Write your Congressmen

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

What to do about Afghanistan

Merriam Webster defines "retreat" thusly:

1 : a (1) an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable
2 : a place of privacy or safety : refuge
3 : a period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, study, or instruction under a director

Americans have a penchant for banging our heads against a wall, without knowing why we are doing so. To wit: Is the prosecution of this war another quagmire, ala VietNam? That is, is it being run too closely along political lines, as LBJ and the Democrats did back in the mid-1960s, without a clear goal that's in American interests? Is the goal more to satisfy the requirements of domestic party politics than to keep the world (and America) safe? 

We need a reset switch. Why don't we use Merriam Webster's definition as a plan, not just words. Pull out entirely, and leave the rascals to their own devices. But don't for a minute give up on Afghanistan. This is just the first step in how to handle it with the least cost - in both American life and dollars.

Step 1: Retreat from Afghanistan, to a man. Trash the equipment and leave it there. Let the Taliban come back. That will take care of the corrupt government we somehow managed to empower there.

Step 2: Let our military heal itself.  There's a lot of battle fatigue going around, and they need a rest. But we learned a lot, and can train for the next dust-up. Reflect on what we did, and didn't do, while watching Afghanistan closely.

Step 3: When the Taliban/Al Quada come back (and they will), blast them again just like we did in 2001/2002 when we removed them in the first place. What did that take - 30 days?  Then pull out again, and prepare to do this repeatedly as an extended policy on Afghanistan.

American efforts toward rebuilding nations that we destroy actually seem to make things worse.  The gobs of cash that we always bestow on these locales are nothing more than an opportunity for the most clever among tyrannical, despotic, power-mad thieves to gain great position under our flag. Such has happened in Afghanistan, and there little we can now do about it. Hence the need for a reset.

The corrupt Afghanistan government will thwart any and all efforts we take there to stabilize the country. Instability is the name of the game for those who want to control Afghanistan, and we're footing the bill for it.

Again, hence the need for a reset.

To outright remove the current Afghan government is not possible; to do so spends too much in valuable diplomatic resources and capital. But pulling out with the intent to periodically return to ensure peace (AKA hitting the reset button) forces the Afghan government to sink or swim, improves our military by giving them a break, saves money and American lives, and is just the most efficient way to achieve the goal of a non-threatening Afghanistan. They won't be free, but our goal should be regional docility and peace. If it becomes free, that a side benefit.

It's like battling roaches when one lives in a rowhouse; you'll never get rid of all of them, but hiring an exterminator will at least control them to a point where life is livable.

 

McChrystal: More U.S. Troops May Not Prevent Afghanistan From Falling to Terror Haven - Political News - FOXNews.com: "WASHINGTON -- Rampant government corruption might derail the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops were sent to the war, the top military commander there has concluded, according to U.S. officials briefed on his recommendations.

The conclusion by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is part of a still-secret document that requests more troops even as he warns that they ultimately may not prevent terrorists from turning Afghanistan back into a haven.

McChrystal has outlined three options for additional troops -- from as many as 80,000 to as few as 10,000 to 15,000, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House.

Each option carries a high risk of failing, according to U.S. officials, although they said McChrystal concluded that fewer troops will bring the highest risks."

No comments: