President Barack Obama announced on Christmas Day 2014 that the conflict in Afghanistan was "over." And, in keeping with promises made in the 2008 presidential campaign, Americans will be pulled out of Afghanistan. Of course, this is happening in the sunset of the President's second term (his puzzling re-election is a subject for another blog). I wonder why it took so long to carry out this promise? Or, on the other hand, I wonder why President Obama is ending this "conflict" just now when no purpose was met, and no victory was gained? Remember how Obama criticized George W. Bush and told us how Obama would end the war...er, conflict...as soon as he was elected. And he could have done it, after all, as he has made clear throughout his terms, he IS the Commander-In-Chief. But, here in the opening days of 2015 withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is FINALLY underway(at least that is what we are told).
If the President were going to withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan, WHY did not he do so as soon as he took office? After all, that is what he said he would do. Well, you say, the President had to let the Chiefs of Staff or someone come up with an "exit plan." Alright, I can grasp that concept, BUT, after one full term and three quarters of another, the "exit plan" is remarkably similar to the "exit plan" employed in Saigon in the century past. That is, our troops are coming home and the nation of Afghanistan will fall to "terrorist control" within a few weeks after our departure. Check the President's comments for yourself, as to the exit plan:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-12-25/obama-s-christmas-in-hawaii-carols-relax-on-the-beach
The President really does not have an exit plan, just a "withdrawal" that will still leave OVER 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. I will wager that those troops will not just be there for the pleasure of that beautiful nation a way over there. But Mr. Obama assures us that the new Afghan government is "encouraging" because of that president's earnest desire to keep the country out of control of Muslim extremists. The President is viewing this "encouragement" through rose-colored (delusional) glasses, however. Just like history has taught us so many times, when US military forces pull out of an unsettled conflict, the "new government" installed by the US rarely lasts more than a few weeks, at least not as a significant factor. Instead, after all the conflict, bloodshed, and trillions of dollars spent, Afghanistan is still a dangerous place and continued bloodshed is inevitable. Most likely, a Muslim government of that nation is inevitable as well. But, the President tells us that Afghanistan is no longer a threat to us. What...no more terrorists in Afghanistan? Right, Mr. Obama...then why are we leaving our troops over there after the "withdrawal?"
By the way, what about the 13,000 or so American troops to be left in Afghanistan? If Afghanistan is no longer a threat, then why leave our soldiers there? The President says that the thirteen thousand troops will be there for "training" purposes. So, Mr. President, after your two terms and those of George W. Bush, the Afghanistan military is not "trained?!" If that is the case, I am pretty sure there is no point in leaving our troops to train them, as it is apparent they cannot be trained. And since the Afghan army cannot effectively fight the "terrorists" it makes one wonder, who WILL fight the terrorists? I will give you only ONE guess, and it is not a difficult one.
I agree with President Obama that our troops should be withdrawn, except that I believe they should be fully withdrawn. If the "conflict" is "over" it is criminal (or should be) to leave American soldiers over there just to be "targets" for the group that ends up in control of Afghanistan. Last year (2014) was the BLOODIEST year of the Afghanistan "conflict," with ten thousand civilians and five thousand official soldiers killed there. Oh, but the conflict is over and that nation is safe, Mr. President. Yet the President is right to remove our troops there. For one thing, we can hardly afford to spend another trillion dollars there. Second, because there is not anything there worth one US soldier's life. It would be much cheaper to bring those soldiers home and let them secure our borders here. I know it would be expensive, but at least no more American soldiers would be lost in an endless, objective-less "conflict, a small part of the endless "War On Terror."
NOTE: My idea of placing our troops on our OWN border instead of Afghanistan is not without merit. 77,000 people have perished to date (estimate is probably low) in Mexico's War On Drugs. The danger has spread to neighboring parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and then to points diverse all across our nation. Although the military cannot be used in the United States for law enforcement purposes, nothing prevents the military from being assigned to secure our borders by the Commander-In-Chief of the US military.
If the President were going to withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan, WHY did not he do so as soon as he took office? After all, that is what he said he would do. Well, you say, the President had to let the Chiefs of Staff or someone come up with an "exit plan." Alright, I can grasp that concept, BUT, after one full term and three quarters of another, the "exit plan" is remarkably similar to the "exit plan" employed in Saigon in the century past. That is, our troops are coming home and the nation of Afghanistan will fall to "terrorist control" within a few weeks after our departure. Check the President's comments for yourself, as to the exit plan:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-12-25/obama-s-christmas-in-hawaii-carols-relax-on-the-beach
The President really does not have an exit plan, just a "withdrawal" that will still leave OVER 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. I will wager that those troops will not just be there for the pleasure of that beautiful nation a way over there. But Mr. Obama assures us that the new Afghan government is "encouraging" because of that president's earnest desire to keep the country out of control of Muslim extremists. The President is viewing this "encouragement" through rose-colored (delusional) glasses, however. Just like history has taught us so many times, when US military forces pull out of an unsettled conflict, the "new government" installed by the US rarely lasts more than a few weeks, at least not as a significant factor. Instead, after all the conflict, bloodshed, and trillions of dollars spent, Afghanistan is still a dangerous place and continued bloodshed is inevitable. Most likely, a Muslim government of that nation is inevitable as well. But, the President tells us that Afghanistan is no longer a threat to us. What...no more terrorists in Afghanistan? Right, Mr. Obama...then why are we leaving our troops over there after the "withdrawal?"
By the way, what about the 13,000 or so American troops to be left in Afghanistan? If Afghanistan is no longer a threat, then why leave our soldiers there? The President says that the thirteen thousand troops will be there for "training" purposes. So, Mr. President, after your two terms and those of George W. Bush, the Afghanistan military is not "trained?!" If that is the case, I am pretty sure there is no point in leaving our troops to train them, as it is apparent they cannot be trained. And since the Afghan army cannot effectively fight the "terrorists" it makes one wonder, who WILL fight the terrorists? I will give you only ONE guess, and it is not a difficult one.
I agree with President Obama that our troops should be withdrawn, except that I believe they should be fully withdrawn. If the "conflict" is "over" it is criminal (or should be) to leave American soldiers over there just to be "targets" for the group that ends up in control of Afghanistan. Last year (2014) was the BLOODIEST year of the Afghanistan "conflict," with ten thousand civilians and five thousand official soldiers killed there. Oh, but the conflict is over and that nation is safe, Mr. President. Yet the President is right to remove our troops there. For one thing, we can hardly afford to spend another trillion dollars there. Second, because there is not anything there worth one US soldier's life. It would be much cheaper to bring those soldiers home and let them secure our borders here. I know it would be expensive, but at least no more American soldiers would be lost in an endless, objective-less "conflict, a small part of the endless "War On Terror."
NOTE: My idea of placing our troops on our OWN border instead of Afghanistan is not without merit. 77,000 people have perished to date (estimate is probably low) in Mexico's War On Drugs. The danger has spread to neighboring parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and then to points diverse all across our nation. Although the military cannot be used in the United States for law enforcement purposes, nothing prevents the military from being assigned to secure our borders by the Commander-In-Chief of the US military.
No comments:
Post a Comment