The President's Speech on the Afghanistan War Troop Withdrawal, part 2

By Zach Foster

Continued from Part 1

The author would like to remind skeptics about the fates of other countries the U.S. aided militarily during their time of need: South Korea and South Vietnam.  When one aggressor threatened the security and very existence of an allied government in 1950, the United States aided that country, South Korea, and remained with them through thick and thin, even when the Chinese threw massive waves of their best troops at the coalition for years.  The U.S. stayed with the South Koreans until the very end and today South Korea is a free and democratic country with a booming economy.  Then there was South Vietnam, whose aid many Americans did not find to be very important.  The United States was with them for much of the duration and helped maintain South Vietnam’s existence until ALMOST the very end.  Unfortunately, Americans could not summon the fortitude to come to South Vietnam’s help in her final hour of need, and the country fell to the wolves.  Southeast Asia was destabilized as that domino fell and Laos and Cambodia also fell to the wolves, three civil wars resulting in Stalinist governments and a series of wars between Communist countries for fifteen years.  No matter what, the U.S. must be prepared to help the Iraqis and the Afghanis should another time of need arise.

The author is largely anti-war, and believes that there are countless alternatives to war, and that this country’s foreign policy of constant interventionism is not necessarily helping the cause of world peace.  In the future, this country and future presidential administrations ought to choose their battles more cautiously and find alternative methods to solving crises.  After all, if the government shouldn’t be in its own citizens’ “backyards,” it definitely shouldn’t be in the yards of all of America’s neighbors.  However, this is a strategy for the future.  The author also believes in finishing what was started, and also believes strongly in the “you break it you buy it” philosophy.

Whether people agree with the wars or not, one thing can be agreed upon: thousands of American troops, tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan troops, and tens of thousands of civilians have lost their lives and spilled their blood in these wars.  There is light at the end of the tunnel and a hope for victory—victory not in the epic vanquishing of a foe, but in preserving the existence of democratic countries—South Koreas—in the middle east.  It should not be forgotten that the Republic of Korea’s transition to democracy was not an overnight phenomenon; it was slow and hard-won by much civil disobedience and clashing between citizens and government.  However, it speaks volumes that the U.S. military was able to simply provide stability and protection against the Northern aggressors so that the South Koreans would simply have a fighting chance to build their democracy.  The people of Iraq are working hard at that right now and the people of Afghanistan deserve that same chance.  These are American issues now because America made them its issues when the invasions began in 2001 and 2003.  The rivers of blood spilled from Basra to Kurdistan, from Helmand to Kunduz, are the painful reminder that wonderful people died so that others may live and have a simple tomorrow.  Their fatal investment, and the painful investment of grief and tears made by their families must not go to waste.