Response Post: Afghanistan
Read through your classmates' responses on the president's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Respond to the classmate you drew in class. Explain why you agree or disagree with their view on the escalation of the war and occupation in Afghanistan debate. Please use at least 3 sources to back up your opinion and cite your sources.
Please post your response here so we can keep the original posts and the response posts separate and more manageable.
Due December 12/15 by 7pm!
I look forward to reading your posts and trying this new method of getting you to respond to each other. M. Aby
posted by M. Aby @ 8:53 AM
42 Comments:
In response to Joe Plutt’s argument that President Obama’s decision is the best thing for the nation, I am torn between several opinions. Originally in the class debate over Mr. Obama’s speech, I was of firm mind that the increase in troop support in Afghanistan was an ill-crafted decision that would only exacerbate any problems already existing in the country, as well as being an overreaching goal in a time of crisis on the home front as well. However, after having read Joe’s response, as well as having done more research myself into his decision, I have come to a new understanding of Obama’s motives. Despite this realization, I still believe that the most globally responsible move in the Obama administration would be to steer clear of Afghanistan as far as military personnel is concerned. The United States has already done enough damage to the unstable country after supplying them with our weapons and then letting general mayhem break loose. According to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Hamid Karzai’s government in Afghanistan is fighting a losing battle, and the resurgence of violence in Afghanistan is unavoidable (1). Perhaps humanitarian aid is more necessary than military support at this point in the war. The United States has done what it can for Afghanistan, and at this point any military involvement would simply be a waste. I am of the firm opinion that the US is not a world police power that must control all other countries and make sure they are always being loyal to us. Afghanistan is a prime example.
I also disagree with Joe’s opinion that President Obama’s use of the phrase “human rights” is an entirely positive sign of progress. While I agree that human rights are possibly the most important aspect of life to preserve, I don’t believe that Obama truly means to protect human rights by pumping up a bizarre and wasteful war with countless civilian casualties. There have already been over 1500 casualties from Operation Enduring Freedom (2). Occupying a country and attempting to control every aspect of its daily life is not exactly protecting human rights.
Finally, it is impossible to wage a war with goals and objectives when you are fighting a phantom enemy. The war in Afghanistan is a war on terror. However, this statement is impossible. You can’t wage a war on an emotion. Especially not an emotion that grows the more you try to attack it. Terrorists are everywhere in the world. While there are many in Afghanistan, you can not simply eliminate a faction of people that grow daily and spread their influence around the globe. Continuing a war with Afghanistan simply feeds the terrorists’ cause and amplifies global hysteria and obsession with terrorism. The war is made even more impractical when one considers the “war” that Americans are fighting at home. Fixing the economy and ensuring civil liberties for citizens of the United States is a priority that is in dire necessity. According to some sources, the war in Afghanistan simply enhances the recession, and results in even more wasted capital (3).
It is because of these reasons primarily that I do not agree with Joe’s agreement with Obama, despite the seemingly sound thinking that underlies his message.
1. http://www.usip.org/resources/afghanistan-five-years-later-what-can-united-states.html
2. http://icasualties.org/
3. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk.html
Dan L,
Overall, I like what you have to say about the issue of sending more troops to Afghanistan. I agree that there is only so much that the militias can do, and that we need to focus more on the governmental aspect of things. Even the Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani says that the Taliban “with out government positions are nothing.” (1). Therefore, we now need to be focusing on restraining corruption within the Afghan government. The need for more troops, like you said, Dan, is not necessary.
I am also in accordance with the fact that we cant just leave the Afghani’s to fend for themselves and pick up the mess we took part in making, but like Obama says, we need to be training the Afghanis themselves to be able to deal with their own government. This is a very likely situation, too, for the State department has reported that the civilian staff is on track to be nearly tripled by 2010 (2). The Afghanis will soon be able to regain control of their own territory. Why then do we need more troops in Afghanistan? Also, if we are going to be fighting, we do need world support, which we do have. Britain, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and non-NATO member Georgia are among at least 25 countries offering to send forces, with more expected in coming weeks and months (3). These militias will be adding to the already prevalant abundance of troops, so the need for the US to send 30,000 more troops, again, is uncalled for.
As for settling a pull-out date, I am no longer in agreement with you, Dan. The US Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal says “the United states can not provide the wartorn nation with an endless surge of combat forces.”(4) The Afghan people, as well as American troops can not live under the current circumstances forever. I believe that we need to have a set date for getting out of Afghanistan, otherwise we are always going to be coming up with some excuse as to why we cant leave just yet. The only way for the Afghanis to be able to get their governemnt and life to where they want it is to just dive in and start swimming. As long as we have taught them the basics to swim, they will not drown.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/19/afghanistan.minister/index.html
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/kerry.afghanistan/index.html?iref=allsearch
(3)http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/04/afghan.nato.troops/index.html?iref=allsearch
(4)http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/11/afghanistan.mcchrystal.surge/index.html?iref=allsearch
In response to Mr. Chris Shirriff:
Ms. Aby, I must apologize – this one won’t be super smack-down exciting: I agree with Chris.
Chris,
Your argument is presented in a very clean-cut, straight-forward way. You lay down your opinion clearly and give your reasons for it. For this and my own beliefs, I agree with you.
It is unquestionably true that the American public was basically as close to united as possible when asked “If the United States can identify the groups or nations responsible for the [September 11th] attacks, would you support or oppose taking military action against them?” [1]. 93% of the American public answered “Yes” [1]. As our book says, this type of agreement hadn’t been seen from the nation as a whole since the 1991 Persian Gulf War [1].
This type of unanimity, of course, made the war easy to enter. However, as made apparent this year, support for this war faltered after the shock of the attack was over. On August 6th, 2009, CNN reported that the support for the war in Afghanistan had hit a “…new low” [2]. Only 49% of Americans supported the war at this point, down from the 55% support the war had in May of 2009 [2]. According to CNN, “Nearly two-thirds of Republicans support the war in Afghanistan. Three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war” [2].
This split and defiant opinion amongst the leaders in Washington, as well as the American public, creates quite the turmoil for President Obama. Chris is correct: this is not a problem President Obama created but still, this is a problem that President Obama is expected to fix. CBS News and the New York Times paired up to conduct a poll reacting to President Obama’s speech on future procedures in Afghanistan (December 1, 2009) [3]. This poll was conducted on the first and second of December [3]. These polls revealed that although “…53% [of the American public] approved of Mr. Obama’s overall performance…only 38% approved of his handling of the war in Afghanistan” [3]. The nation was almost equally divided when asked if it approved of President Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan: 39% would approve of a decrease, 32% support the increase and 20% approve of the number we currently have deployed [3].
I also agree with Chris’s logic behind President Obama’s decision: he really has no choice except for the plan that he has proposed. The President inherited a tough situation that he did not create. Still, the American public expects that he will be the one to fix it. I agree with Chris’s statement that “…Obama better hope that this strategy works…if [his promise to bring troops home] is broken, the American public will be outraged” [4]. I also agree with Chris that President Obama’s decision was a difficult one. I hope that his strategy will work out – not for the President’s approval ratings but so that the soldiers can come home.
1) Our Book! Page 176.
2) http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/poll.afghanistan/
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/politics/03poll.html
4) Chris Shirriff.
In response to Courtney's Post..
I understand what you're saying when you say that war is never a good solution. But how do we protect ourselves as a country if we never go to war to protect what we believe in? I don't think war is necessarily a fond way of going about things. I do think it has to be necessary in order to get things done unfortunately because not all people are logical and will just give in without violence. The troops over in Afghanistan are doing some good. As President Obama said in his speech that they are helping to rebuild things over there and helping to give some Afghan children an education. They are trying to get things up and going over there so that their country can one day have what ours has. They plan to do a “civilian surge” in Afghanistan, that will involve increased number of diplomats and experts in agriculture, education, health and rule of law to be sent to Kabul and reconstruction teams (4). But I also agree that what they are doing over there is taking too long and it seems like a never ending process. They don't highlight enough of the good going on over there in the media, therefore it leads me to wonder if “good” things are actually getting done over there. I do agree with what you are saying about the United States always having to bud it's nose in other people's business. I believe it is also sometimes a bit too much. I also do believe that there are other reasons we are at war other than protecting America. I feel as though a lot of it is covered up and other things are portrayed more frequently in the media and discussed more often. After listening to President Obama's speech though I feel more confident that they have a legitimate plan over there. There will be an additional 7,000 soldiers pledged by NATO nations on top of our already 30,000 soldiers being sent to protect key cities and towns in southern and eastern parts of the country where the Taliban insurgency is apparently the strongest. McChrystal (top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan) is going to use these troops there and “will focus on securing population centers in hopes to reverse enemy momentum, foster more responsive local government and, where possible, persuade Taliban fighters through a mixture of pressure and incentives to lay down their arms” (1). Also with these 30,000 it sounds like they are going to actually really put them to use. They will be using “additional mission force elements” although the chief of regional U.S. Central Command declined to provide details in an open congressional hearing on this, it sounds like they are going to try new strategies (2). Also with these 30,000 soldiers they are going to try to ““reintegrate” the Taliban fighters into Afghan society or security forces with monetary and other incentives (2).
