The United States and its allies are in danger of losing the war in Afghanistan. A resurgent Taliban is in control of large parts of the country, the central government in Kabul is corrupt and incapable of exerting its authority beyond the capital, a flourishing drug trade is financing criminals, war lords, and terrorists, violence is spiraling out of control, and members of the U.S.-led coalition are growing weary of a stability operation-turned-full-fledged war that is eroding public opinion among the populations of Afghanistan, Europe, and the United States.
In the U.S., President Barack Obama has ordered a comprehensive strategic review of the American effort in Afghanistan, and has announced his intention to increase the number of American military forces in the country by as many as 30,000. That would bring the total U.S. commitment to about 65,000, around double the total provided by all other nations contributing assets to the fight against Taliban and al Qaeda militants. As the United States seeks a new way forward in Afghanistan, it should seriously consider leaving behind old alliances that are proving to be more of a hindrance than a help in prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism. A good place to start is with NATO.
NATO was originally formed to defend Western Europe from the threat posed by an expansionist Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of America's rival superpower left the alliance without a common enemy, and in search of a new reason for its existence. That reason appeared to be made clear when al Qaeda terrorists struck the United States in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. NATO rallied to America's side and immediately invoked the collective defense article of its charter, affirming its founding principle that an attack against one member state was an attack against all member states. NATO's initial display of unified determination to confront radical Islamism, however, quickly gave way to a half-hearted effort in Afghanistan that has been held back by limited troop contributions and national caveats on the employment of those troops that ultimately has limited the ability of coalition commanders in the field to effectively fight the war.
Right now the United States has more than 30,000 troops committed to Afghanistan, while the next largest troop contributor, Great Britain, has less than 9,000. Other major allies, including Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, Australia and Italy, are contributing even less. President Obama promised during his campaign that he would ask the United States' NATO allies to increase their force contributions in Afghanistan, but their response thus far has been nothing short of disheartening. Great Britain announced plans to send 300 more soldiers, and Italy intends to send 800 more. France has said a small, non-combat element may be sent, and Australia, a non-NATO ally with roughly 1,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, is taking the allocation of additional troops under consideration. Germany immediately rejected the idea of sending more forces, a move quickly followed by Spain, and both The Netherlands and Canada are planning on withdrawing their contingents in 2010 and 2011, respectively.
NATO's Western European members are in a difficult situation. Lacking domestic support for continuing operations in Afghanistan, but understanding their commitments to the alliance, many member states have imposed national caveats on their forces that severely restrict their usefulness to commanders on the ground. Some are restricted to their bases in support roles, while others are only permitted to engage in reconstruction and humanitarian operations. Some can only operate during daylight, and others are only able to fire their weapons in self defense (ruling out their use for offensive operations). The end result is that very few nations, the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, are bearing the brunt of the fighting, and the dying, in operations targeting the Taliban and al Qaeda.
NATO is not likely to get its act together in time to save Afghanistan, and a failed Afghan state is just not a realistic option. Losing in Afghanistan would not just open the door to terrorists seeking a safe haven from which to operate. It would pave the way for the failure of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of nearly 200 million that is barely hanging on against Islamic radicals threatening it not only from Afghanistan, but from within its own borders as well.
The United States is running out of options, and the time has come to consider abandoning an ineffective NATO in favor of coalitions of like-minded nations that possess both the will and the ability to succeed. Some of those nations will be NATO member states; others will not. There is no escaping the reality that NATO has fallen victim to the same national divisions that have rendered the United Nations impotent. It is a basic truth of international relations that alliances come and go, but national interests are enduring. Given what is at stake in Afghanistan, for the region and for the world, the United States must acknowledge that the current NATO effort is not working. Doing so will allow Washington to finally craft a strategy for succeeding where America and its allies have thus far failed.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 88
I also don't believe that the Saudi's have any responsibility for anything occurring on 9/11 although they are an evil puppet regime.
As Obama's first apology tour proved, not all the superficial love in the world means a damn thing when it becomes time to back it up. Just like the Bush era, Europe will talk but do little or nothing. All Obama got was a some smoke blown up his butt but both he and the press hailed that as a major accomplishment.
No matter what we do though, its going to be hard to change a poor country around who is in the drug trade,and the terrorists are making mega bucks from it . I dont know if it can be done...
Hardly. Wealthy Americans, Afghans, Paks and others are profiting from the drug trade far more than those people we label as terrorists.
The reality is there are no terrorists. Those that we label as terrorists are simply fighting for freedom from occupation by foreign troops. Whether those troops are Soviet, American, Israeli or others, they face an army of freedom fighters doing precisely what YOU would do if foreign troops landed in your backyard.
Just like Vietnam and the wars that preceded it, there will ALWAYS be people that believe in war, like you Greg.
The truth of the matter is you are nothing less than a shill for the profiteers who could care less about the Afghan people. While each bullet fired and each bomb dropped, each soldier deployed and each Humvee destroyed represents pure profit to the corporate/banking/military complex that manages this country, people such as yourself manage to somehow tow the line. It boggles the mind actually since the war in Afghanistan affects you not at all one way or the other. Your kids aren't looking towards the sky living in fear of Predators and Reapers.
All of you people that believe in war should be the ones actually doing the fighting. You would very soon change your tune.
Wars are waged by governments for profit, resource acquisition and land acquisition. They simply convince the people that they're necessary and then use (abuse) the people, their citizens, to fight them.
Sometimes war is necessary. If human nature weren't so corrupt and power hungry,then you might be right. Get real.
If I thought for a moment we were there for humanitarian reasons I'd support your hypothesis, but we aren't. A brief look at US history proves positive that we have NEVER gone to war to support freedom. We go to war to support the military industrial complex, resource acquisition and land acquisition or access.
Nora, YOU need to get real.
Hardly. I AM one who is doing the fighting, with two tours in Iraq and a pending tour in Afghanistan. I understand that war, while always terrible, is sometimes necessary.
Sorry for making the comment that I did, since you have put your money where your mouth is by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, if more people followed the leads of Travis Bishop and Victor Agosto perhaps we wouldn't be killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
I would prefer that you lived up to your oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic by arresting the president and the members of Congress (most of them) who've allowed this 'terror charade' to blossom and continue.
Since you've fought in Iraq and are headed to Afghanistan you must be aware that these wars have nothing to do with bringing democracy or freedom to the people of those countries.
I mean, Iraq was, before we invaded, the most medically advanced middle eastern country. Here are a few statistics about Iraq that you may not be aware of. Of course these statistics apply to the pre-invasion Iraq. Now the country is virtually destroyed.
Iraq provided social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government also doubled expenditures for agricultural development in 1974–1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production.
Development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million people from other Arab countries and even Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.
Then we invaded.
Before that we implemented an embargo that resulted in 500,000 children dying and hundreds of thousands on adults as well.
Now, post-invasion, the rate of birth defects has increased dramatically from depleted uranium, infrastructure is non-existent and we are directly responsible for a massive brain drain, meaning thousands of well educated Iraqi's are either dead or have left the country.
We did in fact reduce the country to something reminiscent of the middle ages.
Now we have our sites set on Afghanistan. Of course this country is nowhere near as advanced as Iraq once was. It is still virtually living in the stone age, by and large. There's nothing there for us to destroy, except innocent lives.
Somalia provides a wonderful example. Since they have nothing we want and since they also have absolutely no power globally we are satisfied to leave the country alone. Nevertheless, the country probably provides far more fodder for terrorists than Iraq or Afghanistan. We could care less.
Now, if they had oil and denominated it in Euros or if they had oil and China were seeking it, we'd be fighting there too.
His removal from power Greg had NOTHING to do with his being evil. He denominated oil in Euros. He had to go.
At least that many. But they have to be prioritized, and not all have to be removed by force.
Oh, by the way, we are hardly leaving Somalia alone. We are actively conducting covert operations on Somali soil and we are regularly targeting terrorists on Somali soil with airpower. In addition, we are providing financial and military assistance (weapons, training, etc.) to those elements within Somalia that we want to see come out on top. Involvement in a country does not have to include boots on the ground.
