SPARTY sent a question by email which I have answered with my opinion, but now I refer it to any of you who wish to answer.
what do you think? Is our involvement in Afghanistan a war of necessity or a war of choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think wars that do not defend you or your friends are wars of choice. I am not convinced that any thing we do in that part of the world will in the long run change any thing. If destroying Al-Qaeda is the objective, then this is not how to do it.
Al-Qaeda is all over the Muslim world an destroying them is as easy as herding cats. The best we can do is keep track of them and strike them covertly where ever they pop up.
If propping up Pakistan is the objective, then that should be done, but that does not need to involve boots on the ground. We have the resources both with our military technology and finances to assist Pakistan. The finances I am sure would be cheaper then spending the trillion dollars spent so far in this theater of war, or the extra 30 billion dollars per year the troop surge is expected to cost.
Toss-up !!
But if those nukes get into the wrong hands, people will say we should have fought it as a necessity.
Just asking, but where are China and India in this mess?? Don't they stand to be the biggest losers if the bad guys get control of those weapons ??
But the nukes are in Pakistan, which is where the crazies have gone or will go to avoid the U.S. military. Gaining "control" of Afghanistan won't prevent Al Qaeda or Taliban activities in Pakistan.
Are you saying there is another way to get to the bad guys in Pakistan besides going thru Afghanistan?
My answer to Sparty:
"I believe that the attack on the Trade Center was an act of war, and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan was a proper thing to do. In that sense, it was "a war of necessity". But that necessity passed long ago and now I believe it's a matter of choice. I am not in favor of the sending of more troops."
I don't think we can get the crazies in Pakistan without violating the sovereignty of Pakistan and I don't think we're ready for that. What we do in Afghanistan may, in fact, destablize Pakistan and I don't think that's in our interest.
I'm not sure we should even be there, but if you think announcement of the surge provoked
opposition, can you imagine the howls of protest had Obama decided to pull everyone out ??
Cutting and running and we can never lose a war and all that pride stuff ??????
From what I'm hearing, we have or will have nearly 100 thousand government contractors in Afganistan. (Blackwater or XE; DBR etc). Jeremy Scahill will have an article in The Nation next week that tell about Blackwater and it's tie to the CIA. They are working "for us" in Pakistan. I don't think we sould be sending more troops over there.
Re: Cutting and running, national pride, we've never lost a war, preparing the Afghan forces to take over the fighting, etc., etc. I couldn't help but think during Obama's speech that I'd heard similar speeches from Lyndon Johnson - take paragraphs from Wednesday's speech and substitute "Vietnam" for "Afghanistan" - deja vu all over again.
When I hear CONTRACTORS," I think "mercenaries." You know, like the British hired to fight the Americans in the Revolution.
Bud, You're right. These are home grown so you know that they are wild west cowboys from a country that generally looks to violence to solve all problems. I'm back with an introductory subscription for the Nation so you can borrow next weeks copy if you want.
We never should have gotten into the business of propping up Karzai. He was the choice of the Bush Administration, and his political power is greatly enhanced by American support. Without our support initially, he wasn't going to run the country.
Interestingly, he's a former petro-company executive. Installed by another bunch of former oil company executives.
WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE was declare war on Al Qaeda, and attack it mercilessly and kill it quickly. We SHOULD have been done with all of this by 2003-2004, and we'd still have a necklace around Saddam. But hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today, and the security situation would not be much changed.
Except, of course, Iraq's oil would still be off-limits.
So what was the Iraq war about again?
Post a Comment