President Obama announced earlier this week that he would send 17,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan. Many analysts think thousands more American soldiers will be sent. You can read about the initial buildup here.
The question: Do you agree that the U.S. should send more troops to Afghanistan? If so, why? If not, why not?
Make sure you think about this question, as there is no simple answer. For example, you should consider how valuable Afghanistan is to the U.S., if at all; the region's importance to the U.S.; the terror attacks in 2001, etc. You may want to do some extra reading to formulate a thoughtful response.
Your answers, as always, are due by midnight on Tuesday.
Good luck and have fun!
Your reading assignment for Monday is in the post below.
25 comments:
I think that sending more troops to Afghanastan is a OK idea. I'm not saying its great or awful. Just OK. I really wish that there was just a simple solution to the War On Terror, and we wouldnt need to send additional troops. But I feel President Obama knows what he is doing and things may improve. I look forward to the day when no more families will lose sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, and cousins to war.
Great question Professor.
I honestly have been asking myself this same question since its announcement in the news last week, and this blog assignment forced me to research, and find what I believe to be my answer. However, because of the extremely complex and multi-faceted nature of this issue, it is hard to arrive at a conclusion without examining it from all angles and a wide-encompassing total perspective.
At first announcement of the additional 17,000 troops being deployed to Afghanistan, I admit that I was extremely troubled, confused, and concerned that it may have been a decision made primarily out of fear and in haste, without further analysis and briefing with military strategists. However, after reading up on countless articles involving the current Afghanistan situation, about what may have led up to, or caused the attacks of 9/11/01, the international perspective of Afghanistan as a politically extremist and troubled region, and its NATO implications- I'm still concerned, but now I may have a different opinion.
Let's first look at the facts. Since 2001, Afghanistan has been reported to be the location of the radical and dangerous Taliban and Al Queda groups and possibly one of the most notorious radicals, Osama Bin Laden. Geographically speaking, there are many crucial elements to examine. Afghanistan neighbors Pakistan and Iran, and is in close proximity to India. I point this out for more reasons than 1.
First: Of the 3 nations in this world known to possess nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India are two of the three- North Korea being the third. Taliban are moving into the Swat Valley of Pakistan and enforcing terror on all its inhabitants, and Iran is currently producing uranium in high numbers, as reported by VOA News.com on February 20, 2009. This excerpt comes directly from the article on VOA's website: "U.S. officials said Friday that the United States and the international community must urgently address Iran's nuclear activities, following a United Nations report on Tehran's uranium enrichment. Diplomats close to the U.N. nuclear agency say Iran has until recently been underestimating the amount of uranium it has enriched by nearly one-third. The disclosure came in a report issued Thursday to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. A White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, says that the report "represents another lost opportunity for Iran," and that the international community cannot be confident that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful."
Second: As has been in the news for quite some time now, Iranian president Ahmadinejad has not been a fan of ours for a long time. Our strained relations with them alone, is all the more reason to monitor ALL political wars and expansions of extremism as reflected in Afghanistan. As reported in the BBC News on February 10, 2009: "Mr. Ahmadinejad has previously said the US must apologise for past "crimes" against Iran. The two nations cut ties in 1979 after the US-backed Shah was overthrown...." This highly charged political hatred could be the fodder for very bad things as reported by the BBC last Tuesday : "The world does not want the dark era of [George Bush] to be repeated," Mr Ahmadinejad warned at Tuesday's rally. "If some people seek to repeat that experience... they should know they will face a much worse fate than Bush's."
Third: As reported in the BBC News by Soutik Biswas on July 7, 2008, India was an ally of the Soviet Union and supported the invasion of Afghanistan during the Cold War in 1979. Hence Indian-Afghan relations have reportedly been shaky and unpredictable over the past 30 years, with times that India has shown alliance with the country and Pakistan as well. Hence, India's stance though hoped to be an ally of the US in the presence of nuclear crisis- may in fact be with its neighboring regions.
As pointed out, the geographical location of Afghanistan alone offers countless reasons for there to be an increased military force on the ground to combat the strengthening of these radical extremists.
Now from a NATO perspective. What does Afghanistan, now referred to as the "AFPAK War" (Afghanistan/Pakistan) mean to NATO?