As for Saddam, his removal from power had everything to do with his beign evil. He initiated two wars against neighboring states that destabilized an already shaky region. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. He murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shia. He supported several international terrorist organizations, harbored terrorists, and provided financial rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He fired on coalition aircraft enforcing the UN mandated no fly zones, and he defied 12 years of international resolutions designed to check his aggression. Enough was enough.
OK, I'll agree with your interpretation to a point, that being that all of those things are secondary to denominating oil in Euros.
Additionally, the lead content of this sand is 4 times higher than the threshold used by the EPA to declare a material hazardous. Not only that, the external radiation dose from DU is about 60 percent of that from the same mass of natural uranium. Terrible poisons.
"I would prefer that you lived up to your oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic by arresting the president and the members of Congress (most of them) who've allowed this 'terror charade' to blossom and continue."
There's no basis for arrest. We elect the president to make judgement calls based on what HE believes is best for the country. It is only when an order is unquestionably illegal that we are allowed to question. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan fall into that category, at least no more than did Korea for Truman or Vietnam for Kennedy. Presidents have a lot of latitude when it comes to the employment of the armed forces.
"Since you've fought in Iraq and are headed to Afghanistan you must be aware that these wars have nothing to do with bringing democracy or freedom to the people of those countries."
Where is it written that they have to be related to bringing democracy? Retaliation for 9/11 is a just cause (in the case of Afghanistan), as is the enforcement of 12 years of UN resolutions (Iraq). I have no issue with either.
And while you're touting the accomplishments of Saddam Hussein, don't forget to include the murder of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen (we're still finding the mass graves) and the invasion of two neighboring countries.
Source?
Here's the Kuwait Times:
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid
=MzgwNTU1MTUz
Here's a Boise publication:
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/army_shipping_contaminated_kuwait_sand_to_idaho_
landfill1/C108/L108/
And here's the Idaho Observer:
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080507.htm
"We're going to Iraq, the end result will be a puppet regime we may or may not agree with, that may or may not be democratic, and large American military bases."
While some see the government as owing the people the truth the government doesn't see it that way and goes to great lengths to lie. WMD, Yellow Cake, etc.
Perhaps sanctions were working, to a degree. We don't know. The inspection regime was inconsistent and ineffective over the long term due to Saddam's obstruction and defiance of the international community. Most of our regional allies believed Saddam had WMD, as did most of our European allies. Hell, even Saddam said he had them. It was only after his capture in interviews with coalition forces that he admitted he had been bluffing because, as he put it, he "lived in a rough neighborhood."
Intel may have been cherry picked, and it may have been faulty. But there is no evidence of an outright lie.
I disagree and hope to find the links I've read in the past.
When it comes to war there is just too much money floating around. It is the single most profitable human endeavor bar none.
Greg, to equate 9/11 with anything happening in Afghanistan today is to ignore the facts. The information I'm referencing below is available on the internet from reliable sources.
1. The 19 hijackers were primarily of Saudi descent, not Afghan, not Iraqi.
2. They were paid $100k through Pakistani sources, specifically the ISI.
3. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned well before 2001 and the 9/11 event.
4. The discovery of active nano-thermate at the WTC has been unexplained.
5. The gag order placed on the first responders raises serious questions.
6. Well over 200 young people from Israel, many admittedly members of Mossad, were arrested and deported just after 9/11. The 4 part story which played out on CBS (I think) aired, was placed on their web site, and then disappeared forever the very next day. Portions are still available on the internet.
7. Several Israeli students were living on the 91st floor of the WTC and were deported just after 9/11.
For sources Greg, you can Google the following terms (I'm not providing sources for 1, 2 and 3 since these are generally well known aspects of the event. For 6 and 7 you'll have to use Google but reliable information can be easily found:
For thermate, Google Niels Harrit or Active Thermite.
