21, 2009
What to do in Afghanistan?
This is a question I definitely don't have the answer for. Tonight on NPR here in Utah there was a public debate (it's usually broadcast from some Ivy League school) titled "The War in Afghanistan is unwinnable and we should withdraw troops immediately." I mean that wasn't the exact title, but it was something like that. I only caught part of it, but one of the general's that was in support of the war argued that stability in Afghanistan with both the Taliban and Al-Qaida not in control makes for a safer America. Just when he had me convinced, the other side responded "How many Americans are we going to sacrifice for Hamid Karzhai's government?" (Sorry if I spell some of this stuff wrong, but you know who I'm talking about.) I thought that was also a good point, with the election fraud recently and what not. Right now I think I'm leaning toward it's not worth it. But then part of me says that we can't let Bin Laden, Al-Quaida, and the Taliban win. But when I ask myself, would I be willing to sacrifice my own life for this cause, the answer is definitely not. So for me, I feel like this war is turning into a modern-day Vietnam. How does everyone else feel about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've found that most people I talk to don't even know why we're there, and anyone informed on the subject is even more confused than the uninformed.
Of course, we know why we're really there. The executive branch has grown accustomed to its wartime powers, powers it can only justify keeping as long as there is a war somewhere. What's going on in Afghanistan has nothing to do with defense. I hate to sound like a liberal, but I truly believe our nation will be safer once we stop policing the Middle East.
I'm not going to get into whether we should be there or not. Both sides make some valid points, but I think both sides should agree that one thing we cannot do is to leave our troops and generals hamstrung by this administration's indecision. Let's make the policy objectives clear, one way or the other, and have the generals posture and plan accordingly. Pres. Obama is the commander-in-chief of our military, it's past time he start acting like it.
The legitimacy of the government in Afghanistan seems beside the point. NATO went in when the government was the Taliban. For years there was no legitimate government because there was no constitution. NATO didn't cut out because there was no legitimate government. Because NATO invaded, under treaty obligations via the U.N., NATO is obliged to hang in there until there a transition is complete. You don't invade a country and leave a vacuum behind, at least if you want to fulfill your treaty obligations.
So, the U.S. answered this question a long time ago. Pres. Obama decided before the election he would be committed to victory in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan. He let the electorate know those were his intentions, and he was elected on that premise (the one thing I can think of where he was specific). He didn't say "Only if the elections go well in a year . . ." If Pres. Obama does a 180 now, the Afghanistan election won't be the only one potentially tainted by fraud.
Very interesting article on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy70.1.html
I hate to admit this, but Creighton has a point. (Disclaimer-this IN NO WAY means I'm switching sides.) I think it IS becoming a modern day Vietnam, but I also believe they'd fall apart without our presence. I feel safer knowing we're there. I understand why we're there and why we shouldn't just up and leave. I also know that my husband's slotted to go over there in a few months. I still have mixed feelings about this one. Iraq is a completely different ball game. If he were to go back there, I'd have no problem aside from the normal ones. At least I still have some time to think on it.
As I recall, it wasn't too long ago that people were saying Iraq was Bush's Vietnam, and very few people thought we could win. But then Bush made the tough decision to do a surge rather than give up, and that totally turned things around. So my question is this: why is Afghanistan any different? Is the situation any more bleak than it was in Iraq before the surge? If not, then why can't a surge work in Afghanistan?
I also seem to remember congressman Obama claiming Iraq was a lost cause before the surge, vehemently criticizing McCain's surge proposal. Obviously he was dead wrong on that--which, by the way, shows he's not reluctant to spout off when he knows not--so why should we trust him on Afghanistan? True he has more information as President than he did as a senator, but what difference does that make if his judgment is flawed?
I'm not saying they are the same because I'm no expert, but I haven't been convinced that they're different, either.
As for the question of whether continued sacrifice is "worth it" at this point, I'd say it most definitely is because if we give up now then all the lives lost up 'til now in Afghanistan will have been for not. By those standards I think it's hard to prove, especially when you consider the possibility that a surge in Afghanistan can be as effective as it was in Iraq.
The thing to remember is there isn't a set ratio for how many troops you lose to how many more you send over: reinforcements have the potential of turning the tide exponentially. In that sense Obama's indecision is EXPONENTIALLY reckless because the more our numbers dwindle while he's waiting, the less effective the re-inforcements will be when he finally sends them because part of them are just filling in the gap rather than giving an actual boost. For all we know the war could have been over by now if McChrystall's (sp?) estimate was correct, and now that we've been losing ground all this time maybe his initial request won't even be sufficient anymore.
At the end of the day I get the feeling that Obama's given up on Afghanistan without even giving it a chance, so if and when we lose it will have been a self-fulfilling prophecy: we will never know what would have happened if Obama would have immediately acted on McChrystall's request. Either way Devin's right: Obama isn't acting like a confident leader, he's acting like a hesitant dilly-dallier, which is the last thing you want to see in a war-time President...
Post a Comment