Our Military's Enduring Future in Afghanistan

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Ron Fullwood (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

The President and our legislators need to craft and direct policy in Afghanistan which is 'enduring' but, not merely an extension of this self-perpetuating flailing of our military forces at every expression of resistance to their self-serving presence. There will undoubtedly be diplomatic initiatives announced to compliment the escalation of force to Afghanistan, but there should be care taken to ensure that the military moves don't obscure or overshadow the benefits and effects of the non-military aid and assistance.

It may be too much to hope for some rationality in the upcoming plan for Afghanistan which respects all of these concerns, but I would hope that the American public demands accountability from this administration on the goals they establish behind these new deployments. It should be remembered that the Iraq 'surge' began as a trickle, and, in a year, over 800 U.S. troops had lost their lives as a result of that escalation.

The administration has already predicted increased casualties from an Afghan escalation. The UN has reported that the number of Afghan civilians killed in Afghanistan rose 40 percent last year to a record 2,118 people. The report said insurgents were responsible for 55 percent of the deaths, but that U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians. Of those, 552 deaths were said to be the result of U.S.-led airstrikes.

Despite those collateral consequences to the escalating occupation of Afghanistan, Pres. Obama still believes there's something 'winnable' there. In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Tuesday . . .

"I think Afghanistan is still winnable, in the sense of our ability to ensure that it is not a launching pad for attacks against North America. I think it's still possible for us to stamp out al Qaeda to make sure that extremism is not expanding but rather is contracting. I think all those goals are still possible, but I think that as a consequence to the war on Iraq, we took our eye off the ball. We have not been as focused as we need to be on all the various steps that are needed in order to deal with Afghanistan," the president said.

I don't believe there is anything to 'win' in Afghanistan, as the president suggested. There is, however, much to lose in this repeated flailing of our military forces against the Afghan people. We have already been shown, repeatedly, that our nation-building efforts behind the force of our military in the Middle East has produced more individuals inclined or resigned to violent expressions of resistance than it's succeeded in establishing any of the 'democracy' or 'stability' promised.

I'm anxiously awaiting the president's definition of the new mission they've planned for our nation's defenders. One thing is certain from his statements and actions yesterday . . . those who had hoped for a decrease in overall deployments into combat abroad will be disappointed by the 'enduring' commitments anticipated and advocated from the WH, at least in the near future.

1 | 2

Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.