The editors of the Washington Post are urging Presidents Obama and Karzai to reach an agreement on retaining U. S. forces in Afghanistan after 2013:
Though some U.S. officials claim that a stable Afghanistan is no longer a strategic interest, the United States also has much to lose: namely, the fragile gains purchased by a dozen years of hard fighting that have cost nearly 2,300 American lives. Those gains include an Afghan army that has taken over 99 percent of the fighting against the Taliban and held its own, as well as a nascent democratic political system that is headed toward a competitive presidential election to replace Mr. Karzai. No wonder NATO allies are quietly urging the White House not to throw away in a fit of pique the achievements of the most consequential operation in the alliance’s history.
Note that nowhere in the editorial are the words “Al Qaeda” or “terrorism” to be found. The closest is “counterterrorism operators” by which, I presume, they mean UAV support personel.
I have some questions:
- If the Senate had been told in 2002 that we’d still have forces in Afghanistan 12 years after the attacks in 2001 and wanted to maintain a force in Afghanistan indefinitely, do you think we’d be there now?
- If Sen. Barack Obama had run on a platform of keeping U. S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 and into the indefinite future, do you think he’d be president now?
- What are our strategic interests in Afghanistan?
Keep in mind that there are estimated to be between 100 and 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined. Right now we’re fighting the Taliban in both countries. Thinking that there can be an end to such a fight is a categorical error.
Comparisons with World War II are all the vogue in discussing our present strategic position. I think that if President Roosevelt had told the American people that we’d have troops in Germany in 2013 we would still have gone to war against Germany because the perception if not the fact is that we had no other choice. Do we have no other choices in Afghanistan?
Answers to your questions.
Yes.
Yes, because he wasn’t elected based on any of his positions but because he was just black enough.
Our strategic interest in Afghanistan is to stand in the middle of the Iranians, Pakistanis and possibly the Russians for no apparent reason whatsoever.
1) Yes, we wanted revenge. Besides, when does America turn down a war?
2) Given the alternative candidates, he could have pledged almost anything.
3) It is a chronically failed state that affords a base for those who want to attack us. It is a part of the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, two countries that we claim as allies, sort of. We have some strategic interests in not wanting these two nuclear powers to escalate into a real war.
I dont think these are enough to merit a longer stay.
Steve
1) Yes. 9/11. Plus, I am not sure that it would have been the number of years that were surprising; its the troop strength commitment. For the first couple of years it was at or under 10,000, about as many as the U.S. has in Italy.
2) Yes. Obama ran on a platform that Afghanistan is a “good war” and its been under-resourced by Bush II’s love for a “stupid war.” Obama is a liberal interventionist, whose political fortunes owe to the Democratic Party schism on Iraq.
3) Yes. Generally agree with steve, but I would emphasize that we were attacked from Afghanistan so there is zero tolerance for history to have a chance to repeat itself from that place. I think a small force is appropriate.
Where I think I disagree with you is that I see much of the entire territory from the Bosporus to the Hindu Kush and, possibly, from the Maghreb to the Sahel, Atlantic to the Red Sea, as just as suitable staging areas for terrorist attacks as Afghanistan and Pakistan alone. If we think otherwise, we’re kidding ourselves and we’re not going to pre-position forces throughout that vast area.
We should start thinking about security differently.