I agree with what Courtney said when she asks “what are these hopes?” I don't think Obama made that very clear. I feel as if Obama is trying to make the American public seem as though he has a clear cut plan, but I feel like the government never actually follows through exactly with the plan. This will most likely only angry the public into seeing the government as more corrupt and liars. “The congressional testimony of those who will implement Obama's strategy makes clear that July 2011 is only an aspirational deadline. The decisions on the timing and scale of any troop withdrawal will be entirely conditions-based, McChrystal made clear, and he won't hesitate to ask for more troops if he thinks the situation demands it” (3). I don't think it is very far out to say that they will probably be asking for more troops eventually, which will only anger the American public further. I believe that the media is too focused on the 30,000 and is distorting what is actually underway, which is big change. I agree partially with with when Courtney says we should only be responsible for own country. I think there are a lot of pros and cons to interfering with other people's business and I think the U.S. needs to learn how much is too much.
1-”McChrystal's Afghanistan Plan Stays Mainly Intact” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602377.html
2- “U.S. Counterterrorism Efforts set to expand in Afghanistan” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904132.html
3-http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946990,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
4-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/10/opinion/main5962574.shtml
This comment has been removed by the author.
My post is in response to Alyssa Brown's post. I think President Obama's plan to add 30,000 more troops is beneficial to the people of Afghanistan and to the troops already there as well. There is a great need of troops in Afghanistan. I also think that it is important that the president made a clear point to evacuate Iraq. He understands that the main focus is Afghanistan and always should have been. There is a point to deploying more troops. President Obama makes a point that if we only leave the troops we have there now, that the work they have done will be overtaken by insurgents. The work they have done will deteriorate. (2) Also, with more troops, there will be more efficiency. The troops in Afghanistan are not only fighting a war with weapons, there are different soldiers who help teach Afghan soldiers and security guards to be able to protect their own country soon. In response to the entry of Afghanistan by American troops, President Obama has spoken on investing on unmanned aircrafts, which are being used now to take out Taliban officials and pave the way for soldiers without risking human casualties. (1) I think to pull out of Afghanistan all together have a horrible effect on our relationship with the Afghan government. Right now, we are giving them security and protection, and if we just pulled our troops out there would be a great distrust. Also, organizations like the Taliban or Al-Queda would have an easy opportunity to come back into power. We have a vested interest in this because those groups strongly dislike us. I think that instead of pulling troops out we need to put more troops in. It may seem very trying and difficult but President Obama stressed that he did not take the decision lightly. He took time to deliberate and survey the high ranking officers of the armed forces. I think that if General McChrystal says they are in need of more troops in order to effectively fight, there is a true need for more troops. In order to fully succeed in re-establishing a suitable government in Afghanistan there must be work and struggle to accomplish it. In edition to General McChystal's suggestion for more troops, an article from NBC describes the situation in Afghanistan. Moral has been dropping for many factors but one very troubling problem is "the Combat Stress units in Afghanistan are "undermanned." Also, there is not a single Combat Stress detatchment in the south of the country..." (3) The need for diverse soldiers is necessary in Afghanistan because the lack of soldiers there is demoralizing the soldiers in Afghanistan. I do agree with Alyssa's 2011 comment. I do not think that a pullout by the summer of 2011 will be possible. If we are just sending more troops in it does not seem plausible to pull them out in just over one year from now.
1) http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/TECH11058.xml
2) President Obama's speech at West Point
3) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33908828/ns/us_news-military/#storyContinued
In response to Derek L.,
I would have to say that I agree for the most part on what you had to say in your blog post on President Obama’s December 1st speech. I liked when you used to quote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” from Martin Luther King Jr. Although I have never been a big fan of this war, I do think that this statement rings true. I also would agree that more troops need to be stationed in Afghanistan in order to get things done. As Obama has said to West Point Cadets, “We must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future” (2). This was originally supposed to be a war on terror, and I think that we have a better chance of eliminating terrorist groups if we train the Afghan army to take care of it themselves. They know their own people better, and I think think they could ultimately do a better job if trained by American troops.
In your post you mentioned that you agreed with the timeline, and I do as well. I think it seems as though a sense of urgency is a good idea, and that the United States shouldn’t keep sending “blank checks” to keep the Middle East afloat. One thing I found interesting about the timeline is that time is generally not seen as a “valuable resource in Afghan society.” (2). I found this to be interesting and I wonder if it will play into the dynamics of the war. It makes me wonder if we will be able to build Afghan armies in time, if they are not taking advantage of the limited time we have in Afghanistan. I am also slightly worried because in a recent poll by Quinnipiac, although 60% of Americans agreed with withdrawing the troops, 45% of Americans don’t believe that Obama will stick to his plans in 2011 (1).
As far as your comment on nuclear weapons goes, I would say that I agree with you on the fact that it seems unfair and unjust to keep nuclear weapons from them when we have so many. However, I do think it is necessary to keep unstable countries from having them. In an article on newsvine.com, it mentioned, “Obama told that the terrorists can harm Pakistan & the rest of the world more because Pakistan is a Nuclear armed country & Alqaeda wants to snatch nuclear arsenal of Pakistan.” (3) As much as it is unfair that the United States feels as though no other parts of the world can have nuclear weapons, the United States is also one of the only countries not at high risk for the weapons to be “snatched” by a terrorist group. I would like to think that the United States nuclear weapons are purely for discouraging other countries to start wars with us. If an Afghanistan terrorist groups were to get a hold of these weapons, it is a scary thought what they might do with them.
Sources:
1. “Poll: Approval for War Strategy Jumps After Obama’s Speech” CBSNews.com. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5938860.shtml
2. “Obama Speech Leaves Out How to Grow the Afghan Army” Yahoo News. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091202/us_time/08599194455600
3. “US New Afghan policy, Algaeda & Pakistan Nuclear arsenal.” Newsvine.com. http://pukhtunfocus.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/02/3575454-us-new-afghan-policy-alqaeda-pakistan-nuclear-arsenal
In response to Grant's post, I agree that Obama's current decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is unpopular. Democrats and Republicans are both questioning the motives behind this so far. Republican's claim, in particular John McCain, that the strategy will just send the Taliban underground until America leaves, causing even more instability in the region. Democrats claim that this will keep American influence in the region longer, which is something they don't support. A current poll was given that 55% or American oppose while only 35% support Obama's decision (1). There is no doubt the desicion is unpopular.
However, whether or not people will regard this as a good decision is questionable. The war on Afghanistan came as a part of the grand strategy that the Bush administration had, a strategy to dominate and exercise power with force rather than diplomacy. For a man who just received the Nobel Peace Prize, it seems like a very tough decision to order a drastic increase of troops to a failed war. There's a strong belief that Obama will lose all of the good credibility that he created from gaining the prize in the first place. Many anti-war activists are now questioning the "hope" and "change" Obama had promised in his campaign because of this action (2).
Additionally, Obama has a ton of things going on his agenda right now. Health care is far from over, and is considered a top priority in the Senate right now to get passed. Copenhagen expects American and Obama to become a great force in the quest for leadership in climate change. Guantanamo Bay is also not being addressed, something Obama clearly stated he wanted closed by the end of the year(2). All of these different policy agendas will affect the American public greatly, possibly to the extent where Obama spreads himself out and can't fulfill any promises from his campaign. With this outcome, it's possible that we see the same results as the last eight years.
(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obamas-afghanistan-plan-o_n_374995.html
(2)http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=621821
In response to Allie,
I enjoyed your post, and you brought up some well thought out arguments, many of which I agree with. We both think that Afghanistan is a problem that needs to be dealt with by sending more troops. Obviously the troop levels of the last few years were unsuccessful, otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess. We both questioned the number of troops being sent, thinking they were too high. What I’ve come to realize is that the number must be necessary for Obama’s plan to work. Obviously, he and his military council are the best judges for the situation. I think it is important to realize that 30,000 troops doesn’t mean they all will be armed infantry. According to Obama, many of the troops will be used as civilian officers, helping the Afghan people and government back on their feet (1). He wants to focus on more long-term goals like sparking the economy. Another important job is to train Afghan forces to be strong enough for us to leave in the coming years. You mention that we shouldn’t empower the Afghan country too much so they don’t attack us. I think if we finish our job there and leave a peaceful country, we shouldn’t have to worry about them coming after America.
One disagreement I had with your argument was that you hoped that weaponry would only be used as defense against the Taliban. One thing we know about the Taliban is that they are not afraid to hide and wait out the American involvement. If we don’t take the fight to them, there is no way we can secure Afghanistan. General Petraeus has declared the counterterrorism sector of the military will expand over the next coming months (2). I think this is a necessary measure to take if we are to make any progress in this war. If Obama wants to pull out troops by 2011, he needs to make quick steps forward.
Like you, I hope we can leave Afghanistan a peaceful country. I think it is a definite possibility. The question is, at what cost? Casualties are not the only price of war. The U.S. will be spending billions. The surce will cost 30 billion in the first year (3). With the economy still struggling, who knows how long we can afford to keep this war going. It will be interesting how this plays out over the next couple of years.
