Your article "Offensive could be pivotal move against the Taliban" (Feb. 6) is hopeful news. And Gen. Stanley McChrystal's assurance that the situation is no longer deteriorating is assuring. However, his overriding cautionary remark that the "conflict will likely persist for years" tempers our hopes for a permanent solution to this expensive, endless and senseless war, I dare say.
The Taliban are nobody's friends. They rose from the soil of Pakistan and Afghanistan on religious rhetoric to combat the Soviet invaders, aided and abetted by vested interests. They came to power by default, and have tasted the pleasure of loot and plunder, deceit and murder. When they say they are ready to surrender their arms and join ranks with the U.S. forces and traditional tribal chiefs to combat their own fellow insurgents, it's a ruse.
The Obama administration needs to tread with caution when dealing with these guys.
The war must be taken to its logical conclusion -- failing which, our troops have died in vain.
Zia Rehman
Augusta
So, if this war is "endless" then what is your suggested "logical conclusion"? Did I miss that part?
I believe the writer's conclusion is surrender, as is all of those who say the war is endless.
This conflict has been going on in one form or another for centuries. Any hope that we can solve the problems of this region are nothing but hubris. The Soviet Union tried to do that and they failed. If we try to do that we will fail in similar fashion. In oredet to chalk this one up as a "win" we either have to nuke the place until no one can live there (or something to that effect) or we have to redefine what we mean by "victory."
We cannot "win" in the usual sense. If we try to then we have opened ourselves up to a truly endless war and, ultimately, the role of conquest and occupation. That cannot go well for us internally or on the world stage. We will become that which we abhor and validate all criticism leveled against us world-wide.
If we can put down the Taliban, stand up a strong central government, and leave in place a solid military and police force to maintain order, we can say that we have "won." But how long will that last?
Due to the fractious nature of both terrain and the Afghan society I don't think we can define victory in the usual terms. Until we can define it in a meaningful and relevant way we have no hope of ever getting out in an honorable fashion.
I advocate withdrawal from Afghanistan, and I believe there are many ways to limit the effects of terrorism. One of the first things the U.S. should do is to legalize drugs, including heroin, as the profits from illicit sale fund insurgencies and terrorists. The second thing the U.S. can do is begin serious fuel conservation efforts and investments in an alternative fuel economy. Note that while these are not inexpensive, they are less expensive than the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and the numerous other places around the world we have military bases. If we were less dependent on oil, we would not feel the need to control the oil-exporting countries of the world and would not need to intervene every time one of their governments was in trouble. We can stop supporting Israel's occupation and colonialism in the West Bank and lift the siege on Gaza and support UN resolutions for a peace process. We can tie our aid to foreign governments on their human rights records so that we are no longer associated with governments like the Egyptian government. We can stop exporting and manufacturing weapons which end up in the hands of warlords all over the world. These measures won't end terrorism, but they will limit it. Moreover, what we're doing now is like taking chemotherapy to cure a stomach ache. The "cure" of military intervention is worse than the disease of terrorism.
I commend the comments of orgpsych and afadel. If United States is not prepared to legalize heroin, then it could at least buy the opium from Afghanistan for pharmaceutical use. afadel is absolutely correct in his call to "begin serious fuel conservation efforts and investments in an alternative fuel economy."
United States does not combat world terrorism by creating more terrorists, and that is exactly what the 6 year 11 month long U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the 8 year 5 month long U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, and the misguided U.S. "war on terror" has done. The current offensive in Afghanistan and the coming U.S. surge of troops in Afghanistan will not succeed for any number of reasons. The only guaranteed "success" of a U.S. surge in Afghanistan is the further destabilization of Pakistan.
Afghans view the current U.S. offensive in Marjah as a conspiracy. If it is successful it would strengthen the corrupt, illegitimate government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai who is only in office because he stole the election last August. The Afghan opposition is conflicted over any pending success in Marjah and focuses instead on civilian casualties. At least 19 civilians have been killed by U.S. of NATO forces, and that drives Afghan civilians into the arms of the Taliban.
The U.S. war in Afghanistan cannot be "taken to its logical conclusion" of a scorched earth total victory policy. This is a political war not a defensive war for the survival of United States. There is no military victory to be had in Afghanistan. Current U.S. policy is to weaken the Taliban and then negotiate a political solution.
I join afadel in calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The best defense against terrorism is through international cooperation and police action. The "government in a box" that the U.S. has planned for southern Afghanistan is part of a militarized humanitarian aid project. Today the UN says it will not participate in the military’s reconstruction strategy in Marja as part of its current offensive there.
United States simply cannot dictate terms to the rest of the world. We have reached the limits of military power. Both Generals Petraeus and McChrystal support a long counterinsurgency war that would take a decade or more to win. Obama seeks to truncate that process to 18 to 24 months. Neither policy has any chance of success.
Obama cannot win a military victory in 2 years and United States cannot afford to be bogged down in a costly, protracted war in Afghanistan for another decade. That would increase our national debt, lower of standard of living, weaken our economy, weaken our political imprimatur, weaken the U.S. military, spread war throughout South Asia, and create even more terrorists. That is the definition of counter-productive.
Obama has access to military and terrorism intelligence that the rest of us do not have. He is continuing the fight in Afghanistan for that obvious reason. There is something going on there that "Joe Public" doesn't know about & likely will never know about.
Believe me, if Obama thought he could pull the troops out, he would. Continuing with this war and surging troops there is not making him more popular with his dwindling base of political supporters, in fact, it's having quite the opposite effect.
I do know from news reports that we've been killing quite a few Al Qaeda terrorists there lately. That is a great thing for the U.S. Each one that is removed from the planet is one less to plot harm against our citizens.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
