Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Should U.S. flee Afghanistan?

(Compiler's note: A must read.)

Analysts are raising questions – just as President Obama has committed another 17,000 U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan – whether instead the goal should be to pull its military out of that battle, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The conflict highlights the question of just what are the strategic interests of the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan and what course of action does the Obama administration contemplate to fulfill those interests? The obvious key question: is it necessary to be in Afghanistan at all?

Such ideas are being raised in Congress and among foreign policy experts who see a rapidly deteriorating situation in both countries. Is it wise, they ask, for the U.S. to seek extrication from Iraq just to land in another similar – or worse – quagmire in Afghanistan.

The overall situation is further complicated by the increasing threat presented by the Taliban insurgency to the leadership in neighboring Pakistan and a resurgence in Afghanistan.

Concerns are being raised as to why the United States is sticking around in Afghanistan considering the corrupt Afghan government unable to defend itself against the Taliban while neighboring Pakistan finds itself on the brink of caving to the Islamists.

It also raises the question of why the U.S. should commit more troops. Some experts suggest the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan altogether. The situation in the region is quickly coming to a head as to what the U.S. strategy should be. The options are not all that favorable.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Meantime, the United States' NATO allies, who have some 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, want them out as soon as possible, making the prospect of Afghanistan yet another "American War."

The U.S. contingent is almost three times that size, plus the 17,000 more promised by Obama. What NATO troops there are in Afghanistan mostly are located away from the southern region where the fiercest fighting is occurring near Pakistan's tribal areas. On the other hand, that is where most of the U.S. forces are located.

The U.S. may perceive that its overarching interest for the area is to curb the growth of the insurgent movement that seems to be spawned in Pakistan and Afghanistan and poses a worldwide threat. U.S. policymakers believe that threats to the U.S. emanate from the growing insurgent movement comprised of Taliban and al-Qaida in both countries.

President Obama sought to define U.S. policy in a March 2009 news conference.

"The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power yet war rages on and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghanistan government has risen steadily. And, most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces. Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrificed so much have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? Of so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer. So let me be clear. Al-Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al-Qaida's leadership, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. But this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order."

Given the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, concern also is mounting over the possibility they could land in the hands of the insurgents should that government fall. At this writing, however, that prospect appears to be marginal, if certain actions are taken now.

Assuming that it is in the strategic interest of the U.S. to be in Afghanistan and to prop up the Pakistan government, then a strategy needs to be devised that offers a combined political and military solution.

No comments: