Monday, July 18, 2011
The Afghan Mission?
A letter in the Kansas City Star on Sunday criticized President Obama for removing troops from Afghanistan because this action would compromise "the Afghan mission." The letter writer used the phrase "the Afghan mission" two different times. I sent a responsive letter to the Star Editorial Staff but their lack of response tells me from experience that my letter will not see the light of day. Hence my desire to set up a blog. My letter was a polite version of "what the hell is the Afghan mission anyway?" If there is a discernible and definitive "Afghan mission" that involves valid U.S. interests, the powers that be, both Republican and now Democrat, have yet to let us in on it. The reality of the situation seems to be that whenever our troops leave, now or later, Afghanistan is going to revert to its traditional state of chaos and anarchy. If there was a definitive Afghan mission when we invaded 10 years ago, it was to disrupt Al Qaeda and, possibly, kill Osama Bin Laden. The mission was never, and should not have been, "nation building" in Afghanistan. As many have said, why don't we just declare victory and get out of there. We cannot as a practical matter--and have no right to--police the entire world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since WWII, most of America's military efforts have been plagued with problems. We should not go into any conflict without a clear mission statement, along these lines: "Our mission in [name of country] is [complete sentence with simple, coherent statement of concrete objective]." There should also be a statement like this: "Our mission in [name of country] will be completed when [insert concrete, measurable item(s)]." If you aren't sure what you intend to achieve, what "victory" would look like, or when you'll know it's time to leave, then you shouldn't board the planes in the first place.
ReplyDelete