As reported by Robert Sibley for the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Defense Minister Peter MacKay on February 16, 2009, stated that the future of NATO is at stake in Afghanistan. How so? MacKay, states that the ability to mobilize international defenses to combat the terror in the AFPAK war is what NATO's purpose is, and if that isn't done effectively by each involved nation deploying more of their troops to the cause, the future of NATO will hang in the balance.
“We need to have a frank discussion about the future of NATO,” Mr. MacKay said Monday in a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, England. “Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context,” he said. “If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?” (MacKay)
Just what is NATO? And why does AFPAK matter-can be answered in this definition of the alliance found on enotes.com:
"NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance formed on April 4, 1949, when twelve countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty. The twelve original NATO countries are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Great Britain, and the United States. Each member nation agreed to treat attacks on any other member nation as if it were an attack on itself. Any aggressor would have to face the twelve-nation alliance. This was NATO's policy of deterrence, which was a way to discourage attacks by the Soviet Union or other Eastern bloc countries (Communist countries in Eastern Europe). NATO provided the additional benefit of discouraging fighting among the member nations."
As Obama has stepped up and set the most number of troops for deployment, it's only right that the rest of the European nations follow suit and not rely solely on America as the rescue team if you will- as further outlined here in the Ottawa Citizen article:
"MacKay’s suggestion that Afghanistan presents NATO with an existential crisis pushes the issue to another level, according to Allen Sens, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.
The problem, he said, is that some NATO members don’t believe deploying troops to Afghanistan is necessarily in their best interests, or that the Taliban is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe. Moreover, even if some of the European governments wanted to commit more troops to Afghanistan, they would not get public support to do so. “So what you get is a lack of a really cohesive belief in the alliance that this is truly the No. 1 threat and that NATO’s existence depends on it.”
Mr. MacKay told his London audience that the American “re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan — with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy — has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance.” He suggested that some NATO members saw it as a chance to sit back and say ‘it’s OK, the Americans will handle it.’”
Mr. MacKay isn’t the first to call on other NATO members to do more. In January, British Defence Secretary John Hutton also challenged NATO’s European members to “step up to the plate” and stop “freeloading on the back of the U.S. military.”
So, in the effort to try and make sense of the evidence that has been in all branches of the news media, and not write a book, I have to say that I agree with President Obama's decision. Given the uncertainties and unpredictable nature of the entire middle east region- especially surrounding Afghanistan and its Taliban/Al Queda extremists we have no other choice but to act. However, HOW we act is CRUCIAL to our success or devastation. And yes, I do agree with the critics saying the deployment should have been announced after the coming strategy meetings to lay out the details of the proposed military insurgence.
Either way you look at it, it's a messy situation and it's one that needs to be handled with extreme caution and calculation.
-Alexis :o)
*Forgot to add:
If it's true that 9/11's attacks on the US came from the Taliban leaders hiding out in Afghanistan as so widely believed, and future possible attacks on the US could come from that region and now Pakistan- then the European nations in NATO need to closely review and re-affirm their mission statement, stop acting selfishly, and get on one accord with America, NOW.
In light of the old adage:
"All for one, and One for all."
Your right there is no simple answer for this question, even if you are against the war! There is always going to be trouble in the Middle East, and with that in mind people are always going to be freaking out about terrorist attacks. I personal am against the war in general, but I understand the importance of us keeping troops over there. There will always be a "Sadam" or "Osama" to rise up and take the last one's place.
I am skeptical of sending more American Troops into this war front, Before we increase troops on the Afghan front, this is a good time to re-evalute the Afghan mission and the war-on-terror in general. Naming the enemy is half the battle. I feel like we have not done that. Sending more troops is likely to produce more anger in Afghanistan, and more anger is likely to produce more recruits for the Taliban. There are no easy answers when it comes to Afghanistan but the return of the Taliban must be avoided at all costs.
-Kirstie Mahon
There is no easy answer to this question, that’s for sure. But, I would have to say yes I do agree that more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. Even though Obama may be getting criticized for his decision I feel that it is important for our country to stay persistent in the War on Terror. If we were to back down now, we would be going against everything we’ve been working hard for the past few years, and our country would appear very vulnerable. However, I do agree with Tom Andrews, there should have been a plan of action in place before Obama announced sending the 17,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Either way you look at it, it’s a sticky situation and one that needs to be preceded with extreme caution. Just because we’re sending more men and woman overseas doesn’t mean the problems are going to get fixed, especially if we don’t act logically.
No matter what way you slice this, it's going to be messy. The mess that was left for Obama to clean up is a tall task, and he's not going to magically wave a wand to make it all better as much as we wish it to be. This is one of those decisions that is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" so to say (pardon the language). I think it's a good decision for the most part though I think that they should've at least began to slowly withdraw the troops in Iraq before employing troops to Afghanistan.
I do not think that we should send more troops to Afghanistan. There is already an estimated 30,000 soldiers there now, why send more? Our troops have been in Afghanistan for nearly 8 years and still have not ended this war and our soldiers have been killed/wounded for Afghanistan's problems? I don't think that this problem with Afghanistan can be solved by just our military. We are basically bankrupt here in the U.S., a trillion dollars in debt and we are going to send more troops out which seems foolish to me. I think we need to be focusing on other issues in our down falling economy like how to get it back in gear, then to send more troops to Afghanistan.
When we were attacked on 9/11/01 we came to the conclusion that we had to stand up and do something. What we didn't really do was take some time out and figure out what to do. It seemed as if we just got our military together and sent them over there. At the time, I was all for millitary action. I was mad, scared I wanted revenge. I think alot of people did. Its hard to say how I feel about it NOW. I do think that we definately should have went into Afghanistan, and Afghanistan alone. Had I known that Mr. Bush was going to then attack Iraq for a reason I still don't understand, I would have be a little more skeptical. But now that we have been at war for 7 to 8 years.. people I think are just weary of war in general (mind that pun) Im not crazy about sending extra troops, but at least they are now going somewhere they should have been all along. I don't understand how we can find Saddam Hussein (mind the HORRIBLE spelling) in a spider hole in a deserted town so quickly. BinLadin is what? 6 foot 4.. ON DIALISIS (I've heard) and we still can't find him. Governement coverup? who knows right? haha. Im babeling, anywho, Im not thrilled about sending troops over there, but I know what has to be done.
I think that, despite being against the war and the over-use of military force, it's a good idea to send troops into Afghanistan. I'm not really sure of the history of our troops being in Afghanistan. Apparently, they've been there for a while already, although I'm not really sure for how long. I think that as long as our country is being threatened, it would be foolish of us not to take action. My boyfriend is in the army, and he is scheduled to be deployed (most likely to Afghanistan) in 2010. Most of the men and women who serve, especially at a time of war, know that the work they do is for the greater good. They know the risk, as do we, the people who love them. Although, I agree with Obama's decision, I wonder if 17,000 is too big of a number. That's A LOT of troops. I do think that we shouldn't lean so much on our military to get us out of trouble with these countries. Why aren't leaders meeting with other leaders and trying to find a way to make peace without killing any more people. I wish that more negotiating could be done, with less fighting.
I understand that we need Afghanistan and we need to send troops over to help them out. Despite all the acts of terrorism; we need to keep them in line. I understand why Obama believes it is a good idea but I am opposed to sending anymore American soldiers over to Afghanistan. I have seen too many friends go overseas. They will never EVER be the same. I know we have to do what we have to do...but if we can avoid hurting anyone else...we should. Maybe I'm just a hippie? :P
::stabbs eyes out because i just wrote this and it didnt go through, forgot to save it::
I do not think that it is a good idea to send more troops to afganistan. The war seems pointless, and only bad is coming from it. if there are more troops there, it will only lead to more fighting and more casualties, and i do not see a point in sending troops there if they aren't going to be fighting in the first place. I know that the Terrorists that caused the attacks on 9/11/01 were from afganastan, and those people caused a lot of american deaths, but i do not think that it calls for a war to solve the problem.
Yes we do need the oil and other resources from there... but why does that call for more troops, hasnt anyone thought that maybe they'll just get mad and stop exporting their resources to the USA? Im not really sure if that could in fact happen.
my answer is no, i do not think that it is a good idea to send more troops there. there may be some positive things to come from it, but i do not think that it would outweigh the negatives.
Do I agree that the U.S should send more troops to Afghanistan......
honestly this is something I had to think about for acouple days and I am still not 100% sure but sending more troops to Afghanistan doesnt seem like that bad of an idea? ... Because of the neighboring countries we can at least be ready incase anything drastic happened again, and really there are always people who will want the U.S to go down so there are always people plotting. No one can say what is going to happen in the future so by sending these troops in as a backup we can be ready
so I dont think its the WORST idea to send these troops, but I am still on the fence about it
Ok. So here's the crazy part. The United States has secret camps in Pakistan where they are training locals for paramilitary operations against Al Qaeda.
Right here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html
Really.
Does anyone in government remember who bankrolled the Mujahedeen? Or who they even are? We armed, trained and bankrolled them, and now we have to call them Al Qaeda to save face.
So in my opinion, the worst thing we could do is send more troops into a region that despises us for interfering with their internal politics. And the second worst thing is to interfere further with tribal politics by training more counter-counter insurgents.
Former president Bush and Osama Bin Laden are both despicable human beings who wage war in the name of an imagined majority viewpoint. Bin Laden is only popular in his region and can draw the kind of support he receives because of Americans imperialism.
Aside from that, theorists who study decentralization (ex: Starfish & Spider) will tell you that least effective means of eliminated a decentralized enemy is to attack them directly. My guess is that exporting more American violence, occupation and imperialism to destabilized Afghanistan is probably a great way to do even more damage.
The Afghan people need to believe that they really can make their country safer, stronger and more stable for themselves, instead of having to chose between relying on protection from US bullies and Al Qaeda terrorists.
Normally I would say it is a terrible idea to send more troops anywhere! However, lately I have been keeping up with the news more.
I agree that we should send more troops to Afganistan to stabilize the turmultous situation there before we start withdrawing troops. If we starting withdrawing troops now, the situaation might get out of our control. Because Al Quida and Taliban are still a threat, withdrwing troops too soon may be a dangerous move.
Honestly, part of me wants to say that we should take all the troops out of Iraq, put half of them in Afghanistan, bring the rest home and start bombing the crap out of Pakistan because I believe that all the terrorists that attacked us are hiding in Pakistan. However, I am a humanist and I realize we can’t do this! I do believe our presence is gravely needed in Afghanistan and we should focus some of our military efforts there. I also believe, however, that we need to start focusing on Pakistan. I think the Pakistanian government is “turning a blind eye” giving these terrorists a safe haven for them to regroup, train, and plan future attacks on us and the rest of the world. I also trust that our new President is making an honest effort to plan our future military strategies. I think President Obama wants to do his “research” before he makes any decisions about removing troops from an area and/or placing more troops in another area. In Obama I trust! :)
I'd personally hate to see more troops to get sent over there, I feel like it's un-needed, especially when we don't know the best idea of how to withdraw the troops in the first place. I do however feel like since we have made a stand in the country thus far, we should do what we can with the troops we have already over there before sending more, if we end up doing so.
-Zachary Hynes
So for this week's blog I am going to take a selfish look at the topic. This will probably be the simplest answer I will give for any of the blogs. See my best friend has been stationed in the Afgan mountains for over a year now. If this new deployment of troops will relieve he stay over there and send him home sooner than I am all for it. However the report does not tell what will happen with the current troops over there. So i question whether or not this means that the current troops will now have to stay longer because Obama now seems to be behind the war there. So if this deployment requires my friend to stay there longer, I will not be too happy with this decision.
This is one of the qurstions that I am glad I am not the president for. I would think that we could not just elminate troops in Afghanistan over night, rather it is a process. Over time we need to cut down on the amount of troops we are sending over there. Each time troops are deployed the amount of soldiers be decreased.I would say, we need to send troops to Afghanistan for now, so that in the future no morre troops are needed.
I honestly have no clear idea about what's going on in Afghanistan. I know that the situation there isn't good. I also know that Obama wanted to pull troops rather than send more in. I know that he wants the war to end, and I'm not sure wether or not this would be helpful to the situation.
