- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 2:18 am
You last visited
April 29, 2024, 2:18 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
No more troops to Afghanistan
Published:
No more troops to Afghanistan
November 29, 2009
Boston Globe
PRESIDENT OBAMA is expected to announce this week his plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a mess he inherited from his predecessor. With the security of our homeland foremost in his thinking, he was wise to have taken the time to listen to experts and reassess US strategy. Indeed, time and events have helped to clarify the situation. I hope the president will be equally wise and take them into account and urge a more narrow and focused strategy with no further troop buildup.
Pakistan continues to harbor Al Qaeda terrorists who would pose an imminent threat to US national security if they were to take control of that country’s nuclear weapons. Obama’s March report advised that our national security requires us to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and prevent their return to either country in the future.’’
To achieve that goal, General Stanley McChrystal suggested a “counterinsurgency’’ strategy, saying that he needs at least 40,000 more US troops in addition to the 68,000 already there. But, he warned: “A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution. This is their war’’ and any success must come “by, with, and through the Afghan government.’’
In other words, without a legitimate and credible Afghan partner, that counterinsurgency strategy is fundamentally flawed. The current Afghan government is neither legitimate nor credible. It has recently been installed by nothing more than a fraudulent political default. President Hamid Karzai now knowingly presides over a culture of corruption, an opium-dependent economy and, so far, has shown neither the credibility nor political will to rid his government of its corrupt warlords and crony power brokers, providing slim hope for “an Afghan solution.’’
Further, General James Jones, the president’s national security adviser, says of Afghanistan: “The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.’’
So, let’s get our priorities in order. We should not send a single additional dollar in aid or add a single American serviceman or woman to the 68,000 already courageously deployed in Afghanistan until we see a meaningful move by the Karzai regime to root out its corruption, assemble a more representative coalition government, and demonstrate some measure of transparency and accountability under the rule of law.
The brave US and NATO troops currently there should accelerate training of local Afghan Army and police forces to prepare for gradual reduction and ultimate disengagement while our civilian forces help build responsive governance infrastructures at the province level.
Our national security goal has not changed. But to achieve it, we need not enlarge our military footprint in Afghanistan and risk even more violence in retaliation for our perceived “occupation.’’
Instead, we and our NATO allies should narrow our strategy; focus on sealing and securing the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to prevent Al Qaeda from fleeing to Afghanistan as we use intelligence, drones, and special forces to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan’’ where the real danger exists; assist Pakistan in enhancing civilian control of a stable constitutional government, in ensuring its economic growth and in securing its nuclear weapons. With this refocused strategy, our NATO allies can do more to assist militarily and should step up with more civilian assistance.
Obama has inherited no good options, but a more focused strategy with no additional troops stands out as preferable to all the others.
Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr. of Massachusetts is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Log In
To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.
Not a member yet?
If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.
Register