Last week in class, we watched the PBS Frontline documentary "Obama's War," which is about the current state of the Afghan war and the debate surrounding it. If you would like to watch it again, you can do so here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/
After watching the documentary, what do you think about the war? Do you think that, as President Obama says, it is a war of necessity, and that winning it is essential for U.S. national security? Or do you think the war is unnecessary or unwinnable, and that the U.S. should withdraw from the conflict? Or do you fall somewhere in the middle and believe either that, although the U.S. cannot simply abandon Afghanistan, war is not necessarily the answer to our problems there, or that the U.S. should pursue a different military strategy in the country?
In arguing your position, you might think about some of the issues raised in "Obama's War": Will the new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy be more successful than those of the past? Can the U.S. win over the Afghan people? Can Afghan governmental corruption be successfully dealt with? Will drones and Pakistani military support be enough to defeat the Taliban in Pakistan? How will the U.S. deal with Afghanistan's opium industry?
Your comment about the war should adhere to the following guidelines:
1. Your response to the “Obama’s War” documentary should be no less than 350 words in length, not including any quotations or links you provide in the course of your response.
2. Your audience for this response will be a general audience consisting of your peers in both sections of the Advanced Composition course I am teaching. Because your audience includes people you have and have not met, you should tailor your writing to a general audience, striking a tone that is serious, civil, and relatively formal, meaning you should check your grammar, spelling, tone, persona, etc. before posting.
3. In responding to “Obama’s War,” you should express your opinion on the continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Then, support your opinion with convincing evidence and reasoning so that you might potentially persuade others to agree with you.
4. Because your audience may not be experts on the war, you should support your argument about the conflict by drawing on information from the documentary and at least two news articles or editorials found in online publications intended for general audiences. Specifically, you should use information gleaned from legitimate news sources, such as nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, mcclatchydc.com, reuters.com, guardian.co.uk, wsj.com, latimes.com, csmonitor.com, and other online newspapers. These news articles and editorials must be from 2009 or later to ensure that the information is timely and relevant.
5. When quoting or using information from these two secondary sources, you must provide links to the articles online. Format your links like this:
According to the New York Times, the Taliban are using the opium trade to fund their military operations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
Project III is due by 11:59pm on March 18th and should be emailed to me in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx) at jtonyan@uark.edu. In addition, you must post your response to the documentary online in the comments section of this blog post by the same time. Project III is worth 15% of your final grade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
The United States has been fighting a war in Afghanistan against the insurgents trying to overthrow the government for eight years. Overall, not much progress has been made. I believe that the war is unwinnable and that the United States should withdraw because we do not have enough troops to win and the government is starting to lose support from the American people, and because the time and money we are spending on the war could be used to help our country instead of a country overseas.
First of all, the United States does have enough troops in Afghanistan to win the war. President Obama wants to send as many as 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan as requested by the military, but this will not help us win the war. As George McGovern, a former U.S. Senator, states in the Washington Post, “adding more U.S. forces will fuel the Taliban further.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Also, the United States government is steadily losing support from the American citizens. The reasons that the United States are in Afghanistan to begin with are not clear, and a large number of the American people do not agree with the war because of this. Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post talks about the reason that the U.S. people are not willing to send more troops over to Afghanistan because “it would be wrong to demand such sacrifice in the absence of military goals that are clear, achievable, and worthwhile.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209823.html).
Besides the fact that we cannot afford to send more troops, we also cannot afford it financially. The United States is in the middle of a huge economic recession, so we should not be sending money to a country that does not want our help. There are many problems going on inside the United States borders that need our government’s attention more than an unnecessary war that seems to have no end. As George McGovern states in his article, “we can divert the vast sums being spent [in Afghanistan and Iraq] to revitalizing our own nation.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1).
People who are for the war in Afghanistan argue that the United States needs to be fighting the war to keep the United States safe from terrorism. I do not agree with this because us just being in the Middle East makes the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan hate us; therefore, they are more likely to plan terrorist attacks on us. The people of Afghanistan simply want to be left alone to rule the country by themselves, so the United States should not be involved in a war trying to help where they are not wanted.
-Kendra Meadors
Obama’s war with Afghanistan is an extremely controversial issue among Americans. I think that Obama is administrating the best course of action by implementing a counterinsurgency strategy to bring stability to this war-torn nation. I feel like we should continue this war and reestablish the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan until they are stabilized and do not allow corruption. The United States has been in this war since October 29, 2001, why should our military forces stop now? Trillions of dollars have been spent throughout this eight and a half year period. If the war is forfeited then all of that money would be wasted. In addition, if Americans decide to forfeit this war, we could have another encounter with Al Qaida as we did with the explosions on September 11th.
First, we must continue the counterinsurgency strategy that Obama has created, which consists of building a relationship with the locals in Afghanistan. In “Obama’s War,” officials stated that their mission is not to kill every Taliban; instead, they are trying to build a relationship with the population and protect them from the Taliban (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). If the military can connect with the population and separate them from the Taliban, then they will understand that the United States is not trying to harm Afghanistan’s people. If this strategy is successful, their population will turn to the American side, forcing the Taliban to stop conflict between our countries.
Second, the Afghanistan government supports corruption in just about every level of the political economy; therefore, we must continue this war to keep security in our own nation. Afghanistan’s leader, President Karzai, does not want to have a just government. According to “Obama’s war,” he has rehabilitated people who support brutality, torture, and heroin trafficking to support their country. In Afghanistan, “corruption is the rule, not the exception” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). To avoid terrorism in the United States again, it is our duty to emphasize that a non-corruptive government needs to be established. A non-corrupt type of government would benefit their country as well. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Obama’s plan entails “a bold assumption that Afghans can start to better stand up to the Taliban – through a quadrupling of their Army and a campaign against corruption” (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2009/1202/p08s05-comv.html). It is crucial for Americans to understand that there is not a different strategy Obama could come up with that would allow us to win this war. Andrew Bacevich stated in “Obama’s War,” that all different counterinsurgency strategies have been thought up by many different officials in the United States; however, this is the only one that will bring us to victory and keep security in our nation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar).
I feel that supporting our troops in Afghanistan is very important. If we stick to Obama’s strategy and help with their corrupt government, it will lead us to have national security again in this country. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Republicans warned that a precipitous withdrawal would be a serious mistake, allowing the Taliban to regain power and assuring that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would again have a staging ground to launch attacks against the U.S. and the West” (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-afghanistan-vote,0,5930904.story).
Kaylin Minihan
The war in Afghanistan has been going on since 2001. We are nearing 1000 of our soldiers killed after almost nine years of them being there. In 2009, Obama committed approximately 30,000 more troops in addition to those already there. This war and the additional troops that are being added are necessary to keep not only the United States safe from terrorists, but also the rest of the world.
Evidence has shown that the Taliban in Afghanistan have had relations with Al Qaeda. Seth Jones, in his Playing Russian Roulette In Afghanistan, says, “The Al Qaeda-Taliban relationship has deep historical roots going back to the personal links that Mullah Mohammad Omar developed with Usama bin Laden in the 1990s” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). Southern Afghanistan, the area in which the province of Helmand lies, is considered by the Taliban as their heartland. It’s an area in which our forces have swept through, but never held. This is one of the main areas of focus for our new plan in Afghanistan. We want to take and hold this area in order to deprive the Taliban from continuing to thrive as a governing force there. By doing this we also disrupt the Al Qaeda operatives, keeping them from setting up safe havens and creating more networks of communication. It is essential to our nation’s security to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
We currently employ the use of unmanned drones for surveillance and attacks on targets. Currently these drones are being used extensively in Pakistan to hit targets where our troops are not allowed to go. They have been used with much success there. An example of this reported by CNN says, “Several suspected U.S. drone strikes killed at least 29 people in Pakistan….. One of the strikes targeted Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, a group based in Pakistan that targets U.S. forces and their allies in neighboring Afghanistan,” (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/02/pakistan.drone.strike/index.html?iref=allsearch). Many believe that we should pull out of Afghanistan, and solely use these drones to attack. Drones are able to covertly attack designated targets or targets of opportunity; however, they can not control an area of land. This allows militants and those that would be considered targets for the drones to still have a commanding presence in an area. This means that the drones are only short term solutions for our counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency plans. They will not have much of an impact if used as our only means of attacking.
Many argue that our current counter-insurgency plan is farfetched in that it calls for our troops to win the trust of the people of Afghanistan, and that our soldiers are trained for war not diplomacy. It is true that soldiers are trained in the art of war, but in the same way they can be trained in diplomacy. They are also human. This gives them the capacity for compassion and reason to understand what is needed to achieve the trust of the people.
The war in Afghanistan is needed for the security of our nation and the world. It is also to secure Afghanistan for its people. This idea is shared by the commanding officer for our troops in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. In his interview for the documentary Obama’s War, he says, “I think clearly, if we go back to 9/11, the fact that there were safe havens here. But I would also say that the stability of Afghanistan is important to the world. It's not an unimportant place. It's not an off-the-beaten-track poor country that we can ignore. I think it's a place that has a critical role in stability in the world. And then finally, the Afghan people matter. There are somewhere between 24 and 32 million Afghan people. They deserve a chance at a future. They need some help right now, and I think that that alone is a powerful reason that makes it worth it” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/interviews/mcchrystal.html#2). It is a necessary war.
-Tyler Allgood
After almost nine grueling years and over three hundred billion dollars later, the on-going war in Afghanistan still has no sign of any finish line. Although President Obama has promised a date to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan, July 2011 only marks the initiation of the withdrawal process, not the end.
Since President Obama has been sworn in to office, the war in Afghanistan has been an ever-present topic on his desk. The duration of the war, and the financial expenses associated with the war, have brought forth questions pertaining to the effectiveness of the U.S.’ involvement in the Middle East. Essentially, the highly debated question, is should the United States continue to reside and fight in Afghanistan or should the U.S. bring the war to close and cut all ties? In short, despite the war costing billions of tax dollars, civilian casualty statistics continue to rise during the U.S’s occupation of Afghanistan, validating a realistic reason to withdraw from the troops from the country.
For any other country, spending billions, possibly trillions, of tax dollars during an economic recession would be deemed ludicrous. With economic debt continuing to skyrocket, the war in Afghanistan has cost the United States more than three hundred billion dollars since 2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-02-war-costs_N. htm). Since President Obama has decided to deploy another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the financial repercussions of his decision could reach 30 billion dollars alone. According to Richard Wolf of USAToday, since 2005 the annual cost for one service member of the United States to be in Afghanistan averaged to over 1.1 million dollars (http://www.usatoday.com/ news/washington/2009-12-02-war-costs_N.htm). That’s not the military as a whole; that is one single service member of the United States armed forces.
Homeland security is a very important thing for our nation. Undoubtedly, it should be at the forefront of diplomacy. There are no doubts that the terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks is associated with Afghanistan and its land. In contention to this idolized argument, how much should this security cost? Are the arduous years spent and billions of tax dollars spent realistically providing our country with more security? In retrospect it seems that if a terrorist group was being pressured, they would just move to another neighboring country, such as Pakistan. The war is only relocating potential threats to the United States’s security and spreading those threats to other countries in the region.
In addition, the Afghani government has stressed, many times, the importance of limiting civilian casualties during military action. Although this cornerstone is an emphasized mark in the insurgency campaign, according to the United Nations the civilian casualties rate continue to rise per year (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31636&Cr=afghan&Cr1= civilian). A source from Wikipedia adds, “According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database, Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing, between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Civilian_casualties_ of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present). The United States Special Forces has been directly responsible for a large percentage of the civilian casualties. According to the New York Times, there is such a strong correlation between Special Ops action and civilian casualties, General Stanley A. McChrystal has taken over direct control of the American Special Operations forces (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/world/asia/.html? pagewanted=1&hp).
(continued in next post)
- Taylor Friesenhahn
(last post continued)
If the civilian casualty rates continue to rise, one has to wonder if the “good” being done outweigh the “bad” going on. Is the United States making such a positive impact on the Afghan people, government, and homeland security that it can justify innocent people dying? One might argue that civilian casualties are unjustly a part of modern-day warfare. History has shown us that war generally does bring unpredicted deaths. This may be so but if those numbers keep rising, is there some sort of exception to the acceptance of a growing number of innocent people dying? Again, the spotlight is shone upon the idea of homeland security. These innocent people did not ask for war to be brought to their doorstep. The war maybe “protecting” homeland security but it is also affecting a way of life for an entire country.
In conclusion, with all things considered, both positive and negative, the United States should withdraw their services from Afghanistan. The United States needs to reassess the funds and tactics driving the war in Afghanistan forward. The total cost of the war should be examined closely along with the positive and negative impact that the war has had in the country of Afghanistan. Civilian casualties are still civilians, innocent people, dying and should not be considered a “sidenote” of war. The years of occupation have rendered additional financial debt and countless innocent people dead, with little diplomatic progress to show.
- Taylor Friesenhahn
For the past eight years the United States has been fighting a war alongside other NATO countries against Afghanistan and its insurgents. Since this war began we have made some progress, but not a great deal of it. I believe that if we stick with Barack Obama’s plan, we will make huge progress, and even succeed in winning and ultimately ending this war. This war is justifiable, and I think we should continue in it until our military has reached its goal. The common people of Afghanistan need our help, and it needs to come in the form of troops, not just drones. Continuing this war is what is best for our own country, Afghanistan, and even the rest of the world.
First, this war is completely reasonable. On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda extremists attacked our country and killed thousands of people, in an attempt to weaken our nation. We cannot let this happen again. Al-Qaeda needs to be wiped out, and stopped. In Afghanistan corruption is the rule, not the exception ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). We need to change this to where corruption does not even exist. Also, Al-Qaeda has substantially hurt the Afghan government. Afghanistan needs a democratic government to be able to stand on its own two feet again, and they cannot accomplish that by themselves. One of our main goals in this war is to help Afghanistan improve its government (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/), and I think we will succeed.
Second, Obama’s plan to send more troops is vital in our victory. As the Monitor's Editorial Board states when talking about how we can win this war: “to do so first requires gaining territory – thus the surge – while winning the loyalty of more Afghans with massive civilian aid” (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2009/1202/p08s05-comv.html). Our troops are trying to connect with the Afghan people, and this is very important. They need to trust that we are there to help them, and that we are doing our best to protect them from the extremists living in their country. As Seth Jones said when talking about the US strategy: “This should include an increase in American forces which are used to build the Afghan police and army”(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). We need to help them be able to stand on their own. Also, troops are more effective than drones because troops can connect with the people. They can also clear and hold territory, unlike drones (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/).
Finally, winning this war is important for not only our country, but for the rest of the world. When we succeed, Americans will be able to stop worrying about more attacks from Al-Qaeda. Also, winning this war will mean preventing a Taliban takeover, which means preventing them from getting their hands on nuclear weapons which could destroy huge parts of the world (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2009/1202/p08s05-comv.html).
I am completely for the troop surge, and for continuing this war. We cannot afford to just leave without finishing our tasks. We owe it to ourselves and the Afghan people to finish this war.
--Bethany Greiving
Currently, the United States is fighting for a worthy cause in Afghanistan yet has unclear goals, leading to a vague sense of our mission there and how victory is defined. According to the documentary presented, the United States’s mission involves protecting and connecting with the Afghan people in order to usurp the Taliban’s grip over vast portions of the country. However, this goal seems futile as the “Taliban has been able to move in as a lesser-of-two-evils alternative” as compared to the inefficient and corrupt government (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209823.html). It seems that the U.S’s ability to emerge victorious has been hindered not by its own lack of fighting prowess, but lack of political pressure on the current Afghan government to function effectively. For example, the opium trade in Afghanistan is currently thriving, which provides monetary support for the Taliban. Now “the Obama administration is deploying what it calls a ‘whole-of-government approach’ to rebuild Afghanistan's agricultural economy around legal crops and efficient design”, however; it seems that this approach is too little, too late
( http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/12/82165/us-turns-to-afghan-farmers-to.html). Only after eight years of war has the United States sought to eliminate a fundamental source of logistical support for the Taliban. Instead, the U.S. has focused on territory control, neglecting the widespread structural change in government that would render the Taliban ineffective. Overall, the current focus on the individual Afghan has reduced the potential for a change in the status quo. While the U.S. may currently be pursuing an ineffective strategy to achieve victory, the current conflict is worthy of military application.
This war serves as an important front in the fight against terror as there is a “close relationship between Al Qaeda and Afghan insurgent groups”
( http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). By forfeiting any gains that have been made during the conflict, the U.S. would project a weak and indecisive will to succeed, further encouraging not only the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but other terrorist groups that may lie in waiting to make their mark. Also, the U.S. would leave the Afghan people in a compromising position as many of their civil rights are being threatened by the Taliban, especially women’s rights (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35885617/ns/world_news-washington_post/). This would further instill a sense of Western distrust in the minds’ of many Afghans, causing any future fight against terror to be increasingly difficult. In fact, by allowing failure in Afghanistan, many of the U.S.’s allies in other regions of the world would likely lose confidence in the U.S.’s military ability, and would favor U.S. rivals such as China. Therefore, victory in Afghanistan is a military necessity in order to preserve the U.S.’s ability to influence the Middle East and maintain current diplomatic relations.
In order for military application to enact progressive change, a strategy promoting the improvement of the Afghan government must be implemented. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, there is concern regarding the “corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance, absence of the rule of law” in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8357689.stm). These systemic problems must be corrected utilizing widespread reforms in order to create a self sustaining government. By approaching the situation from a top-down perspective, it will be possible to obtain lasting results for the Afghan people.
-James Burnett
I think it is good idea to communicate and get involved with the citizens in Afghanistan, like the Marines where doing by foot patrol in the movie “Obama’s War”. The citizens of Afghanistan are scared of the Taliban. The only way to drive out the Taliban is for the citizens to take a stand against them. The military can help them, but cannot solve the problem without the cooperation of the citizens.
Captain Eric Meador (Commander of Echo Company) said in an interview on the documentary “Obama’s War”, “You have to be with the population and close to them so that you can work with them.” Echo Company was stationed by a market. The Taliban told the citizens to shop at a different market, away from the Marines causing most of the people who normally used the market where Echo Company was located, traveled to other markets according to the documentary. The Taliban has a great influence over the population, due to many reasons. The most direct is in the form of death threats.
Another reason the population is influenced by the Taliban is pay. According to the documentary the Taliban profits off of the opium trade, about 100 million dollars in 2008. The Taliban in turn pays the people to grow the poppy plants used in making the drugs. The payment from the poppy cultivation can’t be matched by other work. Captain Eric Meador tells in his interview, of a question asked to him by Afghan farmers. “What are you going to do about my drugs? That’s how I make a living, that’s how I feed my family.” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “You’ve got drug dealers, you’ve got criminals, obviously you’ve got extremist. All of whom are surviving off of this poppy production and in fact both paying and intimidating the farmers.” Taking action against the drug market will lead to the end of the main income of the people in the Helmand Valley. I don’t think this fight is going to end.
From the goals and objectives mentioned by the people in charge of the U.S. military, success comes from getting the people and the Afghan government to become independent of the Taliban. The people need a way to earn a living independent of the Taliban. This is where I can’t see a solution, and there for don’t see an end of the fight. Even if the Taliban is driven out the government of Afghanistan is said to be corrupt, one example is rigging elections. This was taken from the Washington Post: “Indeed, Razziq, who has also been accused of stuffing ballot boxes for President Hamid Karzai in last summer's (2008) election” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902500.html?sid=ST2010031103491). I like this plan because it is not as invasive as it could be. The military is letting them do as they please, as long as no one gets into the Afghan governments money.
The military is not there to fight drugs. I agree with the fact that Marines are getting involved with the population, and I think they should stay in Afghanistan. This keeps the U.S. informed and in tune with the Taliban, which is a dangerous group that likes to blow people up. Afghanistan is a good place to be based to fight the all the Taliban groups including the group located in Pakistan, which is linked to Al-Qaeda, according to Fox news “The Al Qaeda threat comes from Pakistan…” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/).
--Jonathan Martin
In my opinion I would have to reside somewhere in the middle that winning this war is essential to our national security but I also believe that it is unwinnable. After September 11, 2001, I can see our intentions in going to war in Afghanistan. We felt threatened and we felt the need to strike back. In the documentary “Obama’s War” it put it in better perspective for me about the war and what is really going on now. I was 12 when the bombing of the twin towers happened, going to war didn’t matter to me then as much as it does now. Clearly what we have been doing over there hasn’t worked and the new counterinsurgency doesn’t seem to be working either if we have to continue to send more troops to the war.
According to Seth Jones in Playing Russian Roulette In Afghanistan the close relationship between Al Qaeda and Afghan insurgent groups, which make the prospect of a Taliban victory in Afghanistan perilous for America’s national interest. It would mean playing Russian roulette with U.S security (http://www.foxnew.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). This is true in a sense that no one really knows what is going to happen to our national security. I don’t think that it is necessary to be at war over this case. When 9/11 happened many Americans wanted to strike back immediately because we felt threatened that another attack would happen, little did we know we would be at war for 9 years. Now it seems like we are caught up in a mess that is impossible to get out of. After 9 years it doesn’t look like we are getting out of this war anytime soon. Since 2001 we have been at war but how far have we got? We have been trying to make some headway since 2001 and it seems like we haven’t made a very big impact. Therefore, I think that we need to take action elsewhere and stop putting our American troops in harms way. We need to pull our troops out of the war. There are too many Americans who have died in this war, but what did they die for? Was their death worth it? Our government needs to ask themselves these questions. We need to keep our own interest safe before we try to protect other interest.
If we are as powerful of a country politically as we say we are than we need to show it. Instead of pulling out our guns and trying to make things the way we want them to be. I believe that we are putting fuel to the fire in this war. According to The Editorial Staff of the New Statesman, we are losing the war and we should make a political action instead (http://www.newstaesman.com/print/20090813001). I agree that we haven’t made any headway with our military so we need to try elsewhere. There was already a war going on before we got into it. America does not need to try to fix everyone else. Instead its time to focus on what is happening in our great country now.