For the gag order, Google 'first responders under gag order'
Greg, if you actually believe that Al-Qaeda exists then it's going to be quite difficult to have a reasonable debate. Al-Qaeda is the CIA, that's a well known fact.
We are in Afghanistan because it's a strategic land mass where we, meaning the military/banking/corporate complex, need to make inroads to prevent China from doing the same. That's the simple truth. If we didn't do it, China would have. However, had China gone into Afghanistan they would have gone in under the same terms they've entered Africa under. Fairness and no armies. They don't dictate politics and make no humanitarian machinations. They construct straight forward and quite honest business deals with whatever regime is in power. We go in guns blazing killing innocents and what's worse, we deceive our populace into believing we have motives other than the real ones. That's because if the American public actually understood why we've invaded Iraq and Afghanistan they'd be really, really pissed off.
They don't. No ones pissed. Nothing to see here, move along folks.
Not in dispute.
2. They were paid $100k through Pakistani sources, specifically the ISI.
Any serious analyst of the war in Afghanistan knows that Pakistan will have to be dealt with at some point.
3. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned well before 2001 and the 9/11 event.
I would agree that the military had war plans for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's not a surprise. The Pentagon has war plans for virtually every country on the planet. That's not the same as saying, though, that the intent to go to war in both those countries existed before 2001, a notion I disagree with.
4. The discovery of active nano-thermate at the WTC has been unexplained.
Popular Mechanics did a great documentary recently on the Discovery Channel debunking all the "truther" myths.
5. The gag order placed on the first responders raises serious questions.
Not familiar with the gag order placed on first responders.
6. Well over 200 young people from Israel, many admittedly members of Mossad, were arrested and deported just after 9/11.
Haven't seen this. Got a link?
7. Several Israeli students were living on the 91st floor of the WTC and were deported just after 9/11.
Why?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
5. While you may not consider this site to be worthy, at least consider the information within the article.
http://www.infowars.com/ex-cia-chief-james-woolsey-handed-down-gag-order-to-911-firefighters/
6. Here's the 4 part Fox series video that was aired and then taken from the internet by Fox. Fortunately it remains at other web sites. It is, undoubtedly, FASCINATING. In 2001, a Fox News report by Carl Cameron laid out the Israeli spy scenario, however, the story was short-lived, and this reporter (the writer) was told by a representative at the news organization that there was outside pressure to kill the story.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
7. This information was developed only during the past several days (Oct 14) and I'm not completely familiar with all of it just yet but it makes for interesting reading. The short video at the link below provides images of the story as it broke recently in the New York Times. I don't have a NYT link.
http://www.nicenetruth.com/2009/10/jonathan-elinoff-israeli-art-students-had-wtc-construction-passes.html
Are you trying to link Israel to the 9/11 attacks?
What I do know is that the official version is not accurate at all.
While there are no direct links to include Israel, and being born a Jew I would prefer to believe otherwise I do have to ask, "Cui Bono?"
My preferred belief is that we just screwed up but even that leaves more questions than it answers.
I just don't know but there are people that do.
Only Congress has the right to declare war.
Our judicial system disagrees with you, as do I.
While true that Congress possesses the sole authority to declare war, the president as commander in chief has the sole authority to commit American military forces anywhere he sees fit. He doesn't need a declaration of war to do that, and Congress doesn't need to declare war to fund those commitments.
Yes, we do, when it serves our national interest. Alliances come and go, but national interests stay essentially the same. I have no problem with that.
"Greg, to equate 9/11 with anything happening in Afghanistan today is to ignore the facts."
Not really. The initial invasion was in response to the attacks of 9/11. The overarching strategic goal articulated by the Bush Administration and adopted by the Obama Administration is one of stabilizing Afghanistan through the development of governmental institutions (not necessarily democratic) that will prevent a return to the conditions that provided a breeding ground for global terrorism.
Understanding that strategic goal makes the current effort in Afghanistan understandable. You may disagree with our national policy, but it is what it is and it makes the current strategy in Afghanistan completely sensical.
"Al-Qaeda is the CIA, that's a well known fact."
