Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Steve, I read the Wikipedia summary and didn't come away with a compelling feeling that we should be there, spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year for an Afghanistan war, particularly when we do have other compelling needs here at home (healthcare, education, and many other domestic needs).
We committed troops to Afghanistan to quell Taliban control because they were reportedly harboring al Quaeda after the 9-11 attack. While we have been inconsistent in the deployment of troops to this theatre, we have had some success in killing some al Quaeda leaders. We have had little success in controlling the Taliban, who now control at least half the coiuntry and are even threatening Kabul, the capital city. al Quaeda has effectively sought refuge on the Pakistan side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and our "ally", Pakistan, has done little to eliminate them. Other than using missle equipped-drones, we have opted not to deploy troops on the ground in Pakistan, who has objected to any such idea.
We're facing the same frustrating situation that many occupiers before us have faced in Afghanistan. All who have preceded us have failed and withdrawn, the latest being the Russians in 1988 after an unsuccessful ten-year war which has become know as "Russia's Viet Nam".
I've got to do more research on why we think we need to be waging war in Afghanistan and spending boatloads of money to re-build the country. It's not as if we don't have other issues here at home that could be substantially resolved with the money we're spending in Afghanistan.
|
I have to agree that a conventional military solution to the Afghani situation is questionable. The interesting thing is the new coalition commander, General McChrystal. He's a career Special Operations officer, and his skill in SpecOPS may bring a more realistic way to stabilize the country.
As a terrorism center, Afghanistan is premier. The combination of an uneducated population, corruption, lousy infrastructure, very rugged terrain and reliance on poppy/opium production as a cash crop makes the potential of returning to "its wicked ways" very real.
The drug money to be made for terrorism funding is extreme. Until the farmers can make more money growing anything other than what they've been growing for the druggies, anarchy will continue there and be exploited by the bad guys.
I'm for giving General McChrystal and his staff a chance. SpecOPS guys think differently than conventional Army types, and SpecOPS has the best shot for success there. He's only had the job as boss there since May, and may make Secretary Gates and Pres. Obama look really smart for placing him there.
If Afghanistan can be resolved to not be an anarchistic terrorist home, it can save us a lot of future costs and pain and heartache later.