Bush's political use of Afghanistan's Presidential election masks real struggle
President Bush would have you believe that the recent presidential election in Afghanistan is an example of his great leadership as commander and chief of the the US Army. Senator Kerry keeps going on about missing Bin Laden about three years ago. Here's some honest talk for you:
Bush has screwed the pooch on the real war on terrorism. Don't ever think that there isn't a real fight going on in Iraq. Here's a not too well kept but often ignored secret for you - The fight is real because we INVADED the country. The actual war on terrorism lead us to Afghanistan. Al Qaida? Beat 'em. Taliban? Stomped them. But now the real job begins. It is easy to beat up a country that already self destructed. Now we have to put together a country that can run itself. Big deal, they had a presidential election. What about the warlords that control 99% of the country. Can anyone say war on drugs? Yeah, that thing that started in the 1980s in the US, but will be continued in Afghanistan, the world leader in opium production. How about corruption? Everything that moves in Afghanistan has been through the greased palms of everyone from A to Z.
How long will the war in Afghanistan take? Don't forget the aftermath of World War II. Here it is about 60 years later and we are still in Germany and Japan. South Korea doesn't really matter, we have only been there for a bit over 50 years. We were attacked, we responded. Does anyone really think that we are going to leave Afghanistan in any condition where another terrorist organization can rise? No. There is no way that we will be able to create a new, sustainable, lasting country within the next 20 years. To create a nation that will last, the US will have to be there for a long time to come. It won't be the UN or NATO. Even if it was, who do you think would be providing the majority of the forces? Believe it folks, we are going to be there for a long, long time.
Bush has screwed the pooch on the real war on terrorism. Don't ever think that there isn't a real fight going on in Iraq. Here's a not too well kept but often ignored secret for you - The fight is real because we INVADED the country. The actual war on terrorism lead us to Afghanistan. Al Qaida? Beat 'em. Taliban? Stomped them. But now the real job begins. It is easy to beat up a country that already self destructed. Now we have to put together a country that can run itself. Big deal, they had a presidential election. What about the warlords that control 99% of the country. Can anyone say war on drugs? Yeah, that thing that started in the 1980s in the US, but will be continued in Afghanistan, the world leader in opium production. How about corruption? Everything that moves in Afghanistan has been through the greased palms of everyone from A to Z.
How long will the war in Afghanistan take? Don't forget the aftermath of World War II. Here it is about 60 years later and we are still in Germany and Japan. South Korea doesn't really matter, we have only been there for a bit over 50 years. We were attacked, we responded. Does anyone really think that we are going to leave Afghanistan in any condition where another terrorist organization can rise? No. There is no way that we will be able to create a new, sustainable, lasting country within the next 20 years. To create a nation that will last, the US will have to be there for a long time to come. It won't be the UN or NATO. Even if it was, who do you think would be providing the majority of the forces? Believe it folks, we are going to be there for a long, long time.
posted by Zanla | 10:02 AM
2 Comments:
You said, "Senator Kerry keeps going on about missing Bin Laden about three years ago. " I want to hear your thoughts on that. He says we "outsourced the job" of catching Bin Laden. Is that true? I think it is, but I only get the story from the American media.
Did President Bush "out source" the hunt for Bin Laden three years ago as Senator Kerry has said repeatedly? Time for some Honest Talk:
Like many comments during any election year this one isn't fully accurate. The war in Afghanistan was not properly manned from the start. The greatest attack on American soil was met with less than 20,000 US Military personnel on the ground. The overall elevation is higher than most of our troops were use to at the time. The desert sapped the strength of our soldiers, marines, and airmen. Best trained troops in the world or not, a harsh environment will still slow the most hardy of troops.
And then there was the Hunt for Bin Laden. Unfortunately, the hunt occurred in mountains that are full of caves and tunnels. The number of troops that the US dedicated for the job was not sufficient. The Afghan warlords and militias were drafted for the job, but not more troops. These are people that fought the Taliban or were the Taliban. Loyalty will vary depending on which person you are looking or how much they are being paid.
20/20 hindsight shows that more troops could have been easily sent. If they could be sent to Iraq later, they could have been in Afghanistan during the hunt. Was the search for Bin Laden out sourced? No, it wasn't. Troops were not available from the Coalition nations in the number needed. The US did not dedicate enough troops, and the "Locals" were drafted. President Bush did use the Afghan locals, because the number of US troops was too low. The question now is why is the number of troops in Afghanistan still low? Is Afghanistan, that portion of the War on Terrorism, the hunt for Bin Laden not important to President Bush?
Post a Comment
<< Home