You're right, it will be impossible to have a reasonable debate with idiotic statements like that one being thrown around.
The reference or use of the term by us describes a loosely banded group with differing values, religious concepts and moral as well as strategic goals. The fact remains, most all of these people are nothing more than freedom fighters fighting against occupation. I know that you know that Greg because, unlike others making comments here, you are extremely well read and quite intelligent. Few people have knowledge of the 6,700 tons of sand because, as stated, it was hardly publicized.
Here's a brief primer from the Council on Foreign Relations, a very reputable think tank:
"Al-Qaeda grew out of the Services Office, a clearinghouse for the international Muslim brigade opposed to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the Services Office—run by bin Laden and the Palestinian religious scholar Abdullah Azzam—recruited, trained, and financed thousands of foreign mujahadeen, or holy warriors, from more than fifty countries. Bin Laden wanted these fighters to continue the 'holy war' beyond Afghanistan. He formed al-Qaeda around 1988."
"According to a 1998 federal indictment, al-Qaeda is administered by a council that 'discussed and approved major undertakings, including terrorist operations.' At the top is bin Laden. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, is thought to be bin Laden's top lieutenant and al-Qaeda's ideological adviser. Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan who was captured by Pakistani authorities in 2002 but managed to escape from U.S. prison in Afghanistan in 2005, has emerged as the public face of al-Qaeda and another top-level leader."
"From 1991 to 1996, al-Qaeda worked out of Pakistan along the Afghan border, or inside Pakistani cities. Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say. Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere. To escape the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s leadership once again sought refuge in Pakistan’s tribal areas after September 11, 2001."
www.cfr.org
The CIA was in contact with and providing funding for Osama right through September 11th of 2001 and at NO TIME was the term Al-Qaeda used by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama or anyone else connected to them. The term is described as follows:
foundation, base, feminine participle of qa'ada, to sit - and Greg, Muslims wouldn't use a feminine participle to describe their organization.
And was developed by members of the CIA to describe the data base of mujahideen fighters that we supported, as you correctly point out. Those same fighters who we are now fighting needed a name so that they could be accurately vilified for the American people in the American press. We gave it to them. It's not the name they use to describe themselves.
In Afghanistan we are fighting a large group, often unaffiliated, of tribes. Though certain doctrines, religious and moral beliefs may be shared, others are not. For example, there are a variety of different Taliban, some standing behind female education and some not, some advocating for strict adherence to Sharia Law and others not so much, with a myriad of beliefs in between.
What they all have in common is the fight to end occupation and have, for themselves, what we all want, self-determination. Something everyone on the planet has a right to and no one has the right to take that right away. Unfortunately what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. That's the American way. Do as I say, not as I do.
I knew you would say that. Your credibility is quickly waning.
My credibility is as good as yours Greg, we have a few minor disagreements. Perhaps I have a wealth of information regarding this subject that you haven't seen while at the very same time you have a wealth of information that I haven't had access to. That's a bit closer to reality.
While true that Congress possesses the sole authority to declare war, the president as commander in chief has the sole authority to commit American military forces anywhere he sees fit. He doesn't need a declaration of war to do that, and Congress doesn't need to declare war to fund those commitments."
On the contrary Greg. The judicial system has never been tested on this particular aspect of political machination.
It's quite similar to the recent (Friday) declaration of the Swine Flu as a national emergency. The term 'national emergency' has been used in the past and was used this past Friday to release funds while circumventing Congress. This isn't new and neither are presidential declarations made late on Fridays. Historically, declarations made late Fridays are declarations that have little support. The weekend passes and they are no longer news on Monday when people take notice. It's the method presidents use to distract the public and prevent dissent. Both of these conditions, the declaration of national emergencies and the commitment of troops that then wage war are methods used to circumvent the Congress. Let's face it, had Congress declared war in Iraq they'd be facing overwhelming criticism from the public today and the same is true for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The truth is Greg, it's unlikely that Congress will declare war at any time in the future since we've established by substitution or proxy that we can foment undeclared wars far more easily then declaring them and we can also fund them indefinitely, as we're seeing right now.
