Select Afghanistan Policy Issues 2009: The Domestic Perspective
by President Obama and General McCrystal may differ on the Afghanistan options. Has the military sought to expand its power ocean too far into the civilian sector of decision making? Does the administration lack flexibility in creative political thinking about how to use it’s military power rightly in concert with civilian culutral projects to counter-terrorist tendencies and support in Afghanistan? Is the administration unable to know how to use decisive military force, or is that option even realistic in Afghanistan?
World dominsation seeking radical Muslims of the mid-Asian highlands have little meaningful cultural tradition perhaps apart from Islamic law. Toynbee believed people would fight to defend their relegion more so than any other element. If a secular-and theocratic state are synonymous in tribal areas with Islamic religionous majorities how could the consolidation of their power not seem logical to simple tribesmen with donated high-tech weapons? When they seek to destroy distant U.S. targets of global power such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon with terror attacks how can the U.S.A. or others curb their aggression and restore security at home and in Afghanistan after their terror coordinating government was taken out of power?
What about Afghanistan–should Americans stay, go or do something else? U.S. Policy in Afghanistan has been said by the administration to concern itself primarily with keeping security for the people of the United States and Europe from terror attacks organized in Afghanistan by a Taliban or other terrorist friendly government. The administration has provided the opinion that building a permanent stable Afghan government isn’t the primary mission of the United States. With these two points in mind, the third salient opinion concerning the cost to the people of the United States in the ongoing Afghanistan mission is General McCrystal’s opinion that the United States may lose the war in Afghanistan if he is not given more troops and war material. The administration has further said that it will study U.S. long term strategy before deciding about sending more troops and materials to Afghanistan.
U.S. civilians are of course caught in the middle of this foreign policy cycle of intervention funded by the U.S. Congress that has seemed to completely spineless and uncreative since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York and Washington D.C. Many taxpayers also wonder if the prior Bush administration did not unnecessarily extend the Iraq nation rebuilding administration in order to benefit its Republican favorite Iraq reconstruction contractors. Regardless the Iraq rebuilding fiasco ongoing cost more than a trillion dollars. The U.S. military and private sector contractor reconstruction costs were as effective at harming the U.S. economy as either Al Qa’eda or the corruption of the financial services, banking and mortgage sector. Civilizations have collapsed because of the costs of protracted and incessant foreign wars, and it is certain that Select Muslim oil rich powers sympathetic to a change in balance of western-Muslim political relations will continue to fund the terrorist and insurgent efforts in Afghanistan that mire the U.S. in a near decade long cycle of military caused debt. Is it possible to win in Afghanistan militarily?
Liked it
