A U.S. Army soldier from the 10th Mountain Division stops along a vantage point above a Forward Operating Base at Kamdesh, Nuristan in eastern Afghanistan. Robert Nickelsberg / GettyLuke Coffey, Heritage Foundation: US Turning Away From Afghanistan?
KEY TAKEAWAYS
(1) Much of the opposition to increasing U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan is based on an old style of thinking about Afghanistan and the U.S. mission there.
(2) Today’s security objectives focus on helping Afghans deal with the Taliban insurgency. The goal is to keep the country from reverting back to the chaos of the 1990s.
(3) The well-established U.S. presence in Afghanistan—diplomatic, economic, and military—helps America keep engaged in an important region at a relatively low cost.
The Trump Administration will soon make a final decision on its Afghanistan policy. The main question to be answered: Should the U.S. send more troops to help Afghan security forces continue to battle the Taliban?
After 16 years of military intervention in Afghanistan, it is completely reasonable to question the wisdom of increasing U.S. troops. But much of the opposition to increasing U.S. troop numbers is based on an old style of thinking about Afghanistan and the U.S. mission there.
U.S. policymakers have fallen into two traps when it comes to Afghanistan.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I was surprised when I read this WSJ article this morning (it is behind a paywall) .... White House Looks at Scaling Back U.S. Military Presence in Afghanistan (WSJ). The media narrative for the past few months was that the US was going to up its presence in Afghanistan significantly .... not scale it back. But the fact that the U.S. plan/strategy on Afghanistan that US Secretary of Defense Mattis promised months ago has not been delivered tells me that President Trump does not like the options that are being presented to him .... and that the expected U.S. surge may not happen. Personally .... I do expect this surge to happen .... but this delay is making people nervous, especially in the think tanks around Washington and those who cover Afghanistan for the Wall Street Journal.
6 comments:
I'm not sure that Afghanistan is a strategic country. Of course there are a lot of supposed critical mineral's buried in this country. Well, even if Taliban take power, it will be better to make trade with them, they will never refuse money for what they can sell. The only important point is to avoid a Chinese' or Pakistanis' hand on them.
William Astore has noted that the US Military is so "strung out" globally, and exhausted, that the current "max surge" anywhere, is 5,000 troops.
Not enough to make much of a dent anywhere,
And the US has been "paying" for a it's War's of Choice, on credit cards, who's bills ( plus interest) are starting to come due.
I feel like this is a loss for us and need to move on. That being said it would be a terrorist breeding ground, but now were all over the world. Should of never been the world police. Wish we go back to just focusing on our selfs.
How much of that policing was created on purpose?
IMO, We do not need a whole lot of troops there. Of course we cannot let it go back to the way it was but we must maintain the course in regards to training of the Afghan military and police. Continue to guide and maintain pressure on the government to curb corruption and maintain some semblance of a democracy.
'You can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.'
Old English proverb and very true! This country is not really a country, it's a tribal bad land region that will not be tamed. It's a waste of money trying.
Post a Comment