By Zach Foster
The President’s announcement last night over live television of the gradual withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan has been met with mixed reception and responses. Conservative Democrats are praising the plan, while staunch anti-war Democrats and Libertarians are opposed to the war entirely, and Republicans are being predictable by criticizing the President’s withdrawal plan for being too modest/too quick/too weak/too hot/too cold, etc. The plan itself emphasizes continuing to train and strengthen the Afghan National Army and police forces while ten thousand troops are withdrawn by the end of 2011, and a total of thirty-three thousand troops withdrawn by the summer of 2012.
It is apparent that this is a bold campaign move, as the President faces another election in the Fall of 2012 and he looks to preserve his image as the peace candidate. This is a falsehood, since the only candidate whose actions (and Congressional voting record) consistently agree with his anti-war rhetoric is Ron Paul. Let it not be forgotten that while campaigning in 2007-08, then-Senator Obama made all kinds of wonderful promises about bringing a swift end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[1] While he did make good on his promise to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within sixteen months of his taking office (for which he deserves credit), it must be understood that there is a huge difference between ending a war and finishing or winning a war.
Also, let it be understood that in not completely following his campaign promises the President is NOT a liar. This is an example of an idealistic young Senator making promises based on a narrow view of the way things are and how they ought to be, and how those views sharply changed after being sworn in and exposed to all the classified information exposing the grim reality. Though “combat troops” have been withdrawn from Iraq, there are still approximately 50,000 troops there as “advisors” to the Iraqi security forces, and American troops continue to die in combat. Thankfully, the number of Iraq War fatalities during Operation New Dawn are very few and government influence and stability within the country are very high compared to the hard dark times during the rise of the insurgencies in 2004 and the troop surge of 2007-08. There has been true progress in Iraq.
This is why the author was pleased when the President announced the Afghan War troop surge in December of 2009. The author understood that because of the massive distractions caused by the Iraq War, the Taliban was able to regroup and reassemble itself into a stronger force to re-challenge the fledgling Afghan government and Afghan War Coalition. In this comeback the Taliban was aided by the presence of smaller jihadist movements like the Haqqani terror network and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Many Afghan War veterans can attest today that the Afghan security forces are getting stronger and can realistically be prepared to maintain stability by the end of 2014. Apart from the constant battlefield victories of the Afghan War Coalition, Osama Bin Laden is dead along with more than half of Al Qaeda’s senior leadership. For these victories, the gradual withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is permissible.[2] Much like there is hope for Iraq, there is hope for Afghanistan.
Concluded in Part 2: We did this before... AND WE SUCCEEDED.
[1] Shanker, Thom. Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality. New York Times. December 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html
[2] Al-Qaeda so weak that US Afghanistan withdrawal would be justified. The Telegraph. June 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8584898/Al-Qaeda-so-weak-that-US-Afghanistan-withdrawal-would-be-justified.html
No comments:
Post a Comment