The fact remains that yes, the president has the power to commit troops, however, the president does not have the power to declare war and the real question is this:
Can the president make war without declaring it.
I think not. The founding fathers were clear on this point when they drafted the constitution.
Alternatively, we all have a moral obligation and that obligation is that, morally, we have a responsibility not to murder innocent human beings under conditions other than declared war properly declared by our Congress.
Oh, but it has. Numerous military officers have contested the legality of the Iraq War, both under Bush and under Obama. All have been dismissed in both military courts and federal courts.
"...used to circumvent the Congress."
While Congress may be circumvented initially, it is ultimately included in the process of committing military forces through the power of the purse. The Congress could stop the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq at any point.
"Can the president make war without declaring it. I think not. The founding fathers were clear on this point when they drafted the constitution."
He can make conflict. It may be semantics, but wording matters. The president can commit troops to hostile action without congressional approval, but the maintenance of that commitment must then be approved by congress through the appropriation of funds. None of this requires a "declaration" of war.
Truly Greg, if these conflicts go on much longer and with morale in Iraq and Afghanistan waning, the draft may be reinstated. If that happens, this country will experience far greater turmoil than it did in the late 60s and early 70s with the Vietnam adventure.
My own bottom line, wars are fought at home through propaganda and they are fought for profit alone. Little of what we read in the mainstream media is true, at least as far as objectives and reasoning.
Read a great piece, quite short, by Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC. You may have heard of it and may even have read it. It's short enough that rereading it periodically should be required for every soldier in the American military.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Have not read Butler's piece, but will try to make time today.
I agree that a draft would be not only unsupported but fought against with great animosity.
We expanded the pool of potential employees, but the training standards required to become a soldier (which doesn't happen until basic and advanced individual training is complete) have remained constant. We now have more people to choose from, and more wash out before completing the required initial training level. Only those that meet the standard are kept, so quality has not suffered.
Understanding that strategic goal makes the current effort in Afghanistan understandable. You may disagree with our national policy, but it is what it is and it makes the current strategy in Afghanistan completely sensical."
Greg, while the statements above are true and I certainly can't argue with them, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them.
Nora, please read Greg's position, which is accurate:
"the development of governmental institutions (not necessarily democratic)"
Nowhere within our national policy do we intend to insure female rights or female education. You are so sadly misinformed Nora. Our policies insure that innocent people will be killed on a regular basis. The war profiteers will laugh all the way to the bank, the corporations will enrich themselves on your dimes and the banks are partying.
Our national policy insures that we gain a strategic position on a global scale to prevent China from doing the same Nora. This war in Afghanistan is against China Nora. It has nothing to do with benefiting the average Afghan person, quite the opposite.
As it should. Would you prefer that we be an inferior power in relation to China? Or a resurgent Russia?
As you and I sit here and type to one another, the Fed chairman is trying to determine when and how to pull 1.2 trillion dollars out of the system without causing stagnation and high inflation. The dollar has lost more ground against all currencies than it ever has before and foreign countries have not only begun to loan us less, they've begun the slow process of divesting their dollar holdings. The artificial suppression of gold prices won't hold forever and a basket of currencies which will include gold will soon replace the dollar as the global currency of choice. That will spell absolute disaster for this nation and honestly, although you may not recognize it currently, we here in the US are holding on by a thread, all of us, both of us.
You're in a better position than most but not in a perfect position. One day in the not too distant future government employment and military employment will be the only employment available in this country besides Wal-Mart and Target, fast food restaurants and the like for the millions of young people entering the work force each year. These wars will bring a reckoning to this country unlike any we've ever seen. They are simply unsustainable in the long run.
The general military manuals provide for substantiation. The Afghan war, by their measure, requires 500,000 soldiers. We don't have them. In fact, if we wanted to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan today we simply couldn't.
China-
This country has gone into Africa making purely business deals. They haven't attempted regime change nor have they participated in local politics. They are only concerned with resource acquisition and are doing precisely that.