1. White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-on-a-new-strategy-for-afghanistan-and-pakistan/
2. Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904132.html
3. New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Ali,
While I have not followed the opium trade issues as closely as I would have liked to respond to your post, I do agree that Obama should be addressing the drug-trade and the sale of opium to promote anti-government activities more. The poppy cultivation is decreasing, despite the opinion of many people that it has skyrocketed. However, it has become popular in the southern part of Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other criminal groups primarily reside, rather than in the northern and eastern parts of the country (1). Basically, even though it may seem like the problem is subsiding because of the reduction of poppy cultivation, the funding of criminal groups such as the Taliban through opium sales is still hurting Afghanistan as much as ever. Antonio Costa, Executive Director of UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) explained the danger of reducing the growth of opium this past year, stating that, “Afghan opium production has exceeded world demand. The bottom should have fallen out of the opium market, but it hasn't. So where is the missing opium? Lack of price response in the opium market can only be the result of stock build-ups, and all evidence points to the Taliban"(2). He is correct in saying that the Taliban are the ones who will benefit from the lower stocks of opium; prices will rise, while they will be left with a plethora of extra to sell (2).
I agree that Mr. Obama must have a more impressive plan in dealing with this issue before sending his 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan. So far, his plans have been to “bribe the Taliban” and protect the opium fields by increasing war taxes on Americans (3). Americans already pay for nearly 36 percent of national defense through their federal taxes (3). I doubt that increasing the rate will help in solving this opium problem. Instead, Obama should propose a plan in which the troops currently serving in Afghanistan and the troops that will be entering it can take physical action in protecting the fields and reducing the massive amounts of funding that the Taliban receive from the drug-trade.
1. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/March/20080326132753xjsnommis0.1545221.html
2. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2008-11-27.html
3. http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/protecting-afghan-opium-fields-bribing-taliban/
I am responding to Claire L.
I hope all this makes sense. When I write I tend to ramble and get side tracked. One thing I agree on with you is that there are other issues that we need to be focusing on within the United States, one of which is the state of the economy. Also, I’m glad you recognized the neccesity for more troops in this situation. The war would have never been won, and I use the word won with caution because it’s hard to define winning this war, without more help. I also agree that we should have focused more on Afghanistan from the beginning, but I would never say we need a draft. These are the points I agree on.
However, I don’t agree on some other points. I do not think a deadline to withdraw troops in Afghanistan is helpful. We should not be telling those we are fighting when we are going to leave. If you were the Taliban, wouldn’t you just wait until that deadline came around and then make a resurgence? We are telling the enemy when we will be leaving, thus inviting them to wait it out and then walk right back into Afghanistan. Not the best strategy, in my mind.(1)
Also, I hope I am not the only one who finds it a little coincidental, actually a lot coincidental, that the deadline comes right before election time and campaign time. (1) What I believe will happen is Obama will start withdrawing troops slowly, as to show he is honoring the deadline, and then (hopefully not) he will get re-elected and stop the withdraw and send troops back (because the need for troops in Afghanistan will still be there). The deadline is part of his strategy to get re-elected and gain votes from the anti-war population, but at the same time win the war. And he knows by 2011, this war will not be won. Therefore, the deadline is not a good idea because it only gives the enemy an advantage and knowledge of when we are leaving and, in my opinion, it is only part of a strategy to get re-elected.
However, if he actually does honor the deadline and does bring the troops home in 2011, it will be detrimental to all our efforts in Afghanistan. If we leave in 2011, which in my mind will be too early, then Obama will have extended the war for no reason. And although you think that at the end of the war, if we don’t win, we can say “we tried”, that is not an appropriate response to losing a war. It’s not an appropriate response to those who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of those in another country as well as our own. We either win the war in the long run and stick to our guns, no pun intended, or we get out now before more harm is done to our soldiers. None of this wishy-washy-deadline-withdrawing-of-the-troops after we “gave it a shot” stuff. Just a warning, those “magic words” that helped you open your mind might actually turn out to be an illusion. Obama said in his speech, “with a goal of starting to withdraw forces from the country in July 2011.” It’s a goal, and I’m sure Obama knows it himself, but it’s a lofty one.(2)
I’m going to ramble on more about this exit strategy, because it’s bothering me so much. Does it not make it seem like Obama is contradicting himself? To me, it gives the message that the war is important but not that important to fight until we win. Well, if it isn’t that important then we should end it right away! I’m not in favor of that option, but I sure would rather pull out now than lose more lives and then pull out a little later. Also, since when do our presidents announce publicly the exit plan of a war? I can’t express how bad of an idea this is. Now, he did make one point that I liked. He said that it will force the Afghan government to move quickly, and to realize we won’t be there forever.(3) That is a good thing! But why share it with the entire world? Why not tell the Afghan government in meetings that Al Qaeda won’t hear about? It just seems useless to tell an enemy your strategy, but then again, I’m not a military strategist or expert.
1- http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/index.html
2- http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2009/12/09/obamas-afghanistan-strategy-a-political-winner-but-long-hard-slogs-lie-ahead.html
3- http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-analysis2-2009dec02,0,591124.story
In response to Peter Ehlinger’s post:
I must say that I disagree with most of what you said. While I do not like war, I honestly cannot think of a peaceful way to solve every conflict in the world. With terrorism, especially 9/11, I cannot image the US being able to peacefully work things out with Al-Qaeda and make them change their mind about what they believe in. Maybe war should not have been the immediate response, or the response at all, but I just can’t see anyone who can go to that extreme being talked down.
In response to Peter’s second point, about evacuating soldiers and taking responsibility, I disagree with this too. As Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar says, “We accept part of the blame, but there are also issues that our international friends must also take responsibility for—the blame game is not going to help” (1). I think Mr. Atmar is correct. If the US evacuates Afghanistan and claims fault, what good will that do anyone? Afghanistan will once again be subjected to foreign invasion with no way of defending itself. The US will not have to worry about spending money in Afghanistan anymore, but for what cost? Al-Qaeda or another terrorist group can gain power and influence in Afghanistan and make 9/11 happen all over again. If the US were to leave Afghanistan tomorrow, the way it is now, I believe the same thing will happen to Afghanistan as what happened when they rebelled against the Soviets in the 80’s. The US and other countries supplied Afghanistan with the weapons to fight off the Soviets, and once the Soviets left, what was left was “a country that was not only devastated by war but had become a beacon to Islamic extremists from across the globe who had come to assist in the fighting, including Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda” (2). I think that by evacuating Afghanistan the same thing could happen again, so why not do what we can now to help them rebuild, considering we are part, it may be a small part but still a part, of the reason Al Qaeda was able to take control.
In the last part of Peter’s post he urges Mr. Obama to listen to others. According to a poll released December 8th, “57% of poll respondents say that fighting the war is the right thing to do while 35% disagree” (3). This shows that a majority of the people think it’s the right thing to do fighting this war, 57% may not be a complete consensus, but the US almost never agrees completely on something. While I may not agree with Obama on all of his proposals and ideas for the war, I do think that sending more troops to help Afghanistan is the right decision, and one that was thought out and planned, not made at the spur of a moment.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/19/afghanistan.minister/index.html
2. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html
3. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49595
Solveig, the morals behind your ideas are very good, and I agree with them. I, too, believe that the United States is overly reliant on our military forces and that war in inherently wrong. However, given the continuous nature and the relentless enemy associated with the war in Afghanistan, I believe that the added troops are necessary to make sufficient progress.
As your argument implies, the American people are too ignorant about our government and its foreign and domestic actions. For example, a 2006 study conducted by National Geographic revealed that 88% of young people, ages 18-24, could not locate Afghanistan on a map (2). American ignorance is a serious problem that, if not resolved, has the potential to threaten how Americans view and respond to our government (1). When people pass judgment on President Obama or another political figure, it is important to understand the issue at hand or else information can easily be taken out of context. Furthermore, people can easily be manipulated by biased sources when they do not know the true nature of events. The current situation in the Middle East is very complex, and, without a clear understanding, it is difficult to discern one conflict from the next. As you suggested, I agree that the focus of President Obama comparing the Bush administration’s primary focus on Iraq with his on Afghanistan was a key part of his speech that was meant to help the general population separate the two countries. However, I also feel that he wanted to distance his proposed troop increase from the unpopular war in Iraq. President Obama and his advisers realize that if Americans are closely associating the two conflicts, public support for Afghanistan will erode away, just like it has done with Iraq. He wants to prevent this from occurring.
I was also struck by your comments about working with our allies. Since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, Al Qaeda is strongly suspected of being responsible for more than 25 other deadly attacks, including (but not limited to) shootings and bombings in France, Egypt, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Spain, Pakistan, and Great Britain (3). All of these countries should share the United States’ interest of securing Afghanistan. Additionally (as Solveig pointed out), Central Asian countries and the Gulf States are hurt by the chaos caused by Al Qaeda within their region. Thus, there should be amble support to work with for the current United States mission. The challenge that Obama has is to gain and maintain the trust and support of all these nations that has waned during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Allie support of the United States’ Afghani efforts is crucial ensure success during the designated 18-month time limit for the troop surge. This is not an abundant amount of time to prepare the Afghani forces to stand on their own. It is also important that the functioning level of the country of Afghanistan is restored to at least the level it was before United States took military action there. This not only includes restoring the physical structures that fighting has damaged, but, also, the basic human rights that have been taken away from Afghani people. According to Amnesty International, these include: lack of food, closed schools, and restrictions to health care access in many parts of the country (4). When combined these are daunting tasks that, to complete in only 18 months, will indubitably require the support of America’s allies and its citizens.
