The war in Afghanistan is the longest in American history. Yet even with the 30,000 additional troops sent this year to Afghanistan by President Obama, most experts think we are a long way from achieving success there. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan militarily but eventually had to withdraw after 10 years of frustration. Why is military success so difficult to achieve there, even for world superpowers? With this question in mind, the U.S. military has been forced to develop a different way to fight. Click here to read (or listen to!) an article about what the U.S. military is doing to achieve success in Afghanistan. Then address the following prompts:
Do you think this new strategy will work? Why or why not?
President Obama pledged to begin bringing our troops home from Afghanistan by next summer, but now that commitment is in question due to the unexpectedly strong resistance of Taliban forces. Should the President stick to his original pledge, or do we need to stay until we achieve our goals in Afghanistan? Explain why you think so.
17 comments:
I do believe that this new strategy will work. It may take some time but it sounds like a good idea to form a relationship with the villagers and have them in good ties. By using this strategy we can develope a good ally and maybe one day build up a stronger force against the Taliban.
I'm a little torn with this prompt. I would love for President Obama to stick to his original plan and still plan to bring home our troops. On the other hand this new plan sounds like it could be very effective and I don't know if we should clear out if we have a potentally war ending strategy.
I agree with Alexis in a sence that I think this new stategy will work. Working with Afghan soldiers, and doing it well, can only benefit us and help build up stronger resistance to against the Taliban.
The next issue is one that I could argue for hours on. This was seems to be going on and on, I mean, I was in 2nd grade when it began and I'm now talking about the same war as a junior in high school. Are we still fighting for the same reasons that we were then?
I do think that Obama should stick to his pledge and begin sending troops home as soon as possible. Do we really need ALL of them over there? I beleive we can acheive our goals even if we do send groups of troops home. In my eyes, no harm is done in doing so.
I think it's a good idea that we're working with Afghan soldiers, but here's the thing... they acknowledge that corruption lies in various 'security forces.' So isn't it possible that the military we're working with is also corrupt? I'm not trying to knock on the idea of cooperation. I just think we need to be cautious... we don't need to get caught in a 'friends close, enemies closer' scenario. And that's not to say we're enemies with Afghanistan because we certainly are not, but that's not to say that their government isn't corrupt.. It's just something we need to watch.
I think working with the villagers is also a good idea... I think it reduces the chances that insurgents can function there.
I agree with Brady on one thing... we can argue this forever. However, I disagree with bringing troops home. Of course I want them home... who doesn't? But I don't think it's what's best for our country. We put Afghanistan's gov't into place after the Taliban fell back in '01. If we pull out, it's possible that we would be 'abandoning' an unstable government.. and by that I mean leaving them open to being taken over by the Taliban again. And if we pull out, and that happens, we're leaving ourselves open to another 9/11. And it's possible, even likely, that the Taliban could gain such power again, especially if there's government corruption, which I suspect from Hamid Karzai based on his rigging of the last election. And isn't it also fair to say that if there is still fighting going on, there are still insurgents, which means our presence there is still necessary?
whooooops.... my whole name didnt get saved :( awkward...
I am in support of this strategy, insurgent movements and revolutions always need the spoort of the local populance to actually succeed. The Taliban's main strength is its ability to hide within the local population, avoiding detection without costly countermeasures. If we negate them the support of the local population, we deny them many things. First, they have no ability to hide, forcing them to either flee or confront the superior forces that we command. Second, it is usually from the outlying villages where they can endoctrine the people more easily that they recieve their main amount of recruits. Denying them this has obvious advantages. Also, raising local police forces would be an excellent way to defeat the Taliban. If our forces install a school and such in a village, and raise local forces, the people within the village will want to defend it, along with thier homes. This negates the kind of corruption seen in large scale police forces. This, along with strengthening the army, and the installment of honest officials, should be more than enough to deal with the Taliban.
On the issue of sending the troops home, I think that we should keep the troops there untill the job is done right. A premature exit of our forces could put the Taliban right back into power, and I hope that our people do not need another september 11 to remind us of why we cannot leave an enemy half defeated.
I also think this new strategy will work. Working side by side with Afghan troops and developing a new and more efficient way to fight the Taliban will most likely set a new precident of how to lead a resistance in war. Unfortunatly, we can't fight a war without being present, so i think the best option is not to bring the troops home, in hope that this war will finally get resolved, peacefully. If we pull the troops out the chances of a resolution both sides are comfortable with is highly unlikely.
The war against the Taliban has become an almost global effort, with much of the European Union and several middle eastern nations fighting against them. When the United States launched their "crusade" on terrorism they joined the European Union in their fight. However, in the Afgan section we found a largely corrupt system. Now while core militia remained true to the government the police was largely paid by crime lords and Taliban. No one trusted their protectors so no peace could arrive. The Afgan militia has been slowly built up by foreign powers to once more secure peace and expel corruption. However, it seemed as though little was done for citizen relations.
Now we see that changing, the people are learning now how to begin citizen relations. If we can allow the citizens to trust their military and our own, then they will not fear the Taliban, and with that lack of fear the Taliban will crumble. Stalin believed that the best rule was a hundred people with hoes and one with a gun, this is true. Those under fear of the gun will always work, however if the gun is not feared then the farmers need not work. This is what will happen, with no one fearing the gunner, and a shield before those before the gunner, the gunner will fall.
Like Mary said, we can't pull the troops out and hope that the war resolves "peacfully", because that just wont happen. We are there right now, basically taking the roll as "peacemakers". If we stay and work side by side with Afgan troops and develope and new way to fight the Taliban, it will, like she said, set a new precident of how to lead a resistance in war.
What good will pulling the tropps out do? None. If we keep them there we can at least try and be at peace with the Taliban, but if we pull them our, all chaos will break loose!
-Andrew Rickli
I also think that the new strategy will work. It will take time and effort on America's part, but it sounds like it would be a good idea to build up and be in good standings with the people.
Taking the troops home will do NO good,I know that many people have loved ones fighting and they miss them, but if we want this ever to end we have to fix this. I agree with Kelsey about the good chance of having a new 9/11. If things aren't fixed there, then the job isn't done and they belong there until it is.
I agree with what Nathan and John said. I also believe that this new strategy will work because it builds trust with the local inhabitants. The villagers live in fear, surrounded by poverty and harsh living conditions. The Taliban must have infiltrated the Afghan police which lead to its corruption. So that would mean what the villagers reported would just be ignored. These villagers are scared of the Taliban because their an enemy we cannot see. They hideout as civilians and attack as individuals because head to head they don't stand a chance to our superior soldiers and technology. I think the villagers will want the violence to leave them and will eventually trust the U.S. troops, for the better. I mean why not? Were bringing these people a new way of life, peace. With the villagers no longer supporting the terrorist, the Taliban will fall.
As for when our great troops return home, I believe we should stay their till the job is done right and the Taliban are truly defeated. If we withdraw to soon the remaining Taliban will just take over again. This will be difficult to determine though because without the help of trustworthy civilians the Taliban can continue to maintain an underground movement and stay in hiding. We need to stay as long as it takes to bring and end to the Taliban and win over Afghanistan.
Im going to try to stay non biased on this one guyd and I know all of you out there are optimists and god knows the world needs people like you guys. But please lets be serious. In 1978 the U.S. first began providing aid to the mujahideen insurgents in their struggle against the Russians. Our involvement then was much as it is now. The Russians were still our main enemy and while they were covertly fighting the mujahideen we were aiding the insurgents in any way we saw possible i.e. training soldiers supplying weapons all to defeat the russians. Our involvement was mainly covert and off the charts at first and the Russian soldiers found themselves in a standstill at a pace labeled by american soldiers as the valley of death..Korengal valley where after years of fighting and many lives lost we pulled out of the fight. Look into this fight historically its really interesting..
