Why U.S. troops must stay in Afghanistan
Moving toward this long-term posture in 2013 will likely ensure its failure. As we fall below 68,000 troops, we will have to withdraw from important terrain and lose the ability to maneuver. Our forces won’t be able to operate in most of southern Afghanistan, conduct offensive operations or help the ANSF consolidate and mature. We must create basic stability in 2013 that the ANSF can sustain to set conditions for any long-term U.S. counterterrorism operations. Doing so requires two things this White House appears to want to avoid: keeping U.S. force levels where they are for the next two years; and implementing a serious political strategy aimed not at our enemies but at the people we need to be our long-term partners.
The United States can stabilize Afghanistan if it maintains around 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan into 2014, dropping to over 30,000 thereafter (about what we have in Korea). The idea that the war is inevitably lost is a convenient mask behind which decision-makers hide to deflect responsibility for pulling out troops who are making a real difference.
We have argued that the current defeatism about Afghanistan is overdrawn and unfounded. But it is more important for Americans to internalize a simple fact: We must either stabilize Afghanistan at this minimum level or abandon the fight against al-Qaeda and its allies in South Asia. Any alternative “light footprint” strategy is a dangerous mirage.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I fully expect the President to vote present.
rob verdi on November 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM
I am not a military person, but I do not think staying in afghanistan will ever help/make them love us? They are killing our military while they are on base for crying out loud! And to boot, bho/team/dc is trying to stop funds for equipment and other things the military needs!
I am at the point just let those sub-humans deal the way they always do, kill/burn/riot and get out military out! Am I wrong?
L
letget on November 24, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Only if your withdrawal does not include a salting of the earth campaign on the way out… I say everything we paid to help build gets destroyed as we leave.
astonerii on November 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM
The third option, which it seems America has abandoned, is to defeat the enemy by either utterly destroying him or sapping him of his will to fight.
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Not at all.
My neighbor and part of his family were at out house for Thanksgiving. They grew up in Afghanistan and immigrated here back in the 70′s. He comes from a large family that was politically and militarily connected from the 1920′s until the time they came here. He has an older brother that still lives there as well as having siblings that work for the US at very high levels within the intelligence community.
To a person they will tell you that there is no winnable solution. The people of this region recognize no borders and the closest they could come to in recognizing any form of governance is within their own tribes.
Get out and stay out. They don’t call it the graveyard of empires for nothing.
CTSherman on November 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM
After ten years in the Marine Corps, to include three tours in Iraq I can tell you that this is a complete waste of treasure and lives. Why must we attempt to rebuild that country? Why must our military die building schools these 8th century tribes don’t want? Why must we train their cops who turn around and shoot us in the back?
We are simply too ignorant, naive, stupid or arrogant to learn from past empires such as Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviets – all who eventually withdrew under defeat. We aren’t going to change these people, and not one American is worth their democracy. The only business we have their is to kill those – if any are left – that actually had something to do with 9/11.
MoreLiberty on November 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Once we switched from search and destroy, to nation building – we were screwed.
How will the Afghan government fund the infrastructure that we’re installing? Everything that we’re building for them, will either be destroyed by the Taliban/AQ, or will quickly fall into disrepair due to insufficient resources (money and supplies). This whole nation building approach is a horrible idea.
Either the mission is 100% anti-AQ, or bring our troops home. Now.
Hill60 on November 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM
You talking about NoKo?
davidk on November 24, 2012 at 4:19 PM
The Kagan strategy is wrong. Dead wrong in fact. Afghanistan is of little strategic importance. 9-11 happened because we let Muslims into this country legally, without a proper background check or a proper understanding of Islam. It is politically hard (due to political correctness) to screen Muslims to determine how seriously they take the Quran or Ahadith and because a large segment of our political elite (does not matter the political party) don’t think the Islamic religion is a problem at all. We therefore instead waste billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers lives trying to change places in the Islamic world without clue one how to change the place.
If we want to influence Afghanistan just pay off and arm the local ethnic groups that don’t care for the ethnic groups that support the Taliban. That would cost a whole heck a lot less in money and lives. Yet even doing that I don’t think is needed. The minute we leave Afghanistan it becomes the Russians and Chinese problem. They both have strategic and economic interests that are much greater than ours in that place. That will of course draw them into conflict with the Jihadist who fantasize about a pure Islamic world. The only thing we are doing now is keeping that conflict from taking place.
Republicans / Conservatives need to purge this Neo-Conservative foreign policy from their ranks. It is nothing more than Wilsonian adventurism of the stupidest and most expensive kind. I am a hawk, but you have to be a smart hawk. When you fight wars you fight to win them as quick as possible. It does not matter how violent it has to be, but it must be quick. Anything lasting more than five years is a debacle and a defeat. We got more important matters of strategic importance, China for instance, than spending the majority of our time worrying about 7th century barbarians and at least if you are going to worry about them how about the ones who have nuclear weapons (or are going to have them) next store.
William Eaton on November 24, 2012 at 4:52 PM
No, get out. If we are loathe to use overwhelming force to defeat the enemy then we have no business there. Our military is structured to defeat the enemey not build their schools and infrastructure. Since we are not in it to win it, then we have to make sure they know that we will obliterate any terrorist camps we identify without letting them know before hand. I know, I’m dreaming…
major dad on November 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Great. So we will still be in Afghanistan for over 50 years just like South Korea. Awesome
MoreLiberty on November 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM
Summary: because the NeoCon whackadoodle who wrote another historically-ignorant “never surrender!!1!1eleven” article thinks we should.
He can take his flag-waving nonsense and shove it. And as for authority, I think I can say without doubt that this poster won the thread and the argument:
Says it all, folks.
We’re trying to fight a spiritual problem (Muslim beliefs) with physical means (our military). Guess what, history shows that the best we can expect is a temporary repression, that is guaranteed to go away when we can no longer afford said repression.
Time to cut our losses before the Coward-in-Chief gets more of our finest killed for the real-life equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru.
MelonCollie on November 24, 2012 at 11:21 PM