Our response is Africom, another folly. While our CIA 'tickles' various governments and foments wars between them the Chinese have developed strong business relationships country-wide and are benefiting immensely from them. As a result of our Imperial aggression we will, in the not too distant future, become an inferior power to China. Based on our national policy of war before business this is inevitable. History makes this true and the events unfolding before us substantiate the historic record.
You're making an invalid comparison. We had different goals in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Chinese do in Africa. No African nation committed the greatest act of terrorism in Chinese history, and no Chinese citizens were demanding revenge. The African nations hadn't been defying UN resolutions about WMD for more than a decade, and African military forces weren't firing on U.N.-mandated coalition aircraft. The Chinese are in Africa for natural resources, not in response to to a terrorist threat. We are in Afghanistan for the strategic goal of preventing another safe haven for terrorists with global aspirations from being created. Afghanistan has no LEGAL natural resources for us to exploit. Iraq certainly has oil, but we are not getting the lion's share of that resource. The French, Chinese, Dutch and Germans are. Iraq is important for its location.
"The Afghan war, by their measure, requires 500,000 soldiers. We don't have them. In fact, if we wanted to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan today we simply couldn't."
It is not us alone in Afghanistan. We don't have to provide all the forces, although we do provide the vast majority. Concurrently you have the training of Afghan security forces. Personally, I don't hold out much hope for that, but that's how you offset the numbers stated in the counterinsurgency manual--us, NATO, and the Afghans.
As for the 40,000, we do have them. It wouldn't be pretty, and there would probably be a spike in those choosing not to re-enlist, but we could do it if the president ordered it.
# Two suicide car bombs kill 136 in Baghdad Explosions, injure 500+
# Israeli police storm holy site in Jerusalem
# U.N. inspectors visit once-secret Iranian nuclear site
# Obama declares swine flu outbreak a national emergency
# Recession or recovery? U.S. economy likely to be in limbo
We're headed for a day of reckoning because historically and financially many of us recognize that self-electing to Imperial power and attempting to police the entire globe is unsustainable even if the goals appear necessary. They aren't. Home isn't only where the heart is, it's where the money and resources need to be spent as well.
Many, not most but many of our current military personnel would be far better suited to repairing our dismal (in many states) roads and bridges, our admittedly strained nationwide electrical systems and providing additional much needed infrastructure support. As a clear example if the declaration of the Swine Flu (potential) pandemic is necessary, it obviously wouldn't be if our military medics attacked the circumstance full force right here within our borders.
"You're making an invalid comparison. We had different goals in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Chinese do in Africa. No African nation committed the greatest act of terrorism in Chinese history, and no Chinese citizens were demanding revenge."
Neither did any other nation we've gone to war with and that would be a valid response were it not for military grade nano-thermate being found in the dust from 4 separate locations at the WTC combined with the gag order imposed on first responders regarding multiple explosions prior to building collapse. In light of only these two items, something is seriously amiss here Greg and that proposition doesn't hold water.
I would add that this is also the first time in history that the evidence (the debris and especially the steel) from a major murder site was confiscated and shipped overseas with immediacy. It's also the first time in recorded history that a government (ours) actively prevented a murder investigation for over 2 years and then, according to the investigators themselves (NIS), completely stymied the investigation making the results, again according to those investigating, a complete farce.
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? We both know the answer to that.
Lastly, pertaining to "no Chinese citizens were demanding revenge," the vast majority, or rather the larger percentage of voters, I believe, and under current economic conditions, would prefer we leave Afghanistan.
"We don't have to provide all the forces, although we do provide the vast majority... but that's how you offset the numbers stated in the counterinsurgency manual--us, NATO, and the Afghans."
All true. Still current totals don't approach the figures called for in that manual and neither will an additional 40,000 or even 85,000 as McChrystal recently called for during his visit in SE Asia. In fact, in Britain this weekend 10,000 people marched to end their participation while the country mulls over sending an additional 500 troops adding to their 9,000 in country now. With assistance like that we might as well go it alone. My research includes quotes from military leaders that 40,000 troops 'today' would be impossible but could be achieved over several months to come but would at the same time stretch us to a limit.
