U.S. Military Reconsidering Leaving Afghanistan?
The U.S. military will leave Afghanistan in 2014 - at least that's the plan now. But this former marine thinks we ought not, explains why not, and recommends that the U.S.government change its plans by keeping a "level of support" in Afghanistan:
This story strikes me in a special way on this day, June 6th, the 69th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II. In that war, the U.S. government pursued objectives that resulted in victory. Sure, one can debate whether the U.S. should have participated in that war in the first place (most Americans didn't think so until the U.S base in Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese forces). One could also argue whether the insistence on "unconditional" surrender achieved the results desired. And, of course, there's always the issue of dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese cities. But whatever your views, if you contrast the prosecution of that war with many of the more recent conflicts to which the U.S. government has committed our troops, what's striking is that lack of any positive result. At least it strikes me.
Oh, and why can't the Afghan military handle its own affairs? Whatever the reason, this ex-marine makes it clear they can't: he's even witnessed this in action.
So will some military detachments remain in Afghanistan? And if they do, what will this accomplish? A better question may be: Will the U.S. government continue to send American forces to intervene in country after country, with the same results over and over again?
More...
If we don't keep up at least that level of support, the Afghan Army will be in a great deal of trouble. The kandak mutiny I witnessed last summer will likely play out elsewhere and the U.S. will have wasted 12 years of blood and treasure.Note the phrase "wasted 12 years of blood and treasure." How often this has already been the case as a result of U.S. military involvement in other country's affairs. Most recently, consider the case of Iraq. That war dragged on much longer than planned. In the end, most U.S. troops left. The country continues to descend into chaos.
This story strikes me in a special way on this day, June 6th, the 69th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II. In that war, the U.S. government pursued objectives that resulted in victory. Sure, one can debate whether the U.S. should have participated in that war in the first place (most Americans didn't think so until the U.S base in Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese forces). One could also argue whether the insistence on "unconditional" surrender achieved the results desired. And, of course, there's always the issue of dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese cities. But whatever your views, if you contrast the prosecution of that war with many of the more recent conflicts to which the U.S. government has committed our troops, what's striking is that lack of any positive result. At least it strikes me.
Oh, and why can't the Afghan military handle its own affairs? Whatever the reason, this ex-marine makes it clear they can't: he's even witnessed this in action.
So will some military detachments remain in Afghanistan? And if they do, what will this accomplish? A better question may be: Will the U.S. government continue to send American forces to intervene in country after country, with the same results over and over again?
More...
Comments