-Tori Manning
The war in Afghanistan has lagged on for almost nine years with no end in sight. I strongly disagree with the war, and think we need to pull out our troops as soon as possible. I have personally opposed the war since 2001 when we first enter with Bush as our president; along with that, I feel I was mislead into voting for Obama because he clearly stated he was against the war as well. Obama has seriously let us down as a nation by sending more troops across sea. From the beginning I knew this war would become just like Vietnam, no hope only lives lost and money drained. Some people would agree with Obama’s decision to send more troops so that more land control will be possible, however I know it is impossible to fulfill our American dreams of the counterinsurgency. Besides, [Greentree] said, American efforts to arrest government officials could be destabilizing and -- considering the malleable state of the Afghan justice system -- a waste of time. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902500.html?sid=ST2010031103491.)
Afghanistan is a very corrupt nation and it needs to be run down by the Taliban so they can form new government without our control. Majority of the leaders helping us across seas are also smuggling in opium and using our troops as secret protection. Also majority of the leaders that we are giving financial aid to are using our funds for personal gains and not helping build up there already corrupt government. In a column for the Washington Post, Joshua Partlow points out the corruption, “According to evidence collected through wiretaps and bank records, Sayfullah [senior border police official in Kandahar] allegedly collected salaries of hundreds of "ghost" policemen and stole money from a government fund intended to pay orphans and widows” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902500.html?sid=ST2010031103491.)
The war we are in directly parallels the Vietnam War of the 1970s. As an educated American student I know, and it is common knowledge for many, that history repeats itself. This phrase alone has been beaten into my brain that I knew from the first thoughts of war nine years ago it would most definitely be a repeat from over 30 years ago. The war we are in today is about fight the insurgency (Taliban); in addition to bringing together the citizens who survive and the corrupt government to fix and rebuild Afghanistan as a strong independent and democratic nation. George McGovern, a US senator and presidential nominee during Vietnam said in a Washington Post article, “Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all believed that the best way to save the government in Saigon and defeat Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Cong insurgents was to send in U.S. troops. But the insurgency only grew stronger, even after we had more than 500,000 troops fighting and dying in Vietnam” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). If this doesn’t sound just like the war we are in right now I don’t know what will…
If we carry this on any longer we will just be made to look like fools. America is said to have the best army, the best intelligence, and the best soldiers; why are we just killing these amazing men and women off…? We need to be saving these soldiers for important wars not this hopeless counterinsurgency. The Taliban will just move to another country, they are nomadic creatures that know their desert just as the Vietcong knew the rainforest. We are just asking for trouble being there. The communist never came and got us after Vietnam, so why are we so worried about the terrorist, I believe we can take them on if they come to our soil.
Chelsea Byrne
The Afghan war has been recorded as the longest in our country’s history. This bothers me in many ways, mainly for the reason that it seems to have no end in sight while there is a continued downpour of resources being used to fund this war. Our military resources are being used to try and flush out any groups in association with the Al-Qaeda, and to rebuild the Afghan government to what it was once this began. These are very good reasons to have a war, but with the money, lives, and time being put into the crosshairs there are far more effective ways to handle the situation. From my point of view, I really don’t see a very convincing reason for going to war in the first place. There was reason for addressing the terrorist attacks on the United States, but after nine years of the original battle evolving with both sides still standing ground; it may be time to reconsider the strategy. I can see why we just cannot up and leave the area, but we should at least reconsider our strategy to speed up the development of the Afghan government.
First, we should try to use better military tactics when addressing the issue that is at hand. I can see that there are going to be new strategies put in place to try and gain the upper hand on the opposing sources. As stated by Gen. David Petraeus, “the U.S. has killed boatloads of bad guys in Afghanistan…You don't just kill and capture your way out. Recent strategy shifts emphasize limiting the loss of civilian lives… helping the U.S. strengthen its relationship with Afghans.”I am happy that there are new strategies that allow for a little less direct confrontation with the Al-Qaeda. This could help us destroy their resources from the inside out if we are to succeed with the tactic. I definitely think the war could be over significantly quicker if we try and strengthen the Afghan people and government.
Second, with all of the constant resources being put into the war that could be used elsewhere surely brings down the morale of troops and civilians of the United States. George McGovern states, “Why do we send young Americans to risk life and limb on behalf of such worthless regimes? The administration says we need to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.” But the major al-Qaeda forces are in Pakistan. ” There is this issue of giving our enemy a certain geographical and physical presence that would give us a clear objective as to who and where our target is. McGovern also goes into detail about how the Taliban also poses a threat to the government that we are trying to rebuild. This gives us another presence that we have to monitor.
In conclusion, with the constant attacks from the Al-Qaeda there is a need for soldiers and resources to complete this war. With a tireless opponent, there can be no days off with the war that our country has been involved in for nine years. I do believe that there is a faster way possible to end a war that just surpassed the Vietnam War as the longest in our history. With the many resources and brilliant minds we have on display in this country there has to be a more efficient way to help get the Middle East a more promising future without as much time, resources, and lives being used.
-Xavier Scaife
After watching the PBS Frontline documentary, “Obama’s War”, I felt much more informed about the current situation in Afghanistan. I really have not paid much attention to the war. This is not because of a lack of concern on my part, but most likely because I am wrapped up in my own everyday stresses and problems. After doing more research I have come to the conclusion that this war in Afghanistan is a perpetual war that cannot be won. I think a date should be set to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
The counterinsurgency strategy, which involves creating a legitimate government and winning over the people of Afghanistan, was what I witnessed while watching the “Obama’s War” documentary. This strategy does not seem to be working. According to “Obama’s War,” the President of Afghanistan is not taking on the corruption of the government, “corruption is the rule”. The corruption is seen on every level of the government and economy. In an editorial for the Washington Post, former U.S. senator George McGovern stated “the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). McGovern is relating the current war in Afghanistan to the Vietnam War. In addition, these Marines are out there continuously frustrated with the Afghan people, when the goal is to win them over. The Marines seem to be having trouble connecting with the Afghan people. The counterinsurgency strategy is also an attempt to humanize the soldiers and make them less scary to the citizens of Afghanistan, but I do not feel that this attempt is working.
The stress and pressure that this war has put on soldiers and their families will only worsen if we continue to fight in Afghanistan. According to “Obama’s War”, General Stanley McChrystal, who was chosen by the President to lead U.S. forces in Afghanistan, stated that there is a need for up to 40,000 more soldiers in Afghanistan. In an editorial in the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson mentioned that “our all-volunteer armed forces have been at war for eight years with no end in sight, serving tours of duty of up to 15 months in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many units have been called to serve multiple tours.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR200111209823.html). This hits home for me because a good friend of mine, who is a marine, has been called in for multiple tours in Afghanistan. There does not seem to be enough clarity in the purpose of this war in Afghanistan to be risking the lives of these soldiers. Robinson went on to point out that “The suicide rate in the armed forces has climbed steadily, as has the incidence of stress disorders among veterans”. Even after these men and women are home safe, they are still at risk from the traumatic stress they have been undergoing throughout the previous months. I do not think risking young peoples’ lives is worth trying to overcome the insurgents and corrupt government in Afghanistan.
The argument that we should continue this war in Afghanistan because the country is a threat to America is not sound. This claim is that we should continue the counterinsurgency campaign and increase American troops. This is because of the thought that the Taliban is just as much of a threat to our nation as Al-Qaeda. I refute this argument by saying that the Taliban is only posing a threat to the Afghan government and not to the U.S. The government in Afghanistan is such a corrupt entity that we have no way of knowing if that will ever change. It is our job to protect our country, and continuing to fight in Afghanistan is not necessary to accomplish this task.
Alison Hoffmann
The United States now faces the decision of which move to make next in either continuing the war or withdrawing from the war. Both of these decisions have been carefully and highly debated within our government and also throughout our country. Our purpose of war is “to protect the people, not to kill and hunt the Taliban” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). In order to accomplish this purpose, the United States has implemented a counterinsurgency strategy. The strategy allows us to move into the empty territories, and form a relationship with their people. This strategy is sometimes easier said than done. However, I personally feel that, as a United States citizen, it is my duty to support our country. By doing so I will support the troops who volunteer to fight for our country and believe we should continue fighting in Afghanistan.
A concern that seems to be popping up everywhere is the cost of war; however, the cost of war is necessary. President Obama planned for more funding in March 2009. As stated in the Washington Post, “President Obama’s new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy will require significantly higher levels of U.S. funding for both countries … currently about $2 billion a month, increasing by about 60 percent this year” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032602135.html?hpid=topnews). These numbers seem high, and they are. The increase in cost will come from the taxpayers throughout America. The fighting has been going on since the al Qaeda attack on September 11, 2001. It would not be reasonable but wasteful to withdraw at this point. The money that has been circulating to support our country and our troops would be totally wasted if we were to suddenly pull out because we are not winning the war. (continued, RG)
Our troops are working towards protecting the civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I believe they should be. Protection includes a very broad spectrum of issues – one in particular, the opium crop. In Helmand, there is a large supply of opium poppies. Opium can be converted to heroine – an illegal drug that is easily smuggled. With this opium production comes farmers, drug dealers, criminals, and corrupt government officials. According to “Obama’s War,” “the Taliban gains nearly $100 million from the production of the opium crop in Helmand” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). To end this corruption is not a top priority for the United States. However, if we can fix this problem, we are one step closer to setting up a just government for the Afghan-Pakistani citizens.
The United States can mend the corrupted government by challenging the political control of their country. For example, Karzai has “… given the worst reputation to the Afghan government. In Afghanistan, corruption is the rule, not the exception” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). A numerous amount of U.S. forces must be used in order to help correct the corruption of the Afghan government. President Obama decided to add 30,000 more soldiers to the 70,000 Americans who are already serving. Despite large numbers of soldiers and casualties, one must realize that our troops take pride in what they do. And what they do is volunteer to protect America and what she represents. Nevertheless, I stand alongside Obama: “All of our men and women in uniform … must know that they have our respect, gratitude, and our full support” (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572&page=3). With our strong military and the people’s support, the U.S. can pressure the Afghan government to clean up its act by either continuing to fight or allowing the Taliban to overthrow their corrupt leaders.
