|
|
|
Weather:41°FCloudy |
Dear Editor:
I would like to reply to the Star editorial, titled “More troops is not the answer in Afghanistan.” That begs the question, then what is the answer? If we leave the same amount of troops in Afghanistan, we expose our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen to increased attacks with only a small chance for ultimate success. The status quo is clearly not the answer.
The Star editorial stated that the United States should reduce the size of our military there. Perhaps, we should review what has happened when the United States followed that policy in the past.
Let’s start with Somalia. President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, refused a request from the local commander for tanks because he didn’t want to escalate the war.
President Clinton changed the mission from guarding food supplies to intervening in the Somali intertribal war. A few tanks might have made a huge difference in the battle for Mogadishu. We subsequently left that country and the militant Islamists rejoiced because they had defeated the United States. Al Qaeda operatives a short time later blew up U.S. embassies in Eastern Africa.
We countered that by blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan and a few large tents in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda wasn’t impressed. Then Al Qaeda blew up a small boat next to the USS Cole, which was visiting Sanaa in Yemen. That attack killed a number of sailors and left a large hole in the Cole’s side. I’m still waiting for the U.S. reaction to that offense. Next Al Qaeda destroyed the Twin Towers in New York and a slice of the Pentagon in Washington D.C.
Finally, the U.S. reacted strongly and there hasn’t been a successful attack in the United States since then with the possible exception of MAJ Nadal Malik Hasan‚s recent attack in Fort Hood. We still don’t know much about that attack.
So what would happen if we reduce our forces in Afghanistan? My guess is that the militant Islamists – Taliban and Al Qaeda – would chant “Allahu Akbar” (”God is great”) and then redouble their efforts to kill Americans.
Then we would be faced with the option of getting out of Afghanistan completely. Any reduction of American forces would certainly affect NATO, which is deployed in Afghanistan. When would we see another deployment of NATO again outside Europe to fight terrorism? My guess would be never.
What would happen if President Obama overcomes his current mental anguish and furnishes Gen McChrystal’s requested troops? There is no guarantee, but perhaps the same thing would happen in Afghanistan that happened in Iraq. Remember Iraq? There were all sorts of objections then to the surge. Senator Reid, the Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate, even pronounced it a failure. He was wrong. It was a very great success.
If none of this is persuasive, then please bring our boys and girls home.
To leave them twisting the Afghan wind with insufficient forces and subject to Taliban attacks would be militarily and morally wrong. Either give our military the resources to accomplish its mission or bring it home. Then we should all hunker down, because we will be attacked again inside the United States.
Remember Sept. 11, 2001? We’re not in Afghanistan to protect some petty, corrupt Afghan politician. We’re there to protect ourselves.
Michael Waldron
Niles
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don't already have an account, click here to register for an account. It will ask you to create a username and enter your e-mail address. Once you receive the e-mail with your password, you can log in and change your password using the profile link.
I believe we need to go in and do a constant bombing of the mountain area where the taliban is. They are using the Americans as a game. Todays society has changed the explanation of war against terrorist. We are not allowed to do this nor that, but they bomb and kill innocent people and get away with it. A steady 3 day bombing of the areas where the taliban active is and I can bet they will change their minds fast about fighting us. Right now they have no respect for us and they are using it as their advantage.
I think that we need to go into those mountains with such a force that when we get done, those hills would look like a desert.Then we could do what else ever that we need to finish the job.
Vietnam was a war of containment. We had no vision of winning…just holding on to the status quo. We didn’t want to aggrivate China (how has that worked out for us?). Ultimately, we just said “oh well” and left. Leaving millions to die.
Afghanistan, and the war on terror has become a war of containmement…let’s just try to keep the Taliban from coming back. They will. They will wait patiently for us to leave in 18 months and then come back with a vengence.
I agree with Mr. Waldron and rgridley. We need to quit “messing around”, get down to business, eliminate the enemy and win this war, then get the hell out.
By the way…winning is winning…not coming to a peaceful compromise. This enemy will not compromise and does not want peace. They want the American infidels eliminated and won’t stop until that goal is attained. Therefore, we MUST eliminate them…they set the rules…it’s not that tough for us to follow them. If it must be “us or them” let it be THEM.