More Discussion About the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Afghanistan?
What's this? Weren't U.S. troops going to withdraw from Afghanistan? Hey, not so fast. Tucked away in the news over the weekend was this report regarding ongoing discussions between political factions in Afghanistan which discussions involve the fate of our American soldiers. As we've pointed out in the past, stories that appear over the weekend are usually placed there so that fewer people read them. Some person or party decides they need to keep what's going on under wraps, so that it's scrutinized by the fewest number of people. But since we sniffed out this story, let's take a more detailed look at it.
You and I might read the word "withdrawal" and conclude that means all U.S. troops will simply leave that foreign land to sort out their political problems themselves. Of course, such an understanding doesn't take into account the fact that the U.S. government sees their involvement and intervention in virtually every part of the world - including the presence of U.S. troops - as essential to their view of the "world order."
So, in fact, the "withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Afghanistan involves a scheme where some troops remain in some capacity for some unspecified period of time, with the latest turn involving a "security" presence for U.S. troops throughout the country, or at least parts of it. And now we find a negotiation taking place between Karzai, the President of the country and the "elders" - those men who lead the various tribes that make up this land on the other side of the world, with the result that the elders want the U.S. to stay and Karzai seemingly opposes this. What happens if the elders don't get their way?
Failure to clinch the deal could mean a full U.S. pullout, leaving Afghanistan to fight the Taliban insurgency on its own. U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan since leading a drive to remove the Taliban in late 2001.
Two things of note here:
First, it's another example of an important story consigned to a week-end report, where few will end up seeing it, as already mentioned. Why important? It concerns the fate of American soldiers whose fate is being discussed and debated by foreign political figures. How that happens is another story, but, sadly, it does, and our own government usually goes along in placing troops in harms way as a result of such political discussions by "allies" and other foreign entities.
Second, note how the author says that failure leaves "Afghanistan to fight the Taliban insurgency on its own." But isn't the Taliban a faction in Afghanistan? Of course they are, and so the phrase makes no sense. What would be more accurate would be to say that such a failure leaves the Afghanistan government - or in this case perhaps the elders - to fight the Taliban. Otherwise we Americans (ignorant as most of us are of these affairs of Afghanistan politics) might think that the Taliban were alien oppressors of some sort come from some other land to persecute and terrorize people in Afghanistan.
Recommendation to those who prefer to use their reason when possible to sort out these sorts of media stories: Always place the word "government" after the name of a country. Most times, what's being reported are the words or actions of governments - U.S., French, Russian, Chinese, etc. - not the words or actions of an entire nation of individual people, all of whom may or may not agree with the declarations and policies of their governments. It's a good mental discipline.
More on this story...
You and I might read the word "withdrawal" and conclude that means all U.S. troops will simply leave that foreign land to sort out their political problems themselves. Of course, such an understanding doesn't take into account the fact that the U.S. government sees their involvement and intervention in virtually every part of the world - including the presence of U.S. troops - as essential to their view of the "world order."
So, in fact, the "withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Afghanistan involves a scheme where some troops remain in some capacity for some unspecified period of time, with the latest turn involving a "security" presence for U.S. troops throughout the country, or at least parts of it. And now we find a negotiation taking place between Karzai, the President of the country and the "elders" - those men who lead the various tribes that make up this land on the other side of the world, with the result that the elders want the U.S. to stay and Karzai seemingly opposes this. What happens if the elders don't get their way?
Failure to clinch the deal could mean a full U.S. pullout, leaving Afghanistan to fight the Taliban insurgency on its own. U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan since leading a drive to remove the Taliban in late 2001.
Two things of note here:
First, it's another example of an important story consigned to a week-end report, where few will end up seeing it, as already mentioned. Why important? It concerns the fate of American soldiers whose fate is being discussed and debated by foreign political figures. How that happens is another story, but, sadly, it does, and our own government usually goes along in placing troops in harms way as a result of such political discussions by "allies" and other foreign entities.
Second, note how the author says that failure leaves "Afghanistan to fight the Taliban insurgency on its own." But isn't the Taliban a faction in Afghanistan? Of course they are, and so the phrase makes no sense. What would be more accurate would be to say that such a failure leaves the Afghanistan government - or in this case perhaps the elders - to fight the Taliban. Otherwise we Americans (ignorant as most of us are of these affairs of Afghanistan politics) might think that the Taliban were alien oppressors of some sort come from some other land to persecute and terrorize people in Afghanistan.
Recommendation to those who prefer to use their reason when possible to sort out these sorts of media stories: Always place the word "government" after the name of a country. Most times, what's being reported are the words or actions of governments - U.S., French, Russian, Chinese, etc. - not the words or actions of an entire nation of individual people, all of whom may or may not agree with the declarations and policies of their governments. It's a good mental discipline.
More on this story...
Comments