Here's the problem. It's not going to happen. Our "coalition" is essentially us and Britain and about 10-15 other countries who have committed a couple hundred troops each. And most of those countries are now losing their taste for even that level of involvement. So, like it or not, that is going to leave us to do almost all the heavy lifting ourselves. Right now we have approximately 68,000 troops stationed there. Now General McChrystal has reportedly asked for 45,000 more. And I don't blame him. Roughly speaking, 68,000 is one Memorial Stadium-full of soldiers. While that's a lot, it hardly seems like an adequate enough force to secure an entire country. Even with the additional 45,000 (which is by no means guaranteed), we're just talking about upgrading from Memorial Stadium to Michigan Stadium. Again, I am just skeptical that it's enough to get the job done.
So while I think it's going to take a couple hundred thousand troops at a minimum, even if we were capable of it I just can't possibly in good conscience recommend that we supply them all. So if we're not going to have the international support we need, and we're not capable of supplying all the troops ourselves then in my opinion we're just delaying the inevitable and losing more soldiers in the process. This is the epitome of the bad choice/worse choice scenario. From where I'm sitting it seems like the only thing worse than leaving is not leaving.
I think the final straw for me was the election debacle. Before then I could at least somewhat convince myself that we were helping support a legitimate democracy in the Middle East. But instead it appears that we are backing an extremely corrupt regime that seems to only really care about clinging to power and cannot or will not bring about democratic reform. And while it may be better than the Taliban, I don't think it's enough of an improvement to warrant a seemingly endless commitment of blood and treasure.
5 comments:
I haven't commented on this because I still feel like I don't know enough about the forces at work there to either agree or disagree with anything you've said. What was the metaphor someone made a few years back about the internet- that it was like trying to nail Jello to a wall? That's what I feel like trying to understand Afghanistan is like. The U.S. is at a huge disadvantage in that our systems are fundamentally different on several levels. Not only is Afghanistan a religious-based country (in the heart of a whole region of other Islamic countries), but it is also a decentralized, rural, and most importantly tribal country as well. There is no way in hell any of us are going to be able to understand that enough to be able to effectively engage with it. Any help we give is just going to make it worse... and has.
I just realized that my previous comment is basically, "Well I'll tell you what the problem is. You shouldn't've done that." Which is all anyone can say, and doesn't do anything to solve the problem. So. I guess... I'm going to agree with you that leaving is the least bad option.
Becky,
First of all, I think you have an opinion. I don't believe that after eight years you haven't been able to inform yourself about what's going on in Afghanistan. Unless you have purposely avoided information about the war, which I guess is possible, but (knowing you) unlikely.
Now, on to the premise that we're different than the Afghanis and that means we should just give up...
Of course we're different. This is generally why wars happen. There's an attempt or thirty at diplomacy (usually, esp. now); Diplomacy fails; War happens.
People with similar views and feelings, not to mention similar perspectives, on a given set of issues can generally come to some kind of non-violent agreement. That's the beauty of diplomacy.
The ugly part of diplomacy is when there's so little in common that no common ground can be found. And that's where we are with the Islamic Fundamentalists and terrorists (two different groups, but two working together against us) who are at war with us.
Think about the Ender series, and how the hive queen tried and tried to communicate after she had first contact (and tried to eradicate humanity), but couldn't find a common language until she found Ender and built Jane, the computer.
Metaphorically speaking, this is the same situation. We just need to find our Ender and build our Jane... or they need to find theirs.
Either way, your premise that just washing our hands and walking away will solve the problems of the region is the best course of action sort of seems defeatist, imho, and I always thought more highly of your desire to bridge those societal and cultural gaps that keep wars like this happening.
If we do give up, and walk away without a presence in the region, I believe we will have only sacrificed the lives of tens of thousands of people for the cause of... well, for the cause of giving up. And our image in the region will be harmed to the point that the next war may well be fought on our own ground. Now, I don't want to see anyone injured or killed if it's avoidable, but I REALLY don't want to see any American citizens injured or killed.
So, should we seek more diplomacy or just go on trying to eradicate them? Well, both.
Diplomacy at the point of a gun is still diplomacy. And the upper hand is important in diplomatic situations. And to be blunt (again), I don't really care to pray to Allah five times per day, so I want US to have that upper hand. I can't imagine anyone who feels as strongly about the absurdity of religion as the readers of this blog do would for an instant try to appease an aggressor that has repeatedly stated that their mission is to rid the world of infidels in the form of liberal western civilization.
Good points all Mike.
I read an article this morning that made me realize just how far apart we are. There was a march by peaceful Muslims (not extremists or terrorists or anything) in favor of and/or supporting a treaty that would ban blasphemy.
Here it is in fact.
Now, these are peaceful people, but throughout their religion (regardless of your reading of the text) everyone agrees with this. That is a billion people that want to limit speech/expression due to religious beliefs vs. anyone/everyone who believes that we have a fundamental right to blaspheme if we want.
It is in their Koran.
It is in our 1st amendment.
This is not an issue that we will EVER find a middle ground on, and yet we have to live in a global community with these people. This is still fallout over the Danish Mohammad cartoon, which was in a Danish paper, but quickly because a 'West' issue, or even an 'American' issue.
Add to that the infographic from one of the Comedy Central shows that displayed Asia during various occupations (Napoleon, Alex the Great, Khan (Khaaaan!)) and the common factor in ALL of them was that Afghanistan was the only country that was never conquered.
In short: we're screwed.
Damn. Mike's post was WAY longer than mine.
Post a Comment