In conclusion, we are a nation that is still at war. Withdrawing from war would cause America’s pride and national security to fall. We would be giving al Qaeda territory to continue training for warfare against America and other nations. America would then be a vulnerable nation, and our national threat levels would be elevated. As humans, we want to succeed. We must be realistic. We must know that success comes with accomplishing goals, and those goals have yet to be accomplished. Correction can take place, but consistency is key. If we work for a better tomorrow, then every tomorrow has hopes of being better. President Obama said it best in his State of the Union address: “Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world” (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572&page=3
Rachel Gibbons
(blog post would not fit into one post)
After viewing “Obama’s War” which was put on by PBS, I believe the involvement and continuance of the United States in the war against the Taliban is very needed for our country and should be carried out until the end. Once our country stepped a foot into the situation, we should never back out, finish what we have started. The Taliban should be taken down for good. There are five good reasons on why Obama’s Afghanistan plan should work. If we implement the usage of more troops into Afghanistan, then we should be able to aid the local people of Afghanistan and gain their loyalty so they understand we are there to help them from the Taliban. We need the extra troops badly so we can continue our surge in the country and the overtaking of the Taliban. Based on the documentary, American troops look past the production and growth of heroine poppy in Afghanistan, and I feel like that should not be overlooked. Based on last year’s election when Hamid Karzai defeated Abdullah Abdullah, his main running mates and supporters were linked to drug trafficking. That shows that the Afghanistan government is corrupt all the way down to the local authorities. According to the Washington Post, a commander of the Afghan police border offered the US prime land on the Pakistan border (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902500.html). That same man is also believed to be earning tens of millions of dollars from trafficking opium and extorting cargo trucks. That seems like it is some sort of a set up by him to get the US in a very bad position along the border. Hamid Karzai was believed to be intimidating voters from his partisans and along with ballot box stuffing based on an article by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082300411.html). Mr. Abdullah has filed more than 100 complaints toward such allegations. I feel like the government will not follow through with actions because of such a corrupt government. The main issue that stands in my opinion is action needs to be taken towards the corruption of the government before anything else needs to happen. The help of the Afghan forces will increase if the government was not so corrupt, which needs to happen for the Afghan people to stand there own ground against the Taliban. For all of which to take place it takes place on our soldiers with getting rid of the heroine and opium trafficking instead of just passing on the plants when walking on foot through Afghanistan.
Cody Mathews
The ongoing war in Afghanistan raises many different questions for Americans. Are we going to win this war? How many more troops will we send to Afghanistan? Do we have the resources to continue this war? These questions are just a few that occupy the minds of Americans every day. The argument whether to end this war and pull troops out of Afghanistan or to keep adding troops and continuing the war is a bit of a slippery slope. When it comes down to it, we must look at what is best for our country right now. After years of fighting this war, it is time we pull our troops out before we dig ourselves into an even deeper hole.
According to an excerpt from The Editorial Staff of the New Statesman, the author quotes Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, saying “Our troops are in Afghanistan to keep our country safe from the threat of terrorism…To prevent al-Qaeda having a secure base from which to threaten us directly”(http://www.newstateman.com/print/200908130001). While this may seem a good reason to stop the threat of terrorism, it will in fact make things worse. The 30,000 additional troops ordered by President Obama could actually fuel the Taliban and perpetuate Islamic terrorism. As our increasing number of troops enter Afghanistan, this brings a sense of threat to the Taliban, making them more prone to terroristic action. Occupying Afghanistan gives the Taliban a reason to exploit their power, and push American troops out of their country. In addition, the need to use military forces to deny al-Qaeda a secure base is unnecessary. These forces were not needed in neighboring countries, such as Pakistan, so why would they be needed in Afghanistan?
Not only are the additional troops fueling terroristic threat and action, but they are also contributing to the massive debt facing our country. In a time of deep recession, we have to ask ourselves this: Can we really afford to wage this war? In a column for the Washington Post, George McGovern, former U.S. senator explains, “With a $12 trillion debt and a serious economic recession, this is not a time for unnecessary wars abroad” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). McGovern is right; we can no longer afford a war that is sending us into even deeper economic struggle. We must also take into account how much it costs our country to send troops to Afghanistan. In the PBS documentary “Obama’s war,” an interview with Lt. Col. John Nagl states “by classic counterinsurgency measures, success in Afghanistan would require 600,000 counterinsurgents” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). This would require a tremendous amount of expenses to fund this war. It is obvious that we do not acquire these resources right now.
Although Rammell stated that Afghanistan needs our presence to prevent terrorism, this is not the case. It is time for American troops to pull out of the war before our country perpetuates severe terrorism. The overwhelming number of troops is a threat to al-Qaeda and only makes them ready to use terroristic action if needed. In addition, the fact that we need 600,000 troops in Afghanistan to win this war is more than we can afford. We need to realize that this war is only straining our country economically, and not accomplishing the original intention.
-Mallory McSpadden
The United States have been at war for almost 10 years and how much progress has been made? When we went to war in the beginning it was because of the September 11th attacks. Over time the reason has developed into putting back together the government that “we” tore apart. This has come to be the “longest war in history with no sight of the end,” a war that some believe is already lost. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/)
The United States are continuing the stay in Afghanistan to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban because the original strategy was to tear apart the government that they had, which in turn tore apart the small military they had. The people now have no protection unless it is from the U.S military, and they are scared to trust the U.S. military because the Taliban are still killing people and heavily attacking the U.S. troops. Although, the attacks occur from a distance, they can still be detrimental. They are also implementing suicide bombings. Theses bombings are not stopping either; just last Saturday there were a series of bombings that killed 35 people and injured 75. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100314/wl_afp/afghanistanunrest_20100314122137)
Some journalist believe this war is already lost if we continue with the current strategies. When compared to Al Qaeda, the Taliban possess no major threat. The U.S. troop’s presence only exasperates the Taliban which explains the attacks from vast distances; they aren’t shooting to kill, instead they are shooting, hoping the U.S. troops will leave. They want their country back; as stated in “Obama’s War”, “In the end you will have an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/ frontline/obamaswar/) Also, the fact that we can’t place Al Qaeda in one location makes it even harder to fight them because they can be anywhere or in multiple places at the same time. As mentioned in the following article, one solution is to leave peacefully and work it out politically. (http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200908130001)
The U.S. cannot just pull out and leave, but we cannot stay there until the end of time. We believe that when rebuilding their government it has to be like ours, but what makes us superior? Yes, it would be wonderful if all people were treated equally, given rights and freedoms, but that is not the case in this world and people are content with their situations. Even if a democratic government is implemented and the U.S. leaves, that does not insure that it will stay that way. We should give the people what they want; have we even asked what they want in their government? As stated previously, “In the end, you will have an Afghan solution to an Afghan war.” Implement a government that that people want and leave. It is not our place stay.
-Ariel Anglin
People have many different opinions on the war in Afghanistan. There are a large range of opinions from setting an exact exit date to withdraw all troops, to adding even more troops. Currently keeping our forces and the forces of the other countries in Afghanistan is necessary. Without these forces the Taliban could take over the country. Even without our forces, it seems as if they already have a wide spread influence over the Afghan people. The Taliban is easily influenced by Pakistan’s Al-Qaeda, which could potentially become a very big problem.
One of the main reasons staying in Afghanistan is important is corruption. Corruption is a major problem in Afghanistan. The PBS documentary “Obama’s War,” stated that “corruption is the rule, not the exception” in Afghanistan (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). As of right now, 70 percent of the country is outside the government’s control. This leaves the Taliban to rule and influence the people. Politics is a main area where corruption exists. According to the Washington Post, “Election Day itself is emerging as a disaster of relatively low turnout and massive irregularities – including ballot-box-stuffing on behalf of both incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his leading opponent” (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203083.html). The most recent election was full of scandal and corruption on both sides. Right now Afghanistan is working on fixing all of the election errors. They need help rebuilding their government and country. They need a strong central government. We need to help create a cultural change for the better and we cannot do this if we remove our troops.
Secondly there is a very strong bond between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda seems to be a stronger threat than the Taliban. Al-Qaeda does not only exist in Pakistan, they tend to cluster on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Qaeda see’s the Taliban as a tool that keeps their ideas in Afghanistan. Fox News’ article “Playing Russian Roulette In Afghanistan,” states that “[People who oppose the war] fail to grasp the close relationship between Al-Qaeda and Afghan insurgent groups”(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). This article thinks withdrawing troops would be like “playing Russian roulette with U.S. security.” I agree with this. Withdrawing our troops would be a very dangerous thing for the United States and the world.
As you can see, currently an exit strategy is not the right way to go. It puts the Afghan people in danger and the rest of the world. So, taking our troops out of Afghanistan would not help at all. We need to help them rebuild their country and reach stability without corruption. Without a strong government the Taliban could take over and the entire country will be more accepting of Al-Qaeda and their ideas. There is still plenty of work to be done in Afghanistan.
Haley Walker
As far as the Afghan War goes, I’m still straddling the fence. I believe the current counterinsurgency plan is a good plan that makes sense; securing and gaining the people of Afghanistan’s trust is a very important thing to do, with that trust they will help us to help them and that will get our troops home quicker. At the same time, we’ve been over there fighting this fight since 2001, yet we really haven’t been accomplishing anything. Now, after nine years of making every Afghan and American troop life over there a rather scary and miserable period, we’re attempting to gain their trust.
I believe the counterinsurgency strategy to interact with the Afghan people and to let them know personally we’re there to help them, will definitely help in an attempt to get us closer to success. A quote from an Afghan civilian in the Obama’s War documentary stated, “Three years ago, you came and sat with us over there by the mosque. You said the same things then. Those were false promises.” It is very clear that this Afghan man has no trust in our troops over there, and he’s probably not speaking just for himself.
Our Troops have been across seas fighting this war for a long time now, but how much have we actually accomplished? Especially with all of this new technology that is making a whole new era with war capabilities. We could invest more money into aerial drones and pull some of our troops out, which would be a much safer approach. An article in the Wall Street Journal by Iain Martin states that, “In Pakistan, the renewed focus on cooperation and assistance from American drones appears to be producing a dividend.” The technique gets United States property in and out quickly, but still gets the job done, without the expense of one of our soldiers’ life.
Being more knowledgeable in the subject, I’m sure the counterinsurgency strategy would be a lot better for the United States in the long run as we are getting to know the citizens. In an article on ABC News, Sgt Gregg Henderson said,” I would love to come back here… I know the people, I know the towns, I know the population.... I feel like if we came here again, we would accomplish even more." If the counterinsurgency strategy is making the future seem brighter, why is this approach just now being taken?
--Jon Cotroneo
In my opinion, there are many reasons for staying in this war; however, in all the research that I did, I will have to agree that there are more practical reasons for bringing our troops home.
I think we had a better opportunity back when this war began to build a stable democracy for Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post, “the new American military strategy makes explicit the need to fight corruption to build a more legitimate Afghan government (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902500.html). I think the war has been going on too long and we are only doing damage to ourselves. America should focus its energy on creating a diplomatic solution, rather than an unachievable military victory. I don’t think it is in our best interest to try and help their government if we have to loose our troops to do so. We are even killing Afghan civilians with our drone attacks, is that really helping anything?
Also, trying to get rid of the opium poppy crops, without providing a realistic alternative, has left the farmers to turn to the Taliban for financial support. According to The Christian Science Monitor, Afghanistan needs $10 billion annually to support an army and police force that is powerful enough to protect it (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0305/Can-Afghanistan-economy-thrive-without-poppy). The Christian Science Monitor also said that, currently Afghanistan has a $1.1 billion budget, and $400 million is coming from foreign donors. They don’t have near enough money to support their own country, but I don’t think it is our responsibility to help them. Also, The Christian Science Monitor states that, “while [Opium] accounts for nearly 30 percent of the country’s gross domestic product… it’s unlikely to ever be legalized and, therefore, taxed”. This means that Afghanistan should work on another way to help build their financial status. Hopefully, we can get Afghanistan working in mining and agriculture, which will take time, but in the long run will help Afghanistan. However, I think that keeping our troops overseas any longer is unnecessary.