1: When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy
www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa525.pdf
2: Study: Geography Greek to young Americans
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/
3: List of Al Qaida inspired terror attacks released
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page7930
4: Afghanistan Human Rights
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/afghanistan/page.do?id=1011101
In response to Devin Long’s post:
Although I see the validity of some of the points you made, on the whole I disagree with your statement that “I don’t think sending more troops into Afghanistan is the best solution.” As I said previously, I would love if there was another better and realistic option than continued warfare in Afghanistan, but sometimes war is necessary. Obama has committed to a successful outcome in Afghanistan (3) and this requires more troops. We have one of the world’s best militaries; we are capable of defeating the Taliban, but not under wavering leadership and median levels of troops, like under Bush (3). Without support, our troops cannot win and casualties will continue to rise (2).
I understand Devin’s concerns about empirical actions, but this is not a case of nation-building, and of the United States trying to solely defeat and rebuild a nation (3). Obama has improved foreign relations and is seeking support from European nations and NATO (1). Obama clearly stated that he will not be content to sit in Afghanistan for years, he is using the troop surge to win this war as quickly as possible (1). I appreciate that Obama has emphasized that he is not sending the troops for nation-building, but to defeat the Taliban (1). The president’s plan is focused on training Afghani forces and preparing to hand power and responsibility back to Afghan forces, so that we will not remain in their country forever (2).
Another problem I have with Devin’s post is that he offers no hint of another solution to the situation in Afghanistan. If sending more troops isn’t the answer, then what do you propose? We cannot afford inaction- Obama himself has said that the status quo is not sustainable (2)- and merely dismissing one plan without providing a better alternative is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. Also, criticizing Obama’s plan simply because Bush lied to the citizens and frequently and misleadingly changed his goals/course of action is unfair. I firmly believe that Obama will make a much better leader and president than Bush, and I trust him to have learned from the mistakes of his predecessor.
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/obama-outline-plan-send-troops-afghanistan-months/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+foxnews/latest+(FOXNews.com+-+Latest+Headlines)
2. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.html
In response to Leah G:
I generally agree with the many points in this argument. Like Leah I was pleased to hear that Obama had a plan in place to begin to remove troops in Afghanistan as I feel that the longer we have been there, the farther the American people have gotten in regards to support. However, like I stated in my original post, it worries me that the president has set such a definite deadline as it gives a lot of information to the enemy (1). Also, in my opinion, 18 months seems awful short for us to reach our goals in Afghanistan compared to the amount of times we have already spent over there (1). Also there is the problem of actually getting the troops into Afghanistan. It took five brigade five months to get into Iraq and that was with the help of roads and ports and neighboring countries (2). This is not necessarily the case in Afghanistan. I agree with Leah that training the Afghan army is key in the future of their country and is necessary in order for American troops to return home. It does worry me though that of the 30,000 troops being sent, there are only 5,000 soldiers that are dedicated trainers(3). This seem like an awfully low number considering Obama's goal of preparing that Afghan army to take care of its own security. Like Leah, the speech made by President Obama has left me with many questions and skeptical that his goals will be met.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/politics/03poll.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=Obama%20afghanistan%20speech&st=cse&scp=5
2. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/03/afghanistan.troop.issues/index.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obamas-afghanistan-plan-o_n_374995.html
In response to Smarti:
Although I do not like the idea of war, trying to compromise with a terrorist group like the Taliban in a non-violent way is out of the question. I support Obama’s new plan to send more troops, and think it is very necessary for the future of Afghanistan. The country has been in disarray for decades, and although we have been apart of the chaos in recent years, I do not think it is right for us to back out of the war now, and leave them with even more turmoil. However, I do agree that it will be a tough battle considering the circumstances. Like you said, Afghanistan is a landlocked country, which has made it difficult to send troops, and also agree that the idea of withdrawing troops by 2011 is not likely to be accomplished (1). There are too many things that still need fixing, and it is not possible for them to be resolved in such a short time period. A huge problem in stabilizing the government is the re-election of Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, known for having a weak government (1). Juggling the issues of their weak government as well as the threats of the Taliban, removing troops by 2011 is not possible.
Interior Minister of Afghanistan Hanif Atmar told reporters that he believed the “Taliban can be defeated”, and the “war is winnable, and the corruption will be fought.” He continued on to say that fighting corruption would be the government’s number one priority (2). I think this is a step in the right direction, and cooperation with the Afghan government is essential in stabilizing the country. However, I do still think resolving enough issues to begin withdrawing troops by 2011 is unrealistic.
The Taliban has proved to be a violent and powerful group, and will be a challenge to defeat. I believe it is necessary to stay in Afghanistan until they are defeated once and for all, rather than leaving too soon and having them restore power once we are gone. This does not have to be one big “viscous cycle that doesn’t seem to end.” It will only turn out that way if our troops are taken out of Afghanistan too early. I believe it is possible for Afghanistan to return to the prosperous society it once was, but we must assist the government and do the things they are unable to in their current state.
1. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/ index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Afghanistan&st=Search
2. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/19/afghanistan.minister/index.html
3. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/1202/p02s01-usmi.html/%28page%29/2
In response to Kelsey:
President Obama’s plant to send more troops to Afghanistan was not a shocking decision, but it did bring the issue of the war back to the forefront of American politics. I agree with your points that if we are going to be in Afghanistan we need to be there with a clear and concise plan, focus, and timetable. Many republicans however, have criticized having a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops thinking that it will signal to our allies “a lack of resolve” [1]. This move of making a timetable could also prove to be just a waiting period for the Taliban, who will go underground until American troops are out of Afghanistan [3]. Senator John McCain commented, "The way that you win wars is to break the enemy's will, not to announce dates that you are leaving" [3]. I do not agree entirely with this statement, I think it still has some validity. I know that a Taliban resurgence is a possibility but I agree with your point that by the end of the timeline “we have done what we can do and that's just how the situation will be”. Democrats have also been talking about charging a surtax to finance the ongoing war [1]. Currently, it costs 1 million dollars to send a troop to Afghanistan for a year [2]. This totals 10 billion dollars for ten thousand troops [2]. I’m not exactly sure how long our economy can sustain both this war, and the war in Iraq without charging surtax, but I would have trouble supporting it. I agree that at this point it is almost necessary to be in Afghanistan, but I believe charging a tax will only result in falling support. Americans are already pessimistic enough about our efforts.
Another point that you touched on in your response was the training of Afghani troops. I too agree that this is an important part of leaving Afghanistan as a healthy independent nation. However, out of the 30,000 troops being deployed to Afghanistan only 5,000 of those troops are dedicated trainers [3]. This leaves me suspicious that we won’t really be able to leave on the conditions that we’re aiming for presently. Also one of Obama’s goals with increasing troops is to stop the flow of foreign fighters [4]. Currently Afghanistan’s neighbor Pakistan has become a safe harbor for many Taliban fighters [1]. It has become a sticky situation, with the unstable government and the unreliable ally of president Asif Ali Zardari [1]. He has become almost no more of a figurehead for the Pakistani government giving control to the prime minister [1]. I think that the role Pakistan plays in the future will be the most crucial part of Afghanistan being able to regain control.
Finally, I agree with many of the points you made in your blog post, however I do think that it is still important to keep a critical eye on the actions president Obama takes, especially because the choices he is making now are different from what he originally promised. I think it is too idealistic to hope that he will stick with his initial promises to the American people, but what I do hope for, is that he makes the corrects decisions, supported or not. All the same I cannot help but wonder if sending the same amount of troops to Afghanistan with the same plan would have gone over the same way, had a different president been presenting it. Is the support for Obama merely what makes this move ok? Or is it that our focus has shifted to the economy and the war seems less of an issue?
[1.]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/asia/30policy.html?scp=1&sq=%20obama%20afghanistan&st=cse
[2.] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/25/obama.afghanistan/index.html
[3]. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obamas-afghanistan-plan-o_n_374995.html
[4]. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html
In response to Jacob Sandry’s post.
Jacob,
You are not alone in the fact that you were able to learn more about the exact reasoning and details of a troop surge in Afghanistan, through President Obama’s speech. I also learned a great deal, and was pleased to see that his plans in Afghanistan were clearly explained to all who were listening. I agree with your statement that Obama’s exit strategy is defined, and that it is important that our efforts are focused to achieve the goals that are set in front of our troops. In his address at West Point Military Academy, Obama addressed the men and women of the armed forces, “As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service” (1). He continued to explain that troops will begin to return home in 18 months, and also described the tasks that the troops will be expected to complete.
Although Obama’s plan is clear and straight to the point, I am unsure if all of the tasks at hand can be completed in an 18-month period. With such a short time frame, I wonder if all of the components that were laid out in Obama’s speech will be completed in that amount of time. I also wonder if the July 2011 homecoming date will be pushed further and further back when all of the goals are not met. However, I do agree with Obama’s statement “the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government” (1). Critics of Obama’s timeline, question if the exit dates create an opportunity for insurgents to wait out the Americana troops and once we leave, the Taliban will take over once again. (2)
I also agree with your statement that other countries that share our same beliefs on the course of action should be a component in stabilizing Afghanistan. However, I do believe that the United States needs to take the initiative, and be the leaders in this situation. In October 2001, the U.S. along with British support, were the first in begin Operation Enduring Freedom against Taliban forces. (3) If we were the first ones to start this war, shouldn’t we be the first ones to end the war and stabilize the new government since the Taliban have been removed from power? That’s not to say that other countries shouldn’t help in the effort to rebuild the Afghan government, but the U.S. needs to take responsibility and begin to end the war.