American troops, as well as military from other countries, are there, and there is chaos. There needs to be more people there enforcing rules and such so that there can be SOME stability. I feel that the U.S. is ALWAYS going to have a presence there since there seems to be no end in sight.
Pretty much, we just want to make sure that what happened on Sept. 11th doesn't happen again.
As most of the questions asked on our weekly discussion blog, this is a complicated one. That being said, I can only offer my opinion based on my knowledge of the subject. Like Emily mentioned, right after the 9/11 attacks I was eager to see a military response. However I felt confused about exactly HOW we as a nation should have responded. As we have mentioned in class, the atack made on our nation did not come from another nation but rather an intangibly elusive terrorist organization. Our intelligence told us that this organization was rooted in Afghanistan and thus we invaded Afghanistan. Up to this point I was supportive of this action- it was when we invaded Iraq that I, and I presume many other Americans, began to withdraw support in our millitary's action. This kind of made me sour about the entire war and I lost sight of the reason we were at war in the first place. I just became bitter. Now, however, under this new administration, I like the changes that are being made. Obama has promised to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, a place I never felt we should have been in the first place. and even though this withdrawl has not yet begun on a large scale, I still think that sending additional troops to Afghanistan is an effort to redirect our military action to where it should have been all along- the place of origin of the attacks on our nation. The man presumed responsible for orchestrating these attacks is still at large and until he and his organization are defeated there will always be a threat. Also the geographical location of Afghanistan gives good reason to enfroce our presence as well. The border of Pakistan is largely unguarded and there is a good chance that much of Osama's organization has sought refuge there. We must be able to keep an eye on this region as well, especially considdering the fact that Pakistan is nuclearly armed. I must admit, I am not the most educated person to speak on this subject but I do see reason to maintain a millitary pressence in Afghanistan and my support will be further reinforced once we can see tngible results from taking this action. The sooner order is restored, the sooner we can bring all of our troops home; something I'm sure we'd all like to see...
After reading just a few of the comments posted by others, let us just be clear on one point - the United States went into Iraq without giving a clear reason as to why they did. THEY KNEW that the attacks originated from Afghanistan, but president bush wanted to do what his father could not and drive Saddam from power, which he actually did, but he did not enter the country with the intentions that he told to the country. That said, we have to face a harsh reality - which is that we are going against a people who hate us for who we are, whether we invited that hate or not, that is where they stand. At first they hated us for what the government was doing without our knowledge in their territory, but now they have turned on anyone that even resembles an American. With that said, it does not matter whether or not we send troops to Afghanistan. As mentioned in class if we could just learn from history, the Russians went through THE SAME EXACT WAR that is being fought now, although for different reasons, it is fought with the same intentions of the U.S. and it is starting t not matter to me what the stupid foreign policy is because we have trouble doing things right.
This looks like it may turn out to be the question of the year for President Obama... aside from the economy... which we have covered EXTENSIVELY.
I always thought that Afghanistan should be and have been our priority. When we first started out there I feel we made some progress. I feel this is still evident by the fact that many terriorist groups have retreated and moved into Pahkistan... though they continue to wage war against our troops.
Violence has increased in the area recently and I fear that it may be to late to address it in a way that will be managable and long lasting. I would hate to see troops moved from Iraq to Afghanistan, only to see Afghanistan become todays Iraq in that most Americans will just want the troops out.
Other than occupying Afghanistan to counter insurgents, I see it as having no real value to the US. It seems as if it will remain unstable whether the US remains or not.
In my opinion, the only way to come close to an effective resolution in Afghanistan is to act fast. And when we do act it should be with as much force as necessary. I dont see a slow increase as an effective change.
On one hand I say yes because I trust my President. On the other hand, I would rather us not carry the added expense.
Should Obama send more troops to Afghanistan is a question I don't want to answer. I really do not agree with putting more American soldiers lives on the line, but if we don't does that mean that we put our countries?From what the media and news tell us it seems as if some of the terriost groups are growing which is a cause for concern for Americans and other Nations around the world. I think Obama is trying to show these terriots groups that we can and will come with a strong hand. Do I want more soldier to be sent out no, but do I want the war over as fast as possible yes. So if Obama believes that sending more troops will not delay the process than I am okay with it.
Post a Comment