When our economy is in the shape its in, there is no time to be spending billions at a time on this military mission. We simply can’t afford to remain fighting in Afghanistan to help another country. According to the Huffington Post, $3.6 billion each month, yes, month is being spent in Afghanistan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/afghan-war-costs-us-36-bi_n_321491.html). Currently, America’s debt is around 13 trillion dollars, now do you still think we can afford to spend $43.2 billion on the war for every year we are there? Also, according to The Christian Science Monitor, we are even currently investing $500 million to help their agriculture trade get started. The money just keeps piling up.
Yes, winning is probably essential for the United States national security, but according to the New Statesman, “the outgoing commander of US forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, told the BBC that ‘we are not winning’ in the struggle against the resurgent Taliban (http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/08/afghanistan-british-qaeda). If we are in a war that we are not even winning, I don’t think we should risk our troop’s lives anymore.
Continuing to put our military and financial power in Afghanistan will only cause more problems. Any solution to this problem is going to take decades, and we can’t keep our troops overseas forever. Sending more military troops only means more deaths. Coming from a military family my whole life, I know how much stress this can put on a family with members overseas. War is not necessarily the answer to our problems over there; maybe we should try a different strategy besides war.
Laura Haydon
My opinion on the involvement of the United States in the war with Afghanistan is that we should pull out of the war. The reason we started the war in Afghanistan was because the Taliban offered Al-Qaeda sanctuary in their country following the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country. At the time, the reason for going ahead with the war seemed like a good idea. However, as stated by George McGovern, “The administration says we need to fight Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the major Al-Qaeda forces are in Pakistan” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). Our reason now seems to have turned into gaining the trust of the Afghan people and setting up a government for them, while fighting off the Taliban. We have accumulated too much debt and casualties for this war to make sense anymore, and we should stop it before any more is lost.
Our military forces have set up camp in Afghanistan and are fighting the Taliban in battles daily. This is our strategy in defeating them. However, as pointed out by an article in the New Statesman, the London bombings took place four years after the fall of the Taliban and the ruin of the Al-Qaeda camps by the U.S. and Britain forces. The bombs used were made in England, not in Afghanistan (http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/08/afghanistan-british-qaeda). This shows that the ideals of Islamist terrorism and Al-Qaeda can be spread globally to other groups and other negative actions can take place. It is difficult for our military to control and defeat the Taliban and other similar terrorist groups altogether because they are spread out in many different areas of the world.
-Laura Sowell
(continued on next post)
Our attempt to gain the trust of the Afghan people and set up a government for them has been unsuccessful. I believe this is due to Afghanistan never having a stable, non-corrupt government and the people’s continued reliance on the Taliban as their makeshift government. The people of Afghanistan have always been governed by corrupt individuals that they do not know how to be the ones making decisions for their country. They are intimidated by the leaders of their country, and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry describes Karzai’s vice presidential running mate as a drug trafficker and a very corrupt individual. Eikenberry went on to say, “People sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai’s lot” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html). This shows me that the citizens of Afghanistan would not know how to keep control of their country if a steady government were set up because they have never had that kind of stability. Other corrupt leaders could easily take control again in the future.
On the opposing side, supporters of the war believe that we should continue on with our counterinsurgency. They believe that we should still reach out to gain the trust of the Afghan people and once doing so we will be able to set up a stable government to take the control away from the Taliban and the corrupt leaders of the country. As we saw in Obama’s War, there is a local dialect barrier that causes a lot of confusion. It is difficult to communicate with the people if we cannot understand them and they cannot understand us. Also, in fighting with the Taliban, we are not making any gains with the trust of the people. The warfare only frightens the people more and makes them wary of our presence. Lastly, the Taliban has threatened the people by saying that if anyone speaks with the U.S. soldiers then they will be killed (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). We cannot accomplish this counterinsurgency approach if no trust gains are being made, and we cannot gain trust there without being able to effectively communicate with the people. Overall, I do not agree with the reason for which we are in Afghanistan fighting. There are too many obstacles in this war for us to come out victorious, and it is imperative that we terminate our tour there before more lives are lost.
-Laura Sowell
(continued from last post)
With the death toll of U.S. troops reaching the one thousand mark from the war in Afghanistan, I would like to think the politicians in the White House would try to stop this pointless war. We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to spread democracy and to chase away the Taliban. Now, in 2010, we are still in Afghanistan with very little progress gained and billions of dollars lost. Instead of creating a well needed exit strategy, president Obama does the exact opposite and sends in thirty thousand more soldiers.
The new main goal of this war is to gain the trust of the people of Afghanistan, and in turn convince the Afghan people to push out the Taliban. In response, the Taliban threaten the Afghan people into not trusting U.S. troops. Afghan civilians fear the Taliban far more then they trust American soldiers, because eventually American soldiers will be leaving and when they leave, Afghan people will be left with the Taliban. Why should they trust a team that will eventually abandon them?
Another argument war supporters, like Seth Jones from fox news, have is to pull out the troops but keep using drones and Special Operations Forces (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). Through this method, we lose the giant military casualty count, but we still get a chance to assassinate the leader or one of the higher ups of these terrorist groups. One problem with this strategy is that when we kill these radical leaders, they are quickly replaced with the next in command. Another problem with this strategy is that sometimes we bomb the wrong person or location. This means we have a good chance of killing innocent civilians in an attempt of assassinating somebody that can be easily replaced.
With the America's economy in shambles, from throwing billions of dollars into this war, and an ignored democratic outcry to end this war, American morality is dropping dramatically. The last time America suffered this problem was about forty years ago during the Vietnam War. The main strategy in Vietnam was to keep throwing in troops no matter how many deaths we were receiving. George Mcgovern, writer for the Washing Post, states, “As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). This means we are facing the exact threat that we did in Vietnam but on a different terrain. It took the death of fifty-eight thousand American troops to convince the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam. Do we need another fifty-eight thousand deaths in this war before we realize our mistake?
-Brian Lewis
The United States involvement in Afghanistan could ultimately help the civilians attain civil and political peace. Many people believe that our involvement is only creating our own problem. President Obama does not agree with this though as he stated in an interview “We must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/politics/18vets.html?scp=6&sq=afghanistan%20strategy&st=cse) Afghanistan would have a difficult time fixing their own issues, because the government has become corrupt to the point where in order to fix the problems the officials would have to go against their own personal agendas. The people of Afghanistan have become so distanced and misinformed about the government that they have become helpless and are forced to give in. The Taliban is being used to keep civilians form opposing them by using the threat of violence. In order for the war to be successful the Taliban must be dissolved and the government must be restructured as to avoid corruption.
The main military goal has shifted from destroying the Taliban to helping the people. The task of the military has become distinguishing the Taliban from civilians. Once this distinction has been made for focus can be put on helping the right people. If the military had only destroyed the Taliban and corrupt officials then the people would be left with no government at all; also this would leave room for new corrupt officials to take over which would only start the cycle over. The main strategic problem that has risen from this is that after a town has been cleared of the Taliban, the military moves on, and the Taliban later reclaims the town. This has been an extremely costly and inefficient strategy. But since the focus has shifted to the people this problem has diminished through the help of civilians cooperating with the United States military. Civilians have learned that through helping the United States they can confidently help stand up against the Taliban.
Since the Taliban is a subset of the government, the only way for it to be destroyed is for the government to discontinue supporting it. The reason the government supports the Taliban is because of the immense amount of corruption found throughout the entire political body. Civilians have tried to elect trustworthy officials, but through fixed elections the government controls who is put in office. As stated in the New York Times…“The largest obstacle to the success of the plan was widely held to be the weakness of the government led by President Hamid Karzai, who had won re-election in August in a vote marred by widespread fraud on his behalf” (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html?scp=5&sq=war%20in%20afghanistan&st=cse). The goal of the military is to fix the government so the United States military could be replaced with a non-corrupt Afghanistan military. Once this happens people can begin to trust the local military which should ultimately result in domestic peace.
If these goals are reached then the United States involvement would help Afghanistan attain political and civil justice. The military has focused on finding the root of the problems instead of just attacking the Taliban. The people will ultimately help dissolve the corrupt government and give the power back to the population. The Taliban will only be dissolved when the civilians learn how to sustain a working government body, without the aid of the United States, and keep it free from corruption.
-Bryan Holliday
Although everyone around the world wanted this war to be further along by now, we cannot simply give up on the war now. Although this war has not been easy that does not mean we should just give up and pull our troops out. Even General Petraeus was quoted in the Charlotte Observer saying that, “This is going to be a hard year” (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/03/03/1284817/petraeus-predicts-a-hard-year.html). I believe that this war is necessary and the new counterinsurgency strategy needs time to work.
Destroying the Taliban’s stability in turn undermines Al Qaeda’s strength. According to a Fox News article by Seth Jones, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have “deep historical roots going back to the…1990’s” so undermining both groups is necessary to fix the terrorism problems (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). This is why the counterinsurgency is important. It destroys the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s sources of power by taking away their ability to use the support of the people and to use secure bases for planning. Although they were able to pull off the London bombings without a secure base, they have not been able to plan anything as big as they did on 9/11 when they had stable training camps.
Although the drones are a great tool to gain short-term control, we need the support and trust of the Afghan people. Without a long-term solution the Taliban will be able to just take over again once we leave so, although drones are a great tool to clear an area, soldiers are needed on the ground to hold the territory and gain support. We cannot just leave, or the problems with terrorism will start again.
Talking is not an answer and never has been because the Taliban are not in support of what we are doing and would not be willing to compromise. In addition, we need to support our troops and trust the Generals’ suggestions. They are the ones who are there and they know what is going on in Afghanistan today better than any of us in the United States and they need our support as they proceed with this new counterinsurgency strategy.
The war in Afghanistan, which began shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, has raised many issues that must be addressed. How do you support and try to help a government that runs on corruption and money made by selling the building blocks of heroin, poppies? How do you address a neighboring country that harbors the enemy? Although there are many tough questions to answer, the war in Afghanistan is completely necessary for United States security and should continue.
To begin with, there are many issues concerning the war in Afghanistan, many including the government and its corruption. The Washington Post describes an officer who must work with a corrupt official who both helps smuggle drugs out of the county, but also may have helped in making the recent election last year illegitimate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902500.html). However, this is the same people that have helped the US maintain a secure enough environment for the Afghani’s to begin to rebuild a government. If the government is ever made legitimate, the economy must follow. The Christian Science Monitor says that Afghanistan is to thank for 90% of the world’s heroin, but also discusses strategies to help legitimate industries like mining and agriculture that doesn’t include poppies(http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0305/Can-Afghanistan-economy-thrive-without-poppy).
Next, although Afghanistan still has many problems, even within the government created by the United States, the war in Afghanistan is necessary for US security in the region and at home. The Taliban had several links to Al-Qaeda including Osama bin Laden living in the country and several of his troops training with the Taliban army.( http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-extremist-wedge12-2010mar12,0,2270910.story) The Taliban have also been the biggest enemy to the United Nation’s forces and use the borders of Pakistan to hide and move. If the United States decided to leave, there would be no reason to believe the current government would retain power or the Taliban wouldn’t take over. If the Taliban regained power, there would be no reason to believe that they wouldn’t continue to work with terrorists, if not even Al-Qaeda, and attacks on the US wouldn’t continue.