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan
2. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p02s01-usmi.html
3. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/428/afghanistan-timeline.html
In response to Ben’s post:
I do agree that we should have a continued American military presence in Afghanistan well after the 2011 pullout date. We still have a substantial amount of troops stationed in Germany-over a half of all American troops in Europe-left over from the effects from World War II (1). The difficulty is, that while virtually no guerilla warfare was present in post-war Europe, the Middle East is still a highly unstable region marred with guerilla warfare (3). If we continue our military presence in Afghanistan, and Iraq, we can expect casualties. This is not to say we shouldn’t necessarily withdraw, it just means that the costs of doing so are non-negligible.
I think the two options that Ben “would like to hear Obama tell us” are somewhat odd. The President’s plan is based on advice from military generals and it is not set in stone; if it turns out more time is needed in Afghanistan, President Obama can propose a new plan. I don’t think the political benefits are his main motivation for aiming to withdraw the troops before his current term ends, but I suspect it has crossed President Obama’s mind.
I find Ben’s complaint that the West Point venue for the speech gave the president a sympathetic audience moot, as Presidential interactions with people in these situations are largely scripted (2).
Simple military force is certainly no way to solve the situation in Afghanistan, but these problems exist in the Middle East as a whole, and that includes Iraq (4).
1. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0803.pdf
2. “Government In America AP Edition, by Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry. Chapter 7.
3. “Guerrilla Warfare In Afghanistan,” by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/08/eveningnews/main604780.shtml
4. “Nine out of ten dentists agree!” – Jacob McN******n
In response to Addison's Blog,
...But first I am going to say that I enjoyed reading Peter's response to my initial blog. He made valid points and made me rethink my opinion.
Anyways, I agree with Addison's opinion on sending more troops into Afghanistan. Moreover, I also agree with Chris and Katie's opinion on Obama coming into the difficult situation in the Middle East. We have been in the Middle East for nearly 9 years and it is time to wrap things up. Katie says, "The President inherited a tough situation that he did not create. Still, the American public expects that he will be the one to fix it." Obama is the first one to mention this. In an interview between Michelle, Barack and Oprah last night on ABC, Obama states, "I think we have inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt." In addition, Obama gives himself a solid B+ for his first year in office. (1) People usually do not realize what mess the president comes into. They simply want their requests answered and perfected immediately.
Another point in Addison's blog post that I agree with is how she mentioned Obama providing an expectation of the Afghani people to step up and be trained to defend their own country. I think we can all conclude that it is best to leave Afghanistan better after our involvement that it was before. Addison mentions how we can help Afghanistan's agriculture market. This would be very valuable to the country. "Eighty percent of Afghanistan’s population is involved in farming, herding or both, even though just
12 percent of Afghanistan’s total land area is arable and less than 6percent is currently cultivated." (2) Moreover, In December 2009, President Obama said, “Our top reconstruction priority is implementing a civilian-military agriculture redevelopment strategy to restore Afghanistan’s once vibrant agriculture
sector.” (2) The USDA is working with Afghanistan to improve its agriculture, which will hopefully create a stronger government and preserve its natural resources. For more information on the USDA's positive influence on Afghanistan's agriculture, economy, landscape, and food assistance, check out http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/Afghanistan/FAS%20Afghanistan%20Fact%20Sheet_12.7.09.pdf.
On a final note, I agree with Addison that a set time frame is logical. We need to work as quickly as possible to conclude our involvement in the Middle East. Obama mentioned that he would conclude the war in 11 months. I disagree. I feel that to successfully end our involvement in the Middle East, it will take much longer. According to American Progress, "the United States and NATO should aim to turn over security in certain areas to the Afghan Security Forces beginning in 2011 and have all Afghan forces in the lead within four years or the 12-year mark of our engagement. (3) This obviously exceeds the 11 month mark. Moreover, "President Obama outlined a similar timeframe for the transition of security to Afghan security forces—the United States will begin transferring security to Afghan National Security Forces in 2011. The pace of that transition is not fixed and will be based on assessments on the ground. Obama did not set a timeline for the departure for U.S. troops and left open the possibility of a U.S. reserve force to remain in country." (3) I think that it is important for Obama to set a goal for United States removal in Afghanistan but I think 11 months is way too short. But who knows, maybe he will prove me wrong.
Citations:
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/president-obama-to-oprah_n_390584.html
http://www.theinsider.com/videos/3117106_Obama_and_Oprah_Christmas_at_The_White_House_part_3
2. http://www.fas.usda.gov/ICD/drd/afghanistan.asp
Moreover , http://www.fas.usda.gov/country/Afghanistan/FAS%20Afghanistan%20Fact%20Sheet_12.7.09.pdf
3. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/obama_afghanistan_address.html
I think Sara had a lot of good things to say in her blog post. I think you are right to consider the effect that the United States’ imperial presence has on the people of other places. I think that we forget to question why we are in Afghanistan in the first place. I think it is commonly just assumed that our military is there to kick ass and take names of all the terrorists who are rife in the region and are buddies with the 9/11 guys. George Bush used a lot of rhetoric about a new global system of fighting terrorism, but as socialistdemocracy.org says “in reality, the cleavage between the post-September 11th world and that which existed before is not so profound. The actions of the US represent an intensification of a long-term imperialist offensive rather than something new. Indeed, in the last decade there has been a series of imperialist wars, starting with Iraq in 1991, Yugoslavia from 1995 to 1999, and now in 2001, the war on Afghanistan.” In fact, the article goes on to state, the war in Afghanistan allowed the united states to open up 13 new military bases in areas formerly owned by the soviet union, in 2001 alone. (1)Instead of this rhetoric of helping the poor Afghanis fix their country, it looks like the United States plainly wants to spread its hegemony into the region. You used the connection to what the United States did in Iraq, but I think that this is still blinded by the same misinformation. According to Justforeignpolicy.org, there have been over 1,350,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the U.S. invasion (2). I don’t see how this is any better than the dictatorship that they had previously. The rhetoric of training Iraqi’s and Aghanis to fight for themselves seems strangely similar to Kennedy’s rhetoric during Vietnam. I think Michael Franti is the best one to do this issue justice in his piece “light up ya lighter:” “So Come on Come on, Sign up, Come on
This one’s nothing like Vietnam
Except for the bullets, Except for the bombs,
Except for the youth that’s gone
Chorus
So we keep it on, til ya coming home, Higher and Higher
Fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter, fire fire fire, so we keep it on
Til ya commin home, higher and higher
Fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter, fire fire fire
Tell me President tell if you will,
How many people does a smart bomb kill
How many of em do you think we got,
The General says we never miss a shot
And we never ever ever keep a body count,
we killin so efficiently we can’t keep count
In the Afghan hills the rebels still fightin,
Opium fields keep providin
The best heroin that money can buy
and nobody knows where Osama bin hidin
The press conferences keep on lyin like we don’t know
Some say engine engine number nine,
Machine guns on a New York transit line
The war for oil is a war for the beast,
the war on terror is a war on peace
Tellin you they’re gonna protect you,
Tellin you that they support the troops
Don’t let them fool you with their milk and honey,
No they only want your money
One step forward and two steps back,
Why do veterans get no respect
PTSD and a broken back,
Take a look at where your moneys gone seen
Take a look at what they spend it on
No excuses, No illusions
Light up ya lighter”
(3)
(1) http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisInternational/News&AnalysisIntUSImperialismAfterAfghanistan.htm
(2) http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyvEdMIxaQk
In response to Julia’s post:
Overall I agreed with most of Julia’s opinions on President Obama’s decision, but there were a few small things that drew my attention. First of all, I disagree with the statement that things will only get worse if we don’t send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The U.S. has spent 8 years and $200 billion, yet this national-building project has not progressed (1). Like Julia stated, neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to produce a plan that deals with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, and the other substantial corruption that is coming from Kabul (1). Experts believe that U.S. troops cannot solve these problems (1). The future of Afghanistan is a political proposition that is in the hands of the Afghan people themselves (1). Another point to be brought up is the fact that that Al Qaeda threat is most deadly in neighboring Pakistan, yet nobody has connected the dots to show how military intervention in Afghanistan will help to solve the situation in Pakistan (1). It is still very unclear as to why Afghanistan is an unavoidable war.
I also agree with Julia that the U.S. has wasted a lot of time in the Middle East, but I disagree with her on how to solve that problem. I think pulling the troops out completely is the best solution. Over 900 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and the August elections in the country show mounting domestic opposition to the 8 year war (2). Obama has urged the nations not to see the conflict as a new Vietnam War, yet many veterans feel that it looks and sounds the same as Vietnam did (2). I believe Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat of Wisconsin, summed it up best; “I do not support the decision to prolong and expand a risky and unsustainable strategy in the region. I do not believe more American lives should be risked for a war that no longer serves our most pressing national security interests” (3).
I agree that Obama had a tough decision to make, but I feel that he tried to please too many people at once with his answer. He appeases the conservatives who believe that victory is largely a military equation (1). However, he also tries to please the left by portraying himself as an unwilling warrior (1). I believe this will only have negative effects on his support and the future debate over the war in Afghanistan. I believe, like Julia, that the President made the decision he felt best, but I am also skeptical as to what the outcome will be. The date for removal of the troops is a big promise for the President to keep.