Isolationism isn't possible or more realistically isn't practical in today's unilateral world. However, we sorely need dedicated, educated manpower right here at home, desperately. The military is the perfect answer.
Afghanistan and LEGAL resources.
True, none. We aren't there for resources per se. We are there for land acquisition in the form of bases with which to attack China. We have built very large bases in Helmund and several other locations whose names escape me momentarily. The United States has embarked on a frenzied $220 million building campaign at the Bagram base, a still expanding military air base. Just to meet the base's demand for fresh concrete, it has two of its own cement factories working full time. The facilities and infrastructure supporting those bases would do wonders for the unemployed and homeless here in the US.
Good on the non-isolationist piece. It's unrealistic in such a globally interdependent world. As for the war in Afghanistan, I'm not sure the public, after 9/11, would have settled for anything less than war.
"Neither did any other nation we've gone to war with...."
The Taliban and bin Laden were joined at the hip. They refused to turn him over after 9/11. That made the Taliban, which was the only government in Afghanistan, complicit.
"What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?"
Nothing. But that doesn't mean there wasn't just cause for removing Saddam from power.
"...would prefer we leave Afghanistan."
Now, probably. But not on 9/12.
"Still current totals don't approach the figures called for in that manual and neither will an additional 40,000 or even 85,000...."
Not right away. The belief is that an acceleration of the training effort for Afghan forces will push the number closer to where it needs to be.
As for the 40k over several months, so what? That's what we did with the "surge" in Iraq. Bush announced in January 2007 and the last of the surge units didn't arrive in Iraq until July. Offensive operations then began with surge troops in August.
"We are there for land acquisition in the form of bases with which to attack China."
There's no legitimate reason to believe that. The bases in Afghanistan are actually more necessary for military operations there than is the case in Iraq. Look at the geography. Increasingly Russian pressure is taking away air bases we have been using in the "STANS," and officially we can't use Pakistani territory. Similarly, we won't be using Iranian airbases. All this makes large, modern facilities in Afghanistan necessary.
I'll need to see what happens during the coming years before I can agree with this.
My problem is the method used by our government to entertain these wars. Why not simply be honest with the American public and admit that we have no clear long-term humanitarian goals and that we simply want large effective bases in Afghanistan?
We have no goals that include assuring that the Taliban allow female education or anything else Americans are propagandized to believe. We would leave in a moment, militarily, if the Taliban agreed to stop attacking bases and aid in the construction of the Trans Afghan pipeline (TAP or TAPI). Unocal stock would skyrocket. The Bush family could add billions to their billions and we here at home might one day find jobs. Personally, I'm retired and none of this directly affects me but that leaves me hours upon hours to read, which I enjoy immensely.
In the end, you and those that have the same perceptions and beliefs that you have will win. It isn't humanly possible for the public to fight against the military industrial complex as it is in the 21st century.
I would have preferred sending thousands of NATO troops (Americans as well) to support thousands of humanitarians bent on bringing Afghanistan into at least the 19th or 20th century. I could easily have put myself behind an effort such as that. What I think is hardly important to anyone other than myself.
While there are surely troops providing strictly humanitarian assistance in that regard it isn't the end goal. It should be, don't you think?
Please use the links I've provided and read Major General Butler's essay as well. I think you'll at least be glad to have some of the information.
After the bad guys are dealt with.
As I said, our military should be protecting a huge humanitarian force. Were we to provide the keys to a 21st century lifestyle the Afghan people would love us. You want to kill the 'bad guys' first and I would rather ignore them as much as humanly possible while building roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure and COMMUNITY. The bad guys would lose all popular support under those circumstances. These people are living as illiterate, uneducated humans in mud huts without electricity and any other modern conveniences. It's a shame really that as a country we can't provide and won't provide the things they really need. Humanitarian assistance without political involvement.
I will always wish for peace. I recognize that it's highly unlikely that my wishes will ever come to fruition.