Obviously, Afghanistan suffers several roadblocks to legitimacy including a government that is corrupt and a strong connection to illegal drugs, but the Taliban threat and its connection to terrorism in general are enough reason for the US to stay and continue its agenda in Afghanistan.
-Jacob Clemmons
To some, it seems like we are not winning this war, but there’s no quick win to this situation. I think that this war is necessary because the Taliban is possibly the most dangerous clan in the entire world. Somebody needs to stop them before they completely take over the Afghan government because the results of this would be catastrophic. The United States military forces are required because a major change is needed to rid the Taliban and create a stable government and safe environment for Afghanistan without corruption and danger.
The number one reason to be in the war is to stop terrorism. We are trying to protect Afghans from violence. This is an international war; everyone is tired of being bullied by Taliban. The New York Times reports that General McChrystal says, “The measure of effectiveness will not be the number of enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08mon1.html).” If we just walk out of the war today, who says that tomorrow there won’t be an airplane flown into the White House? We have to protect our country so another 9/11 doesn’t happen on our soil again.
According to The Washington Post, In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. commanders focused on killing insurgents and minimize the numbers and exposure of U.S. troops, but the result was that violence grew until a counterinsurgency strategy was applied to Iraq in 2007. Now that the Taliban and al-Qaeda aim to overturn Pakistan, a nuclear armed government, the risks of a U.S. withdrawal go beyond those of continuing to fight the war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203083.html).
Another reason we should be in the war is to help Afghanistan establish a government. One way to keep Pakistan from taking over Afghanistan is to make them independent from Pakistan and have their own government system to rely on. Al-Qaeda will keep getting stronger if they are able to keep taking over more people. They may not be our neighbors but they deserve a decent life as much as we do. This is another way to protect the U.S. from their terror. The stronger they get, the more likely they will be to come back to the U.S. and kill more people. As long as our troops are there, trying to communicate with the Afghans and trying to help then become independent, the better it will be for the U.S. in the future. According to The Washington Post, “Stabilizing the country will require many years of patient effort and the pain of continued American casualties. Yet the consequences of any other option are likely to be far more dangerous for our country (http://washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203083.html).”
Kayla King
Kayla King Continued!
Some people believe that the war in Afghanistan is pointless and there is no hope or decent purpose to help the people in this country. They say that it is not our job to “police the world”, this is partially true but from a different perspective we are not there to interfere, but to stop the growing threat of the terrorist group of the Taliban, which is increasingly growing and becoming a major threat internationally. The new front in Afghanistan seems like a final resort. Majority of Americans feel that troops should come home. Why impose more harm on the thousands of families for a war that we are not guaranteed to win? Although many Americans ask this question daily, there are many reasons why we keep troops in Afghanistan. Like I mentioned before, if we come home, we are not guaranteed that they will not come to us anyways. Do we really want them catching us off guard and watching thousands of our people die in front of us again, like 9/11? I believe that would be more traumatic on families than a soldier dying while at war. Overall, we are trying to protect the United States from an even bigger disaster than we are already witnessing; it is in our best interests and the best way to protect our country. I do not believe that this war is a lost cause due to the fact that soldiers are in Afghanistan everyday trying to prevent counter-insurgency, and we should be grateful for the fact that they give their lives to prevent the possibility of terrorist’s attacks occurring around the world.
Kayla King
Is the war on terror needed? I don’t think the U.S. needs to continue the war in Afghanistan because we are not winning and it is costing our country too much. It is not a war that has limits or a timeline. I think it is a lot more like the war on drugs that America has been fighting for decades. It is continuous; so, as soon as you shut down one group of terrorist another will spring up and start working in the same area. We need the War in Afghanistan to be handled in a way that is keeping terrorist attacks off the American people yet figure out how to have the Afghan nation do the policing and provide their own military.
Although it may be necessary, we are not winning. The solution is supposed to involve the American and other foreign forces training the Afghan army to take over the fight. Now NATO has taken over the job of training the 95,000 Afghan army and 93,000 police forces (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AK0UV20091121). I have never been in the service but I thought the Marines boot camp was 12 weeks not 9 years long. I realize that the troops have to be found and organized but what are we training them to do. When my family has gone through boot camp and the necessary training they were ready to be deployed in under 2 years. In a interview conducted by the Associated Press, Admiral James Stavridis, supreme allied commander for Europe and the commander of the U.S. European Command, was reported saying “there is a retention problem” in the Afghan military, so they have raised the pay to try to decrease the desertion rate and increase recruiting (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5imflKllK5uBbqeWPMbBaLqXqGpZQD9DUMQK80). With the retention problem, there is no set date of withdrawal in Afghanistan. The commitment in Afghanistan is being increased according to the Washington Post, although most of those are support staff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html).
The War in Afghanistan is becoming a war that isn’t supported by the American public and is costing more than the American people want to pay. It is costing both lives and serious money. The War in Iraq has cost more than 4,200 U.S. lives according to global security, and now the War in Afghanistan is about to hit the 1,000 mark (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm). The cost of war is beginning to get to the American public since we are still going through the recession and borrowing trillions of dollars while paying billions to a war we want to be through with. “The hill” reports, the average cost is 1 million a year per soldier in Afghanistan (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63121-crs-calculates-cost-of-us-troop-presence-in-afghanistan?page=2#comments). A million dollars a year wouldn’t put a dent in the deficit; but, when you figure there are 68,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, according to defense talk, and that total is 68 billion a year, then we can start making some movement in the right direction in paying off the national deficit (http://www.defencetalk.com/afghan-war-costs-to-overtake-iraq-in-2010-pentagon-18679/). With the cost of the current war in Afghanistan being such a big argument in the public there is no surprise it is very controversial to talk about.
With the opposition to the war by the American public, as well as other countries opposition, it just begs the question of when are we going to withdrawal? Are we going to withdrawal completely and turn the country back over to itself in a couple years or are we going to have bases there for decades still to come? Only time can tell.
In 2001, we began a war on terrorism in retaliation to the attack on the World Trade Center. This war has escalated to an unwinnable conflict with Afghanistan. I do not agree that we are fighting a necessary war; I believe the war in Afghanistan began as a thinly veiled attempt to finish the conflict that began in Iraq during George H.W. Bush’s time as president.
“If Obama is dedicated to winning what he calls "a war of necessity," he must commit the necessary military resources to get the job done. The American people will not support a war of gradualism. Even if such resources are made available, it is likely that grave doubts will remain about the central Afghan government and its Army.”(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Vietnamization-means-defeat-in-the-Afghan-war-8227567-59063827.html#ixzz0iaYozLEM) Wining the war is not essential to national security. Afghanistan isn’t threatening us, the biggest problem Afghanistan is creating now is the massive drain the war is putting on our economy. The war in Afghanistan is incredibly similar to the Vietnam War. We are fighting a country, who if we were engaged in conventional warfare with we would probably have defeated in the first month of conflict. “As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon. Adding more U.S. forces will fuel the Taliban further.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Unfortunately we are dealing with an enemy that while underfunded and unsophisticated, is engaging us in guerilla warfare. While I believe this war is unwinnable and will only result in low moral and controversy in America, we cannot just abandon a country we have already ravaged. We have set up an unstable government that cannot stand-alone without our presence in Afghanistan. The country is destroyed and its civilians rely on our presence, so obviously we cannot abandon them. “As long as our goals in Afghanistan remain as elusive as they are now, Obama shouldn't be sending troops. He should be bringing them out.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209823.html\)
Not only has the war destroyed Afghanistan it has created a huge divide on American soil. Our country is split between those who support the war and those who don’t. I do not think that we should have ever invaded Afghanistan, and I do not think that we will be able to win over the people of Afghanistan, because they do not trust us. After all this is a war on terrorism not on the people of Afghanistan.
--Blair Bailey
The United States’ involvement in the Afghanistan war is a very complicated and touchy subject. Most people are uneducated on our status and objective in Afghanistan and know only that we are there to fight the media’s definition of terrorism. We are actually there fighting an organization that was once in control of the Afghan government; however, this organization will not face us in a battle. They fight with insurgent and guerrilla tactics which makes it a grueling task to simply find our opponent. Our objective was to take control of the government and replace it will a democratic government that would hopefully be cooperative with the U.S. We did succeed in replacing the government, but the new government is corrupt and doesn’t have the support of the people. As of now I disagree with the U.S. Counterinsurgency program. In order for our objectives to be met and be successful in this war we must unite the Afghan people to fight for what they believe is right.
Personally, I must argue that our military presence in Afghanistan will only make the people stand more against us. If any country came to the U.S., overthrew our government, and stayed there to make sure we do things their way, I would most likely join whichever organization that would stand against them. Much of this argument comes from a perspective. We see attacks to the U.S. as “terrorism”, but others may see it as a step towards freedom. I believe the best way to defeat the Taliban is to unite the people against them and arm or train them to stand up against oppression. That is of course only if the Taliban runs an oppressive government.
We cannot force a government on to Afghanistan, and nor is it our place to. The people must fight for a government that portrays the beliefs that they see fit. Then we must deal fairly with this government to ensure they will work with us against terrorist organizations. As of now the people are being pressured from both sides. If they don’t listen to the Taliban they will be killed, and if they don’t listen to us they are considered to have ties with the Taliban. If the afghan people in a majority called upon us to assist them with an oppressive organization, I would agree that helping them would be a good thing. However, we cannot make that decision for them.
In opposition, one may say that the Afghan people will not unite to fight for good. Some may say that the Taliban will take control of the country and wage attacks upon us. The Taliban is fighting for control of the government and they will lay down their arms then they have it. The people of Afghanistan prove to us that they will fight for their beliefs every day that the Taliban increases in numbers. Our presence there is driving people to turn against us and fight for the return of their lands and peace. We must allow these people to have their own revolution.
Works Cited
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04traub.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/weekinreview/14sanger.html
Michael Brannon
The debate about whether or not the United States should continue its military involvement in Afghanistan has become increasingly intense. With this growing intensity, the answer to that question is leading up to a major decision that would affect the future of both the United States and the Middle East. After watching “Obama’s War”, I believe that the United States should keep pursuing the counterinsurgency strategy that is presently in place, but, we should also continue to change and evolve this strategy to better manage the different situations and circumstances that may arise from implementing this plan. Though we are not where we want to be concerning the overall status of the war in Afghanistan, I think that if we follow this strategy and continue to develop it along the way, we will eventually have success in this war.
Our involvement in Afghanistan is necessary for two main reasons. First, the relationship between the government of Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan is too serious to ignore. In order to defeat Al Qaeda, we need to defeat the Taliban as well. Seth Jones from Fox News states that “The Al Qaeda-Taliban relationship has deep historical roots going back to the personal links that Mullah Mohammad Omar developed with Usama bin Laden in the 1990s. The relationship strengthened after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban regime, and senior Al Qaeda and Taliban officials regularly communicated and coordinated efforts to overthrow the Karzai government in Afghanistan.”(http://ww w.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/12/seth-jones-afghanistan-obama-taliban-al-qaeda/). This shows that there is a relationship between the two groups and that there is a dire need to break their ties.