(1) http://www.theroot.com/views/obama-treading-water
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8389778.stm
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/us/politics/04dems.html
Hillary,
I feel sorry that I’m not serving the advancement of your political knowledge because I completely agree with you. While I have been very anti-war from the start, I agree, that the government has been too “wishy-washy”. IN my opinion that only way to handle this situation was either an all or nothing approach. I agree that Obama’s approach has been pretty reasonable; we needed someone to tell us “this is what we are doing, and this is how we’re doing it.” We needed a strong leader to tell us what to do so we can start to focus on the goal we’re set. Like a majority of Americans I believe that the war isn’t worth fighting (1), but I also believe that we can’t just up and leave. I’m glad that the plan includes that we’ll be getting the Afghan force to work more with us (2), because when we leave they’ll need someone to continue to resolve their problems with the Taliban. We all know we can’t really defeat the Taliban, at least in the sense that they will never appear again, but we can (using Obama’s plan) hope to weaken them enough so that the Afghan forces can handle them as they (the Afghan forces) grow stronger and more efficient. I fully agree that this is the beast move the President Obama could have made, considering the circumstances in Afghanistan, and I agree with the moves he is making.
(1) www.washingtonpost.com “Obama: US security is still at stake.”
(2) www.nytimes.com “Obama Issues Order for More Troops in Afghanistan”
In response to carissa v's post, i disagree and agree with some of her statements. I agree along the front that a timeline is unrealistic cause well, it is. We've settimelines previouslymin Irag and afghanistan and to think this time will bring the troops home is unrealistic. The fact that there are too many variables in the war in that, we dont know how the surge is gonna work, we dont know if we will comeunderthreat again, we dont know if the end of the world will be 2012 (haha). One thing is also tol,ook at is that were not fighting an old fashion army here. These people are a gureilla army in that they are never in 1place all the time. They are always moving and are twice as hard to fight against then if we were fighting a conventional army. Ithink we need to ask ourselves as americans. is this war worth it? is bringing home the troops home and knowing there home safely better than knowing that we could come under another terrorist attack in the near future?
I was gone the day we drew numbers in class for this response post so I'm just going to respond to Leah G's. It has been reported by the Lt. General that due to weather and limited supplies, it may be difficult to send all the troops by next fall(1). They are now saying that troops were supposed to be there in six months but they'll probably be there by next summer(1). I agree with Leah in that it is a necessary evil to send these extra troops overseas to help fight against terrorism. This take is not new. In fact, even Senator John McCain, a republic supports the overall war strategy and believes in it(2). The speeches Obama has been making are anything but routine and he is very consistent with the actions he makes and the reasons behind them(3). The only thing I kind of disagree with is her thinking in that Obama won't follow through on his plans. I think that with all his consistency and planning his strategy is a good one and that his efforts are to help the overall situation in the middle east(3). With his solid strategy and his risks show that Obama really cares about our country and in fact, other ones too.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15mullen.html?_r=1&ref=us
2) http://www.startribune.com/world/79302117.html?page=2&c=y
3) http://www.newsok.com/article/3424809?searched=afghanistan&custom_click=search
In response to Matt’s post, I would have to say I am in complete agreement with him. Although the projected cost of the US buildup in Afghanistan is an estimated $30 billion a year, the Afghan economy is extremely small and weak, incapable of sustaining itself in the current situation (2). Also, the Afghan government has a limited ability to collect taxes and tariffs, thereby hampering their efforts to increase their military and fight the insurgencies (2). Two of the biggest goals for US forces are building up the Afghan military and convincing the Taliban to surrender peacefully, both of which require money which is not produced through the current Afghan economy (3). It has been found that Taliban forces are currently paid more than Afghan military forces, creating an more attractive option to lower members of the Taliban who wish to have more money.
One of the solutions for this problem is to increase the salary of the Afghan military forces, thereby attracting those lower-level Taliban members to switch sides for monetary gain (3). Also, if the US were to immediately withdraw from Pakistan it would be freeing the territory to the influences of other countries such as India, Russia, China, and Iran, something Pakistani officials fear greatly. One of the strongest Taliban leaders, Siraj Haqqani, runs a command center out of North Waziristan, Pakistan, and is one of the greatest threats to the American military (4). These problems and the steps needed to correct them demonstrate the importance of US troop involvement in Afghanistan and consequently Pakistan.
For the second part of Matt’s post he mentions how he believes the time-table for the withdrawal, although with good intentions, may be too sudden for the current state of affairs. I am also in agreement with this statement, though in my opinion it is not a minor flaw but a serious one in President Obama’s plan. I believe that the shortness of the timetables will encourage the Taliban to recede into hiding until American forces are gone, thereby accomplishing nothing and leaving the country in a worse state of affairs. Numerous politicians have voiced their concern over this issue, Senator Clinton expressing she is “highly skeptical” that any Taliban leaders will renounce their war and agree to live peacefully, as hoped by others (1). General Stanley A. McChrystal, one of the top US and allied commanders in Afghanistan, stressed the importance of signaling long-term commitment instead of a short withdrawal. He states that in order to reverse the momentum of the Taliban insurgency, the long term commitment must be maintained even after the initial withdrawals in July of 2011 (2). President Hamid Karzai also expressed the fact that Afghanistan will need the support of the US for an additional 15-20 years, clearly longer than the current 18 months (2). By remaining in Afghanistan the US establishes its consistency and dedication to solving the issue, also reassuring governments such as the Afghan, Pakistani, and Indian who are weary of the US stopping its efforts (1).
Realistically, I think the notion of a time-table is a good aspect of the Afghanistan plan, but I do not think the current one is appropriate nor logical. It was only added to appease the many Americans opposed to war and in favor of bringing all the troops home, instead of taking into consideration the most logical plan of action. In order to be more open to the American people I think President Obama should be truthful and explain that only a handful of troops will come home July 2011, the rest remaining to finish the job we started.
(1)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-gates-afghanistan7-2009dec07,0,890055,print.story
(2)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghan-mcchrystal9-2009dec09,0,7443666,print.story
(3)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/08/afghanistan.pay/index.html
(4)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15haqqani.html?_r=2&ref=world
John T,
Though you have valid points for what you believe is the best strategy, I must disagree with you on several issues. You strongly believe that Obama should not have set a timetable, and that the enemy will just wait until we have to leave to try and take over. I do not believe that this would happen. We must set a goal to try to finish the war by a certain time period. That’s what setting a timetable is all about! However, it’s not as if we are forced to leave Afghanistan by that date, even if the war is still going on. As President Obama said in his speech on the first of December (1), it is a date that is not set in stone. Depending on how successful we are in Afghanistan, the date will be adjusted to fit our current situation at that time. If our goal is not reached, the date will be extended. In actuality, Al Qaeda has no idea how long we will be in Afghanistan because we have not officially set an absolute date.
In your post you pointed out that we should be fully committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, and you don’t feel that Obama is doing that. I must disagree with you because that is exactly what he is doing! If we were to back away from Afghanistan, the Taliban would be able to take over again once more, since the region is still so unstable. Senator John McCain is in full support of President Obama’s actions, saying, “We must succeed in Afghanistan for many reasons, but one stands above all: the world walked away from Afghanistan once, and it descended into a cauldron of violence, hatred and human rights atrocities that served as the base for the worst terrorist attack in history against our homeland.” (2). If we back away from Afghanistan, we risk putting our country under another attack like the atrocities that occurred on 9/11.
President Obama is not just randomly deciding to send in more troops. He has debated and discussed this issue, and feels that this is the best decision. He told cadets, “I do not make this decision lightly…I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda…This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.” (3). There would be massive problems for Afghanistan if we were to withdraw now. The Taliban continues to terrorize the population in both southern and eastern areas of Afghanistan and have stepped up their activities into once more peaceful regions of the country. In 2008 suicide attacks by the Taliban with military or police targets often resulted in high numbers of civilian deaths and injuries (4). This is why we are going into Afghanistan --- to help the people and remove the Taliban once and for all. We aren’t going to sit there idly like we have the last eight years, this time we and our foreign alliances are actually going to do something.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-on-a-new-strategy-for-afghanistan-and-pakistan/ (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/10/28/mccain.afghan.war/index.html (2)
http://washingtonindependent.com/69301/obama-announces-30k-more-troops-for-afghanistan (3)
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/afghanistan/page.do?id=1011101 (4)
Responding to Laura's comment, I agree with what she stated. I do not believe that we had enough troops to accomplish the previous goals that had been set forth. I am especially hopeful for the troops now being deployed and glad there is still some morale to do all that we can. In a speech to a group of Marines set for deployment, Adm. Mike Mullen said, "I believe the strategy that the president laid out, the decision that he's made, is the right decision. Both those are right, and we will now move out, given our orders, and we'll carry them out. And again, I couldn't be more confident and more pleased that you are going to be at the core of that." [1]. I believe the President has the support of many military leaders after his speech. He also holds the support of the people. In Gallup Poll taken 12/2/2009, 62% of people believe it was the right thing to do [2]. I think one mistake he made was setting a timetable for withdrawal. The editors of the National Review wrote that his pledge for withdrawal "speaks to a worrisome impatience ... in an endeavor that requires time and an iron stomach." [3]. I think this could possibly hurt him in the long run because it gives those who don't agree with his actions something to nit pick. The argument that the Taliban can just wait till we pull out and then plan another attack is is a major concern with many Americans. I also believe that it will be much more difficult to fight in Afghanistan. We do not have the same kind of resources that we had in Iraq. If it took us five months to get troops into Iraq with better resources, I think Afghanistan will be even harder. That leaves use only a year to do everything that the President outlined. The Washington Post reported that the Presidents aides suggested the idea that the extra forces will be sent in the next six months. However Lt. David Rodriquez said it would take nine to eleven months to deploy more soldiers. [4]. Now this would make the timetable even more illogical because that would give some troops only seven months to help the forces overseas complete the Presidents mission. This war is also a huge expense to the American people. With the new forces costing around $30 billion and our economy struggling to recover many worry how we will pay for this. The Bloomberg Poll found that 46% of people believe the government should cut spending for programs (this does not include entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare). [2]. I believe that with the shape of our economy and the war having one of the deadliest years, the Presidents actions will be more important that ever. He has a big job ahead of him and even though a do not politically agree with him, I hope he is able to accomplish these goals.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/15/camp.lejeune.marines/
[2] http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
[3] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UzYzhlYWQ0YWRjNDAzMDc3NjE0NmE5MzdiNzljNTk=
[4] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/not_much_time_for_good_decisio.html
In response to Georgia’s post-
Overall, I agree with Georgia. Although the United States did a good job in driving out the Taliban forces in the months following 9/11, the terroristic organization has regrouped. This is the reason why the war has recently received so much attention from the Obama administration. If we had just finished the job while we were there, we wouldn’t have to worry about this situation now.
The Taliban is growing in numbers every single day in Afghanistan. In December of 2008, the ICOS (International Council on Security and Development) estimated that the Taliban was firmly rooted in 72% of the country, mostly in the southern and eastern portions (1). Quite a few Taliban leaders were able to successfully assimilate themselves back into the Afghan culture after they were broken up by the U.S forces (1). Many are working to overthrow the current government, and others have coordinated with each other and have mounted attacks (1). Most of them, however, found Pakistan to be a safe haven and have launched attacks from there. Some reports say that because the Taliban’s senior leadership was broken up by the U.S, younger leaders have taken charge and have been radicalized by Al-Qaeda. This all shows that Obama made the right decision by giving the forces currently fighting in Afghanistan more help. American casualties in the country have more than doubled in the last two years, showing that the fighting there has become more and more fierce, and additional troops are seriously needed (2).
So what exactly is Obama planning on doing with these troops? In his speech, he outlined three specific goals: Denying Al-Qaeda a safe haven, reversing the Taliban’s momentum and denying their ability to overthrow the Afghani government, and strengthening Afghanistan’s security forces and government (3). I think these are good goals for the new troops because it acknowledges the fact that the Taliban has truly increased its momentum, and that the troops levels do not currently have the ability to do so. A recent Gallup poll showed that 55% of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the war, and only 35% approve of it (2). I think that what Americans aren’t realizing is that it wasn’t Obama’s decision to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and it certainly wasn’t his idea to open up a new war in Iraq, which redirected many of the forces fighting in Afghanistan elsewhere.. He’s just doing what he believes would be the most beneficial, and that would be to send in extra support. If we just pulled out all of troops, then the Taliban would waste no time in retaking the region and everything that went into driving them out in the first place would be for nothing. It’s a very difficult decision, but the alternative is just plain wrong. Georgia said it well by stating “Sometimes things get worse before they get better, but we will not know this if we take all our troops out right now.”
(1) http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obamas-afghanistan-plan-o_n_374995.html
(3) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/index.html
To respond to Katie J.’s post, I would first like to address the introduction, which offers a philosophical approach to the concept of war. I agree with the statement that we are taught not to use violence as children. However, we are also taught not to lie, to wait our turn, and a number of other things. As young adults, however, we have come to realize that there are always exceptions. We lie to protect the feelings of others, and we would cut people off on the road on the way to the emergency room. Violence, like everything else, must be reserved as an option should things take a vile turn for the worse.
Now to get to the actual content. Your research is good, and it’s obvious you have put in good work to learn about an unfamiliar topic. I do have a quibble with your data, however: you mention that Al-Queda is “now less than 100 members strong.” According to the Wikipedia article, however, you overlooked a minor, but key, detail, which is that “there are fewer than 100 members of Al-Queda remaining in Afghanistan"(1). Many terrorists have used neighboring Pakistan as a safe harbor, as the United States will not pursue them into Pakistan(2). So while the troops have done great work, we aren’t quite as far as it might seem.
It appears as though we both agree with the president’s plan. I believe this conflict is a necessary evil that ought to be finished as soon as possible. I also agree with your attitude toward the president. It’s evident that he had lots of advisers working for a long time to come up with this(3). Unless he gives us a reason not to, as Dubya did, I am inclined to believe the leader of the free world, whose experience, information, and counsel far exceed my own.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
2: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/457rzpvh.asp
3: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/
I am responding to Jacob McNaughton's argument. I hope you're the one who goes by McYacub, and not Jacob Sandry. You laid our your post by presenting five key points from the initial Christian Science Moniter article. So, I'd like to respond to each point in turn. 1) You stated that a war that ends with the return of troops suggests a country that just wants the troops home and the war over as soon as possible. While I agree with you on the general dissatisfaction of the country, I think you overlook the benefits of a timetable. Speaking from personal experience, a timetable helps me to work quickly through my schedule, identifying what needs to be done and by when. In most cases, I actually finish faster by setting clear checkpoints for myself. I think the same is true for this situation, and a faster outcome would be preferable not only because of America's distaste for war but also because of our faltering economy, which you briefly touch on in your second point. 2) You said you weren't sure if the benefits of more troops would outweigh the costs. I think only time will tell, but I'm certain that more troops will make a huge difference. If this surge helps to stabilize Afghanistan, then it's obviously worth it. 3) You mentioned that the troops are being deployed at an accelerated pace, and that you supported this except if speed affected troops' security. I couldn't agree with you more. 4) You wrote about Hamid Karzai, the current President of Aghanistan. Apparently, he is being uncooperative with the United States. You said that democracy has trouble starting in such a turbulent country. I agree, but I will say that before we judge the true progress of democracy and Karzai, we should wait to see what happens in the troop surge. Perhaps our relationship with the new President will strengthen as the country becomes more and more peaceful. Also, most new governments falter in the early years--just look at our own, and the failure of the Articles of Confederation. We must allow Karzai and the new democracy time to establish itself. 5) Your last point was more of an observation about the size of the troop deployment being the middle ground. I appreciate that Obama chose this size, which is best because too few troops could put them in dangerk, but too many could be too costly or pointless. We can always send more if absolutely needed. Sadly, the link that you provided did not work, but I'm sure it was a very funny comic. As for your final opinion, supporting Obama's decision to send troops, I agree, though I'd question whether or not the Iraq surge was a success. Still, I think that I agree with most of your points and opinions.
Kayla:
I found it enjoyable to read your post. I thought you brought up some good points and i especially agree with you on the war dragging on and that it is good that we now have a more definitive agenda for ending the war. It was a hard decision to make and really Obama was in a position where the only decision he could make would be a hard one. I especially agree with you that a completely "peaceful solution" is unrealistic, despite how much I am sure everyone would like one. Mr. Obama's decision was definitely not a decision made "on the spur of a moment" as you said. I apologize for not having anything particular to contribute or disprove to your argument. Good job :)
In response to Jackie’s post, I personally don’t feel that we should be sending more troops to Afghanistan, but I do agree with you that it is necessary. Nobody wants to admit that war is the answer, but there isn’t much else of a choice. We’re there for a reason, but eventually when push comes to shove, the Afghanistan government needs to be able to handle their problems on their own. Problems that occur on our side however may not help us to achieve the goals we were hoping for. We’re definitely pushing our troops the farthest it seems they’re willing to go as far as morale goes. Morale has fallen among soldiers in Afghanistan, where troops are seeing record violence in the 8-year-old war, while those in Iraq show much improved mental health amid much lower violence, the Army said Friday [1]. However, I myself don’t fully agree with the war, but find myself slowly supporting it. Similarly many Democrats who opposed the war said they now understood the need for escalation, in some cases to the point of supporting it [2]. It’s not what I want, but I do support Obama’s decision and will continue to support him because it is necessary.
We are there for a reason, we have been from the start and I feel now is the time to finish the fight. I also feel that’s what Obama’s is doing by making the decision to send more troops will accomplish that. It was left to McChrystal to warn Congress not to expect a 1945-style unconditional surrender by the Taliban. But at another point, he defined the goal of the mission as "to prevent [the Taliban] from doing what they want to do," i.e., sweeping back to power in Kabul [3]. In conclusion, I may not be completely on board, but I do agree with Jackie that sending more troops is the right thing to do.
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33908828/ns/us_news-military/#storyContinued
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/politics/03poll.html?_r=1
[3] http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946990,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
In response to Tom Zimmer-
I agree with Tom almost completely. However, I find agreeing with people boring so I am now going to make 4 arguments about why he is wrong.
1. His ideas are formulated a bit like the colonialists- Britain and other colonialist countries messed up a lot of countries. India, most of the African countries and countries in Latin America were all controlled by colonial governments that often made the argument that they still had to fix the countries. That they had to make the country a better place even though their policies continued to hurt the people that they want to help. I think we can all agree that colonial practices are wrong and pretty much evil. Even though it may seem beneficial to continue to “help them out” Our policies are only making their situation worse. And I doubt that in 18 months we will be so much better than what they are now.
2. 18 months of war won’t create peace- Gates claims that any noticeable success will not become apparent for 2-3 years (1). 18 months won’t turn around 8 years of the destruction and the “rebuilding” of Afghanistan. Gates also refers to the idea that in 18 months it will just be reevaluation and a very gradual transition. So what does this mean? It means that the administration already is second guessing their 18 month deadline and this statement gives them the justification to stay for however long they want. Maybe 8 more years.
3. Its better to just cut our losses- At this point we should realize that we aren’t going to win the war. But this doesn’t mean that we have to completely lose the war. Though it may be impossible to walk out with dignity we don’t need to send 30,000 more people to their potential deaths. As the Arizona article says the troop numbers won’t really help the situation and will just tick off more people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the world at large.
4. Obama is just continuing the poor job that Bush started- What is the difference between the Bush Administrations policy and the one that Obama is implementing now? According to the Dissident Voice the only different thing between Obama’s and Bush’s policies is the person presenting it. “I don’t consider this an exit strategy, and I try to avoid using that term. I think … this is a transition … it will be the same kind of gradual, conditions-based transition—province by province, district by district—that we saw in Iraq.” That quote was from Secretary of Defense Gates, but it sounds like it could come from anyone in the Bush administration. We had 8 years of failed policies under the Bush administration and I was hoping that the current administration wouldn’t fall into the same hole.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120304681.html
(2) http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/12/obama-speak-and-the-new-york-times/
(3) http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/11/09/20091109cohen10.html
In response to Emily.
I believe that your conclusion to your thesis is correct that it is a necessary evil, like the dentist, however I think that you're wrong ing your analysis about why we shouldn't be there. The focus of your essay is about why war is inherently wrong and why it's pointless to engage. However, regardless of whether or not we engage is beside the point now. We already made the commitment to engage which means we need to finish what we've done. I don't believe the that Afghanistan is breeding terrorists that will attack the United States. However, they are a world producer of Opium,"Opium is one of the biggest problems facing this troubled country, because it is deeply woven into the fabric of daily life as well as into the economics of insurgency. Afghanistan supplies 93 percent of the world's opium, and it is one of the main sources of funding for the growing Taliban movement."1 as stated by this MSNBC article. This drug trade is a problem for the country in that it's really the only source of income. The United States must attempt to build up the economy that it ravaged with war. It's the responsibility of the occupying country to attempt to rebuild it, otherwise it might have kept it with the dictatorship of Saddam.
We also did the same thing against the Soviets. We gave the Taliban guns and ammunition to fight against the Soviets, but that was all that we got from them. 2. The lack of reconstruction of the country played a central role in the increased influence of the Taliban in the region. In a way we are at fault and we need to make amends.
You make the point of helping out our own country first, which is often a concerned voiced by the public, but this country is still much more capable of sustaining itself, and just because people don’t have jobs isn’t basis to disregard a country who’s government we’ve dismantled. The instability in the region and the human rights abuses that will likely occur as a result of a Taliban is justification enough for me to send more troops in there. Comparing the United States and Afghanistan is poor justification for neglecting the growing instability within the country.
Finally, one last point that I don’t hear voiced often are the human rights abuses going on. This is part of an article that I think is important. “A UN report accused the radical Islamic regime in Afghanistan Thursday of violating women's rights with "unabated severity," including mass abductions and forced prostitution…. UN rapporteur Kamal Hossain provided testimony about ethnic Hazara and Tajik women being rounded up in trucks and taken … to neighbouring Pakistan and the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar."Many suspect that women and girls end up forced into prostitution,"…. "women have been killed and maimed trying to escape from these trucks." These types of abuses are wrong and need to be put down. I think this is justification and needs to be embraced so that the country is in agreement that it’s necessary, not only that it’s a necessary evil, but necessary in order to stop evil.
Since coming to power, the Taliban has barred women from attending schools or working outside the home. Women can only appear in public hidden in head-to-toe robes.
1 MSNBC Without opium, Afghan village economy spirals http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32258924/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
2. SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTANhttp://www.guidetorussia.com/russia-afghanistan.asp
3. AN report flays Taliban rights violations against women in Afghanistan http://www.rawa.org/un-reprt.htm
In Response to Lauren,
I fundamentally agreed with your argument in that it is the United States’ job to help stabilize the country of Afghanistan after all of the devastation we have caused the country and the wreckage we have left them with. I thought your argument was very strong and while in my post I was a bit more reluctant to go with the idea (but knew it needed to be done), after reading your post I was fully convinced that Obama was right on track by choosing to send more troops. In addition to it being the right decision according to the president and his military advisors, the actual men and women that will be serving are overall more than ready to leave. It is reported that with their work in California that has like-climates, they are more prepared right now than most Marines have been in the past. (1)
Another reassurance that this decision will work out okay and not repeating past mistakes is that we have many people working with us to help us with our goal and improve the state of Afghanistan in a more efficient manner. Not only will it be United States troops fighting and stabilizing, but those troops will be assisted by Afghan troops that the United States has begun to train and will continue to do so during the time spent overseas. NATO will also be lending a hand in this effort not only in troops but also in more resources for this to go as smoothly as possible. (2)
While this decision is very solid and will most likely end in a positive light for the general well-being of all countries involved, two things which need to be considered is the current soldier death statistics in Afghanistan and the entry method the United States will use and the access it has. First, the number of deaths caused by combat in Afghanistan has almost doubled in the past year from 155 in 2008 to 305 in 2009 (and the year has yet to end.) (1) This is a bit worrisome to the American people especially those that will be sending out their loved ones over the next year. This may also frighten some of the troops that are being sent over. Finally, some thing that most people do not consider when going to war with other countries is the best method to enter and attack, or supervise that country. Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez states that many factors may delay the troops arriving in Afghanistan including weather, neighboring countries not allowing the United States to enter from their countries to Afghanistan as well as limited resources and the capacity to carry them. (3) In general, I believe Obama has made a sound decision however military advisors really need to examine the hurdles that will stand in the way of completing the Obama administration’s goal.
1. CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/15/camp.lejeune.marines/index.html?iref=allsearch
2. White House – http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/defense/afghanistan
3. New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15mullen.html?scp=2&sq=afghanistan&st=cse
In response to people who think we need to "help out our country first".
I think this argument is morally wrong. There are arguments being thrown around talking about stability in the region but I don't think any of us understand what's going on there. There isn't much discussion about some of the lesser known problems plaguing the region. I just want to show a little research I've done. The argument that we need to help out our own country is morally wrong as I've state because we don't have the same problems they have, and when we allowed, by invading and creating instability in the region it's our responsibility to stop it.
Here's what the Taliban does.
"With the women stripped of their burkas, it was a simple task for the Taliban invaders to cull the young beauties. Nafiza was one of them. Green-eyed, with raven-black hair that grazed her waist, Nafiza had rushed to help Shah Jan get her three kids out of the burning house. A Taliban fighter spotted the woman with the emerald eyes. She was his prize. With the butt of his AK-47 rifle, he slammed Nafiza into the dust and dragged her, crying and pleading, to the highway. There, Arabs and Pakistanis of al-Qaeda joined the Taliban to sort out the young women from the other villagers. One girl preferred suicide to slavery; she threw herself down a well. Nafiza and women from surrounding villages, numbering in the hundreds, were herded into trucks and buses. They were never seen again.
That passage was taken from an investigation into the Taliban’s practise of sex slavery and human trafficking by Time Magazine. The article goes on to describe what happened to these girls at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda: rape, forced marriage (rape for life), sex slavery in Pakistani brothels (other sources point to Gulf Arab brothels as well), domestic slavery in Pakistan, suicide, disownment by families, etc…?
Now this is probably my biggest argument why we should increase the troop surge. If we can promote stability and a non corrupt government and allow women the chance to go to school, to not be put in these positions. Then I think it's worth it. Because I find these accounts to be awful. Now maybe the numbers aren't there to support my claim. I haven't found out how many women are affected, however, i know this is normal practice under the Taliban regime. They're a patriarchal culture that justifies rape and murder and the oppression of women, these are things that cannot be allowed the the 21st century. The U.S. committed to having an influence in the region when we decided to invade, now it's time to finish and make a difference in these peoples lives.
There are some other reasons, Ali, and Alyssa's response about the Opium Trade are rather good and I recommend them for some non traditional reasons to go to Afghanistan. There are some other articles talking just about the oppression of women, and not necissarily the rape of women that are illuminating and sad. I hope everyone reevaluates their position and thinks about these women when considering their position on the war. Too often do we associate numbers with war, it's time to look at people and those affected, the voices who we cannot hear. Those are the people who we're sending the additional 30000 troops for.
I hope yall comment and tell me if I'm missing something or if my logic is faulty.
1.The Taliban, Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery
2. Lifting The Veil On Taliban Sex Slavery
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020218-201892,00.html
1 http://easterncampaign.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/the-taliban-human-trafficking-and-sex-slavery/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home