Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
During the last Presidential campaign, too many times both candidates were saying the same thing. Too confusing to make a choice.
But here in the Political Forum, on this question, we have a distinct difference of opinion on what the U.S. should do.
On one side, I've agreed with a writer who proposes that a continuation of the war in Iraq and an increased presence in Afghanistan is a bad idea, which has little chance of meeting any of our national objectives and will be extremely costly in both blood and treasure. The writer postulates that whatever the costs are to continue military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, the money could be better spent on more important national problems here at home. Were I running for national office, I'd campaign pretty much along the lines of what that writer said, shown in the initial post of this thread . Get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them both to form whatever sort of government they'd like--or no central government at all. But with the forewarning that if there is any evidence whatsoever that either country is sponsoring or even condoning the residence or training of jihadists within their bordrs, the U.S. would respond in an immediate and violent way, without warning and with only a passing attempt to avoid collateral damage.
On the other side, several posters here believe that our continued presence in Iraq and an increase in our commitment to Afghanistan is a good idea. The argument seems to be that we should spend whatever is necessary in time, money and blood to create a democratic form of government in those places. That forming and sustaining a democracy there is in the best interests of the U.S. Their argument is that we successfully transformed other countries in the past--Germany, in particular--and we should try to do it again in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a strong belief that we can and will be successful.
What's great about this thread is that we've provided the "quiet" readers a distinct choice to think about. Maybe they'll even comment.
|
As a not-so-quiet one.....
The success of "democracy-building" seems to depend on whether the to-be-democracized nation is an industrial or agrarian state. Fully or semi- industrialized nations tend to seek public involvement in government to some fashion, as there are always demonstrations, revolutions, or other forms of public protest (and put-downs) happening. In agrarian societies, no one really seems to care what kind of government is in place, as long as it leaves farmers alone to tend their land.
So, Iraq has a chance of becoming a democracy - Afghanistan has a "snow-ball's chance in ...."
However, a quote come to mind regarding these countries:
"...Therefore I have heard of military operations that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen one that was skillful and lasted a long time. It is never beneficial to a nation to have a military operation continue for a long time." Sun Tzu, from the Art of War.
At some point in time, the military's mission is over, and others skilled in nation-building
(BTW, there is no military occupational specialty for "nation-builder") need to take over the job.
Some lessons are hard to learn....