In the documentary “Obama’s War”, author Steve Coll says that we will ultimately defeat the Taliban when the Pakistan government decides that its future doesn’t lie in partnership with the Taliban. Also in the documentary, Andrew Exum, an advisor to Gen. McChrystal, says that Pakistan currently shares the interest with the United States to go after insurgent groups who are destabilizing Pakistan, but not insurgent groups who are trying to destabilize Afghanistan. Once Pakistan, who is an ally to the United States, cuts its ties with the Taliban, the issue of counterterrorism and defeating Al Qaeda will become easier and more reasonable. The bottom line is if we want to defeat Al Qaeda terrorists, we must defeat Taliban insurgent groups as well because of the close ties between the two groups.
continued...
Jonathan Hayes
Jonathan Hayes continued.
Secondly, we need to be in Afghanistan because in order to defeat the Taliban and ultimately Al Qaeda, we need to first wrestle control of the Afghan population from the Taliban. This means having American troops on the ground in Afghanistan who are mingling with the population and trying to gain their trust and support. An editorial in The New York Times states, “Protecting Afghan civilians, and expanding the secure space in which they can safely go about their lives and livelihoods must now become the central purpose of American military operations in Afghanistan.”(http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/06/08/opinion/08mon1.html?_r=1). By taking control of the population and protecting them, the Taliban’s power over the people will be taken away and in turn, the way Afghans view our fight against insurgents will change to our benefit.
According to the documentary, governmental corruption is the rule instead of the exception in Afghanistan. This being the case, the Taliban came to power by carrying out law and order at the local level because corrupt government officials wouldn’t. In “Obama’s War”, according to Vali Nasr, an advisor to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, if the government isn’t providing for the people, then the people will get fed up with corruption and turn towards the Taliban because the Taliban promises justice and order. Therefore, if we win over the population by breaking the trust between them and the Taliban, then the Taliban’s power over the people will disappear, creating a stepping stone to further defeating Taliban insurgent groups and Al Qaeda.
The argument for leaving Afghanistan and focusing on just a counterterrorism strategy has many downfalls. One of the biggest problems is the failure to realize that Al Qaeda groups aren’t just in Pakistan and that Taliban and Al Qaeda groups have alliances. If we focused just on Pakistan, then Al Qaeda and Taliban groups will grow and flourish in Afghanistan due to our absence. If we stay focused on our current counterinsurgency plan, then our exit strategy will be to leave Afghanistan when there is enough stability for the country to withstand the threat of the Taliban. According to a general in the documentary, we will have an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem, and that will be good enough.
Jonathan Hayes
“Solving” problems the American way
The United States entered into the confusing war in Afghanistan to attempt to break up the Taliban and help the nation rebuild. This war has caused harm to Afghanistan, neighboring countries, and other innocent third parties, including the US. Our presence in Afghanistan is not perhaps, no longer needed, but was never requested. The United States, by entering into a war with Afghanistan and the Taliban, is continuing to tear a nation apart, and our military is in a war that cannot be ended by a third party nation.
To stay in Afghanistan and continue searching for the Taliban is not a realistic goal. The United States presence is causing the nation to continue to crumble. The issues with the Taliban, government, and neighboring nations will be worked out through their own terms. Having a third party nation there to try and mend things between everyone will not work. According to the NewStatesman in an article titled “Our military presence in Afghanistan is part of the problem, not the solution” encouragement for withdrawing from the war is sought: “from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union, Afghans have been fighting invaders for more than 2,000 years. Not for nothing is their country known as the "graveyard of empires’ ” (http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/08/afghanistan-british-qaeda). Thinking that we can come in and fix it all is not realistic.
The nation we are “fighting” is not Afghanistan. It is a mysterious terrorist group called the Taliban. We want the Taliban to release the hold it has on Afghanistan and let the government handle the country. We want Afghanistan to be like US. This idea makes sense, but it is hard to locate and destroy such a nomadic group that occupies two neighboring countries, one of which we do not have access to, especially when they promise security to the people. Afghanistan has the capability and willpower to locate and figure out how to get the Taliban out of their country, or to at least outlaw it. The United States presence to solve an Afghanistan problem will not work, and this is further reason for our removal of troops.
The number of causalities and deaths in Afghanistan is growing. And it is not limited to the US military. Britain and other allies are losing loved ones daily, not to mention the toll the war is taking on an already weak nation. Julius Cavendish, in The Christian Science Monitor’s article “Afghanistan war: As civilian deaths rise, NATO says, 'Sorry.' ” quotes an Afghani man who has lost a family member, Mohammad Yassir: “If someone called to apologize [about the death of a family member] what would [NATO commander Gen. McChrystal] reaction be? An apology doesn’t bring anyone back to life’ ” (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0223/Afghanistan-war-As-civilian-deaths-rise-NATO-says-Sorry.). With these powerful words to reflect on, it is evident that Afghanistan people do not want us there fighting their war and tearing their country apart. We should withdraw from the war as soon as possible and let it be.
Melissa Gramlich
The war in Afghanistan is like no other war. The enemies are terrorist known as the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They have undefined borders to roam, use guerilla tactics, taunt and ensnare the local population into submission, and create political and religious propaganda. War is messy, bloody, and costly but serves its purpose with protecting us now and in the future. I really dislike war and wish we could have peace on earth but that’s not likely to happen considering human history. I support the counterinsurgency plan although at times it seems pointless, but I believe it is the right one. Casualties are a part of war, but by working with the people, knowing where to target our advanced technologies like drones, and installing a strong central government the Afghans can rely on we may win the war on terrorism.
The United States could institute more direct measures by increasing troops. Right now we are playing it safe but if we really want to withdrawal by next summer we should send more troops while training coalition fighters and average Afghans to fight the Taliban. As of right now we are the British to the Taliban and Afghans as they were to us in the revolutionary war. Meaning we are coming into their territory and they have the advantage of home field. Also the Taliban is somewhat viewed as a revolutionary movement against a corrupt government, which makes it hard to win over local who also share the same lack of trust in government.
I feel the US is limited, but needs to figure out a way to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda; We can start by winning over the locals, and making sure the government is less corrupt and strong enough to take charge against them too. To defeat the Taliban who aid Al Qaeda the group responsible for 9-11 we must do one of three things: Defeat the Taliban hold over the country, hope they conform to the central government, and denounce Al Qaeda. For this to happen the average citizen has to take a stance against both, which many won’t because they are scared to lose their lives. If a corrupt free government, with the aid of more US troops, is in place I think the population will fight with us, but they have to feel safe to do so first. Besides the lack of a central government, and US troops to protect them is the fear of being caught in the cross-fire.
Afghans not only fear the terrorist but the United States, because during airstrikes civilian casualties often occur weakening our claim to protect them. In an article by the Kansas City Star, “U.S. must show that a central government can work in Afghanistan,” the author states how civilian deaths are up 14 percent in 2009 over 2008, causing civilians to be scared and wanting to blame the U.S(http://www.kansascity.com/2010/02/16/1753055/us-must-show-that-a-central-government.html). Drone attacks save the U.S. man power while putting fear in the Afghans. This is a catch 22 situation. We want less troops but it’s hard to win over locals when we are accidently killing their family, neighbors, and friends, which is one reason why I’m for having more troops on the ground verses tactics that lose Afghan support. Even general Stanley McChrystal has apologized for civilian lives lost and says “it undermines the Afghan populations confidence in the mission,” as stated in the article “Afghanistan war challenge: civilian deaths from NATO Airstrike” in The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0222/Afghanistan-war-challenge-civilian-deaths-from-NATO-airstrike).
By involving and befriending locals we can win this war, but for it to last a central government has to be able to stand-up against the insurgents. We have many technical and military advantages; theirs is no borders or a country to call home. If we plan to continue this world effort against terrorism we can’t just invade these floundering countries; we have to be friends and work with the people for a common goal. Holly Dilliplane
After viewing “Obama’s War,” I scrolled to the bottom of the page and began to read some of the comments from other viewers of the documentary to begin my research for this third project. One particular viewer’s comment eloquently states, an “irrational and unguided application of military force doesn't help us win” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/). This is absolutely true, and her observation actually counters her contention to the war being fought in Afghanistan. This documentary clearly shows the United States is finally realizing we cannot fight another Vietnam War. Even though our strategic military capabilities have improved since Vietnam, in turn minimizing the overall number of casualties, over the past eight years there was never a decided strategy to “clear, hold, (and) build” as General Stanly McChrystal stated in an article published by The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0304/Afghanistan-war-NATO-unfolds-blueprint-to-rebuild-Marjah). However, now we have developed a clear strategy. The Christian Science Monitor states in a December article, “Obama has set the US on a mission to create a nuclear-free world… His commitment to stabilize Pakistan – both with direct aid but also by stabilizing Afghanistan – is essential to that goal” (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2009/1202/p08s05-comv.html). Leaving the country of Afghanistan now would leave a nation in peril, at risk of being overtaken by Taliban forces in current alliance with Al-Qaeda, and create a world susceptible to a nuclear armed, extremist minded nation.
The war in Afghanistan does have a primary mission, as was noted in “Obama’s War,” which is to separate and protect the people from the Taliban (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/). Columnist Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post notes in a recent article, “a weakened Al-Qaeda is increasingly relying on the emboldened Taliban for protection and manpower to carry out deadly attacks” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111019644.html). He goes on to say that, “a Taliban victory here would mean a rapid proliferation of Al-Qaeda fighters as they return to their pre-2001 sanctuary.” In an effort to further cooperation with the people of Afghanistan, the new policy calls for the soldiers on the ground to interact with the people, and listen to their concerns. By doing so, the troops will assume more risk on a daily basis, but in the long run may gain the trust of the local people, and further disseminate our intentions in their country, to protect and rebuild.
Hopes of returning confidence in the Afghan government to the people continues to be a struggle as we attempt to provide stability the current governing body. Dealing with corruption at all levels has been made a priority. As was pointed out in “Obama’s War,” Hamid Karzai’s government has never been willing to take on corruption. Now with the help of NATO, the country of Afghanistan, regardless of whom the elected president, will have help in cleaning out corruption. This will be a monumental step in gaining the trust of the people, especially in the outer lying areas, and finally breaking free of the pressure placed on the people by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. For now, as pointed out in an article in the Christian Science Monitor, “Afghans slip out to Taliban-controlled areas to seek fair dealing, having more confidence in the Taliban sharia courts than in Karzai-regime judges” (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0318/Afghanistan-war-lessons-from-the-Soviet-war).
--JB Helton
There are many who would say we are continuing along the path of the Soviets in the 1980’s, and will fail just as they did in their attempt to establish a new, stable communist government. Though there are a number of similarities, there are some major differences as well. If you look at the past, no foreign power has ever been able to seize or control Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus a diplomatic, interpersonal relationship with the people must be employed to further the circumstances of the people of Afghanistan. This may help reverse the perception that NATO and the US are an occupying force, and build the image of a caring ally. Edward Girardet, who is a war veteran himself, and covered the Soviet led occupation in the 1980’s, writes in an article for the Christian Science Monitor, “Unlike NATO forces, who now make pointed efforts to protect civilians, the Soviets and their Afghan Cohorts often deliberately targeted local populations” (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0318/Afghanistan-war-lessons-from-the-Soviet-war).
