Sending our weary soldiers to another war?
The campaign in Afghanistan has been coined this by some people, most notably conservatives. Since Obama began is campaign to become president of the U.S. he has mentioned that one of the focuses of his foreign policy was to concentrate more U.S. resources to the execution and wrap-up of the war in Afghanistan. While the Taliban were seemingly eradicated in a short campaign immediately following 9/11, the UN peacekeeping forces left there as the U.S. moved on to Iraq left the door open to refill the vacuum left first by Soviet aggression in the 80s-90s and then by the quick campaign waged by the U.S. in 2001.
News reports today that Americans overall are disgruntled about not only Obama’s handling of this war, but also about the continual execution of this campaign in general. At The Apathy Remedy, I posted a blog about why Afghanistan was a war that was necessary to continue waging, and how it was different than waging war in Iraq. My point was that success in eradicating the Taliban from Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan was important to U.S. homeland security, and was also important to that forgotten task of finding Osama Bin Laden to hold him accountable for his involvement in the events on 9/11 and the events al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for.
Understandable that sending our friends/brothers/sisters/sons/daughters/mothers/fathers/countrymen is a tough feeling – regardless of the justification or lack of justification for waging war in a region as dangerous and volatile as the Middle East; however, it is also hard to get anything for nothing. The outcome of circumstances in Afghanistan can affect the entire Middle Eastern region, and most importantly, can impact U.S. objectives – objectives that actually impact the security of the nation.
In reading this article by the Christian Science Monitor today, I was a little taken back by words said by Gates:
“The US is not in Afghanistan to do nation-building, he added, but to help build Afghan government’s capacity to protect itself from Al Qaeda and other groups – which, in turn, is in the US’ best interests. “
Focusing on the comment about nation-building – I think part of the problem is that nation-building is not factoring in as more of the equation in the U.S. plan in that country. I have said time and again in other pieces, but the increase in military capacity does not guarantee long-term victory in Afghanistan. Because after U.S. military presence is gone, the vacuum will open again. And let’s be serious – the “legitimate” government in Afghanistan is in its stages of infancy as far as wielding any respectable authority across the nation of Afghanistan. That would be like holding a baby’s hand only to let it go when the child is barely able to stand. If the people cannot rely on their own government to provide them with the basic needs of a society, then they will look to the first alternative that will.
Obama is rightfully focusing on finishing what was poorly started back in 2001. Now he just has to focus not only on military presence, but providing the resources that will set the country up for long-term stability.
Popularity: 3%