Ok. This new strategy of meshing with the villagers and trying to gain their trust is great but those villagers willing to join us and trust us are not those we need to worry about. Those who fight us from within the taliban have the trust of the people and our efforts for these past years have been futile because we are fighting a new enemy. The hardest problem we ave is that we have not a body to fight, an army to hunt down and take out, we cant win this war in the middle east because we can't fight an enemy that hides among its very own people to fight.
Which brings me to the next point of bringing the troops home.Bring them back!!most of the work done on uncovering the taliban is done by intel we recover and use our vast intelligence agencies to find the insurgents. There is no reason we can't bring several, if not all of our troops home and runoperations in the middle east covertly, when we have our information straight and know where to look for the enemy.
I think that this is the best strategy that we have come up with for fighting the war so far. People seem to fear or mistrust that which they do not know. If we learn to live and fight side by side with the Afgan people maybe we can build a greater trust between our people. I also think that when we go abroad to help fight a cause the native people feel more like we are taking control of their country instead of helping them.
I also agree with Brady and many others, the war has drug on for years and while it would be great to send the troops home our work there is not near finished. Unfortunately in this day and age we can not turn our backs and walk away, 9/11 has shown us that. If we leave our mission only partially completed the Taliban will only return stronger.
Yes, this is the best strategy we've come up with yet. However, we need to be realistic about the Afghani civilian’s reaction.
If you were walking down the streets of Berkeley Springs and an Afghani soldier came up to you saying, "Hey there friend, want to grab lunch at Tari's?", would you really want to trust him? "Oh, sounds great! Should I make a reservation for three? You, me, and your nice, big, friendly machine gun?" We seem to be forgetting that the Taliban are not the only ones carrying weapons there. And when a mother sees an armed soldier come up to her little girl playing in the street, is her gut reaction of 'PROTECT!' going to care whose side he's on? Or is the Afghani family whose son went off to join the Taliban going to say, "Yes, please, go kill our son, we don't care!" No. We, no matter our intentions, are unknown, and therefore a source of fear to the local people. Building a well-needed school does not erase the number of civilians killed in the last American/Taliban standoff.
I understand that the way a group like the Taliban gets it’s power is by exploiting ignorance, hunger, disease and desperation within the populace, and agree that the way to help Afghanistan is to offer education, food, health care, and hope. But is there a way to offer these wonderful things to the Afghani people in one hand without having a gun in the other?
Do you think this new strategy will work? Why or why not?
I think that this new strategy will work. If the people trust and like the people trying to help them they will respond to them in a positive way. They will see that the Green Berets are on their side and will know that they will do everything in their power to help them. They will protect the villagers of Ezabad from Taliban and those who follow him.
Since the Green Berets live right next to Ezabad they can arrive at the village quicker then if they lived on a base. This strategy is a good plan because if the villagers know that the Green Berets will be there to help them they will gradually become less afraid of their surroundings.
This strategy might work but it won't change the attitude of the afghans for several generations down the line. For example, it took centuries for racism to be lessened the way it is today.
However, it could happen quickly. The japenese cultures completely changed into a fully functioning society in about 10 years after WWII. I do believe that this new strategy might work depending on Gen. Petraeus' decisions.
I think that this strategy will work. Lots of the villagers don't want to be involved in warfare but are sucked into it because of their location. If our soldiers not only promise protection but can acually follow through with it the locals would in turn give them their trust.
I think the soldiers should stay. If we aren't there our enemies mould most likely come here and that obviously would not be good.
-Josh Fox
I believe the strategy will work as well like most said. It will just take some time, but in the long haul it should prove successful. Working with the Afghan people is a great idea.
However, with the Taliban rising and becoming a threat, I think Obama should keep the soldiers in their for a little longer and try to stop the uprising before it gets out of hand. Once the threat diminishes he can start pulling the troops out.
Post a Comment