In truth, this is a war I feel we will lose because our society does not have the patience to rebuild another nation. We expect to invade a country and return home victorious, having accomplished all that we need to achieve in a matter of a few years. What we have done, on the other hand, is destabilize a nation and made plans of leaving in the near future because of growing dissention among the people. In this circumstance however, talk of an exit strategy only plays into the hands of the insurgents. They will continue to bide their time until the invading forces have left, and then execute their attack on the foreign installed government. To truly win this war, in the expectation to be safer from terrorism, we must be willing to invest decades to rebuild not only the infrastructure of the nation, but also the psyche of the beleaguered common people, one of whom said to an American soldier during the documentary, “What can we do? What can we provide for you? You have planes, tanks and guns; we are simple people with nothing. We don't even have a sword. If YOU can't win, how can we?"
--JB Helton
In 2001, we began a war on terrorism in retaliation to the attack on the World Trade Center. This war has escalated to an unwinnable conflict with Afghanistan. I do not agree that we are fighting a necessary war; I believe the war in Afghanistan began as a thinly veiled attempt to finish the conflict that began in Iraq during George H.W. Bush’s time as president.
“If Obama is dedicated to winning what he calls "a war of necessity," he must commit the necessary military resources to get the job done. The American people will not support a war of gradualism. Even if such resources are made available, it is likely that grave doubts will remain about the central Afghan government and its Army.” (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Vietnamization-means-defeat-in-the-Afghan-war-8227567-59063827.html#ixzz0iaYozLEM) Wining the war is not essential to national security. Afghanistan isn’t threatening us, the biggest problem Afghanistan is creating now is the massive drain the war is putting on our economy. The war in Afghanistan is incredibly similar to the Vietnam War. We are fighting a country, who if we were engaged in conventional warfare with we would probably have defeated in the first month of conflict. “As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon. Adding more U.S. forces will fuel the Taliban further.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Unfortunately we are dealing with an enemy that while underfunded and unsophisticated, is engaging us in guerilla warfare. While I believe this war is unwinnable and will only result in low morale and controversy in America, we cannot just abandon a country we have already ravaged. We have set up an unstable government that cannot stand-alone without our presence in Afghanistan. The country is destroyed and its civilians rely on our presence, so obviously we cannot abandon them. “As long as our goals in Afghanistan remain as elusive as they are now, Obama shouldn't be sending troops. He should be bringing them out.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209823.html\)
Not only has the war destroyed Afghanistan it has created a huge divide on American soil. Our country is split between those who support the war and those who don’t. I do not think that we should have ever invaded Afghanistan, and I do not think that we will be able to win over the people of Afghanistan, because they do not trust us. After all this is a war on terrorism not on the people of Afghanistan.
--Blair Bailey
Since being thrown into this war after the September 11th tragedies, the United States has gone through a great deal of change without being able to take a break. With the change of leadership from Republican George W. Bush to Democrat Barack Obama being the President, the White House has changed its stance on the war numerous times. Currently Obama is fighting the war with a counterinsurgency strategy, which means the United States plans to “…control and protect the population rather than chase bad guys, build [its] ally and give [them] the credit, remember that it's all about governance, not just tactical victories” as explained by Eliot A. Cohen. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402602_2.html) This tactic of warfare is not commonly used by the United States and although it was used unsuccessfully in the Vietnam War, Obama feels gaining the trust of the Afghan people and reducing their fear of the Taliban is the only way we can leave these countries feeling as though we were successful.
Whether or not I believe this is a “necessary war” as Obama does, I would have to say I do agree, the United States must be involved in this war. The United States was attacked, and to go into Afghanistan then retreat after a few years without any solution or change in the country’s lack of a stable government would be foolish. Last week the House of Representatives “voted 356 to 65 to reject the withdrawal proposal” which “call[s] to withdraw American troops by the end of the year.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/world/asia/11cong.html) So it is clear that the men and women running the United States government also agree, there is no way the United States can leave the Middle East in its current state. With a retreat, the Taliban and Al Qaeda reign could possibly take control of the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments and continue to attack the U.S. and other countries, which do not share the same views as the these terrorist groups.
I also agree with the counterinsurgency tactic, although I do not believe Obama is following through with enough force. General Stanley McChrystal, current commander of both the International Security Assistance Force and of the U.S. Forces Afghanistan, asked President Obama for “40,000 troops and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml) To have a plan is a great first step, but without the proper number of troops overseas, this war will be a very long and drawn out process with no certainty of a victory whatsoever.
Since being thrown into this war after the September 11th tragedies, the United States has gone through a great deal of change without being able to take a break. With the change of leadership from Republican George W. Bush to Democrat Barack Obama being the President, the White House has changed its stance on the war numerous times. Currently Obama is fighting the war with a counterinsurgency strategy, which means the United States plans to “…control and protect the population rather than chase bad guys, build [its] ally and give [them] the credit, remember that it's all about governance, not just tactical victories” as explained by Eliot A. Cohen. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402602_2.html) This tactic of warfare is not commonly used by the United States and although it was used unsuccessfully in the Vietnam War, Obama feels gaining the trust of the Afghan people and reducing their fear of the Taliban is the only way we can leave these countries feeling as though we were successful.
Whether or not I believe this is a “necessary war” as Obama does, I would have to say I do agree, the United States must be involved in this war. The United States was attacked, and to go into Afghanistan then retreat after a few years without any solution or change in the country’s lack of a stable government would be foolish. Last week the House of Representatives “voted 356 to 65 to reject the withdrawal proposal” which “call[s] to withdraw American troops by the end of the year.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/world/asia/11cong.html) So it is clear that the men and women running the United States government also agree, there is no way the United States can leave the Middle East in its current state. With a retreat, the Taliban and Al Qaeda reign could possibly take control of the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments and continue to attack the U.S. and other countries, which do not share the same views as the these terrorist groups.
I also agree with the counterinsurgency tactic, although I do not believe Obama is following through with enough force. General Stanley McChrystal, current commander of both the International Security Assistance Force and of the U.S. Forces Afghanistan, asked President Obama for “40,000 troops and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml) To have a plan is a great first step, but without the proper number of troops overseas, this war will be a very long and drawn out process with no certainty of a victory whatsoever.
-Amy Yealy
When will this war end? The horrendous events of September 11 2001 had perhaps the most devastating instant human toll on record, outside of war, however the costs to Afghan civilians can only be guessed, but we do know the projections go in the thousands for sure, and in this ailing American economy where the focus should be targeted, there is no clear evidence that this expensive war will end anytime soon.
Corporal Sharp of the United States wrote a letter home stating he was “going to fight a war that his grandsons will study in school” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivTsJ89CCcs). He later got shot and killed not to long after he wrote that letter. His grandsons might be born before the war is completely over because I think that troops are being killed unnecessarily due to the slow progress in the war. Nine years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, a top US military commander says he has no idea how long it will take for security to improve in Afghanistan. Admiral Michael Mullen said in an interview, “I don’t know how long. I know that it’s gotten progressively worse over the last three, three-and-a-half years, since 2006, and the Taliban has gotten much better.” (http://www.prisonplanet.com/mullen-cannot-see-end-of-afghan-war.html).
. Mullen also says that it can take several years for the US-led forces to defeat the Taliban linked militants across Afghanistan but the truth is no one knows for sure.
The current U.S. policy toward Pakistan is emerging as perhaps the most difficult of the Obama administration’s regional challenges. The US must work indirectly through foreign assistance and cooperation with Pakistani civilian and military authorities to try to influence Pakistani policy and protect critical U.S. interests. Annually 3-4 billion in military aid and 7.5 billion in civilian aid is being given to the Pakistani government in return for the assurance of combating threats of terrorism with regards to safe havens and terror planning. However the recent use of aerial drones in Pakistani territory calls into questions how much this aid to Pakistan military is helping the USA.
Still we fight on, due to those who say that this expensive war is essential to our national security and the future of our children and to the ignorance of many US citizens towards this war. But in a struggling economy with massive debt, there are other things we need to address before we push on in an endless war.
Charles Pemberton
It seems we have dug ourselves a hole in Afghanistan and now we must decide if we are going to sit in it, or fill it up again. As a whole, since 9/11, America has been quick to answer any problems with money and military. Throw billions at it, or throw men with guns at it. These have been our only two options for years. I don’t really believe that either of these solutions is the correct one.
As a Muslimah, I know that the military strikes will not work. In Islam it is haraam (forbidden) to take innocent lives, including your own (suicide). In fact in Islam, if you are to kill one innocent person it is as if you killed all of humanity. (http://www.cair.com/americanmuslims/antiterrorism/fatwaagainstterrorism.aspx) However, if you are being oppressed or attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself and your home and your people. As such, terrorism is completely forbidden by Islam, but militia movements against invaders are permissible. As long as the US takes actions that can be identified by the local population as invasion (which this country has seen time and time again), there will be normal men who will fight until there are no men left. I am not even talking about extremist, but just normal God-fearing Afghani men. “But if they [the enemy] cease [fighting], Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” [Al-Qur’an 2:192-193] (Allah means “The God” and is the same word used for God in Christian Bibles translated into Arabic.)
As an American I realize that, since we have dug our hole, we have to do SOMETHING with it. We cannot just leave the country in the state that it is in. It is wrong to leave these people in limbo with an incredibly organized extremist organization versus an incredibly corrupt and disorganized central government. I know that we are in the place we are because our government was short sighted. Military strikes are expedient and cost effective, and so they are more attractive and produce quick results. However, they are awful for the long term situation. America overthrew one corrupt government and replaced it with a “democracy” that is just as corrupt. Only the Afghan people didn’t choose to have this democracy. We did. In the words of George McGovern, “Why do we send young Americans to risk life and limb on behalf of such worthless regimes?” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/08/afghanistan-british-qaeda)
So now what do we do? Here are some things I think might help:
1. Eliminate corruption in the government. HELP the people to establish a government of THEIR choice (not ours). It may not look like our version of democracy but it will work better for them and be more stable. This kind of goes along with establishing a “friendly” presence in Afghanistan. Diplomats for the government and Peace Corps type people for the locals.
2. Limit our military presence. Pull some of those guys out. Show them that we don’t want to invade their country. All this “holding ground” (Obama’s War) just incites talk of invasion.
3. Send some of that money we used for military strikes toward education. Now that we have eliminated the corrupt government (#1), the money should actually get to the kids, God willing. I don’t mean strictly secular education though. These people are Muslim. Muslim people don’t believe that there is ANY aspect of their lives outside of religious (a.k.a. moral) influence. Show them what ISLAM says about terrorism. This will have a huge impact on the next generations especially.
4. Hopefully at this stage there will be good relations between Afghanistan and the US and we can work toward possibly having a permanent base there, which would be a great place to keep an eye on the Pakistan/India conflict along with conflicts in the Middle East and even China.
-Ever Cavender
Post a Comment