South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post

2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones

Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the post

Beer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?

U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the post

How The Press Can Remain Relevant

Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the post

Be Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.

Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the post

Obama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...

Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the post

Obama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the post

Palin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?

One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post

wake forest university

international news

Afghanistan: There's a War There Too

JJ Colao

Posted: Jul 17th 2008 11:15AM

Filed under: Featured Stories, International News, Wake Forest University

For some unknown reason, perhaps a merciful biological reaction rooted in evolution, I actually don't find it all that impossible to sit back and recall the events leading up to the Iraq War.

Now, I had to see Recount in short segments in order to avoid an embarrassing outburst of that livid, just-watched-Fox News kind of feeling. And I quit following American politics and the progression of humanity in general for three months after watching the 2004 election returns and the debut of Laguna Beach in one night.

But the lead up to the Iraq War seems almost droll in the soothing haze of hindsight, more comically cynical than Wag the Dog even imagined. Just with a real war. Oh yea, a real war! - God, I always forget.
Even before the WMD though, before Hans Blix, before Colin Powell and the listless offering of his soul in front of the UN , before Shock and Awe, yellowcake and Valerie Plame, before debaathification, before Paul Bremer and the Green Zone, and long before there were 4,121 Americans killed along with nearly 90,000 Iraqis, there was, and apparently still is, a war in Afghanistan.

And before that there was a day in September that nobody has forgotten about. Carried out by a terrorist group that most people have forgotten about, lead by a man that everybody has forgotten about.

It's no surprise then that the war in Afghanistan, started in order to dismantle Al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden, had also been almost completely forgotten until the latest spike in violence, which resulted in the deaths of nine American soldiers on Sunday. Less prominent in the headlines but perhaps more indicative of the deteriorating security situation were last week's suicide bombings at the Indian embassy in Kabul and in the southern city of Deh Rawood which together killed sixty-six people.

These attacks follow two consecutive months during which American casualties in Afghanistan have surpassed those in Iraq and while this poses a huge problem in and of itself, it also points to the general failure of our national security strategy following September 11th.

Now, before I go off on the Bush administration for a sin it is not often castigated for I must make one important concession: going by the most obvious, although not necessarily the most accurate measure of the President's performance in this miserable "War on Terror", he has succeeded - we haven't experienced a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001.

But, if you recall, before this whole Iraq debacle got started we had relatively modest goals to pursue in Afghanistan - get rid of the Taliban, destroy Al Qaeda, and capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," a la Bon Jovi. None of this magically transforming the Middle East into a series of cherubic pro-American democracies BS. Just a simple, balanced response to the threat we faced.

But as sectarian violence in a needless war flared up to dominate the headlines and agendas of government officials, the war in Afghanistan steadily lost traction while our once nearly accomplished objectives slipped out of grasp. Although the sanctuaries provided by the tribal areas of Pakistan undoubtedly complicate the matter, the lack of adequate manpower and materiel as a result of their diversion towards efforts in Iraq severely hampered U.S. capabilities in the region, effectively enabling the resurgence of violence witnessed over the past year.

The big question is now, after nearly seven years in Afghanistan, what do we have to show for it? Here's what the RAND Corporation's Seth Jones had to say: "The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on September 11th, 2001." He then went on to say that practically the only major change in Al Qaeda's infrastructure over the past couple of years has been a minor shift in the location of their base of operations, a distance "roughly the difference from New York to Philadelphia," i.e. from Afghanistan to western Pakistan.

Thankfully though, Mr. Bush's term ends in six months while McCain and Obama have both acknowledged the increasingly dire situation in Afghanistan and promised results. McCain wants more troops, greater help from NATO allies, a war-czar of some sort, blah, blah, blah and Obama essentially wants to move the troops withdrawing from Iraq to Afghanistan. All well and good.

The problem which neither of them mention, however, is Pakistan, which plays a pivotal role in this whole mess since, as I said, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have essentially just picked up and moved across the border into their territory. From these lawless mountains in the west, they're able to stage raids on American troops in Afghanistan and then retreat back across the border, not unlike the Vietcong in Cambodia.

So whatever steps the next president takes in Afghanistan, it had better include some kind of solution to the Pakistani problem, otherwise the public might just have sit back and forget about Afghanistan for another ten years or so.

On a brighter note, we're meeting with Iran! Hooray! So here's to not having to forget about a third war anytime soon.

Cheers.

Recent Comments »
Page 1/1
Post Your Comments Below

Joey Carson

12:48PM 12:48PM Jul 18th 2008

Typical liberal bullshit.Do you even have a brain?I'm so sure that you have all the answers and reasons in your little pea brain utopian liberal fantasy worldly thoughts of just everybody get along.I challenge you to go do something in life other than try and tell the rest of us how smart you think you are and how we should see things and live you fat ass lesbian bitch.Get a real job and shut the hell up or do something about it.Who are you? Nobody! I suppose you think we forgot but we never will.Brobama Hussein the messiah will save us right? What a joke you people are.Tell us all this crap when you make your own electricity and fuel and quit using your cel phones airconditioners and hair dryers and have to eat spam in a can you dipshit lunatic!

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

John Maszka

7:18PM 7:18PM Jul 19th 2008

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.

Over the years of America's on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!

Keith Schath

11:31AM 11:31AM Jul 22nd 2008

Terrorism and the fight against specific terrorist acts is dealt with as it has always been dealt with, by intelligence and anti terrorist security measures. Terrorist groups or cells are comprised of hundreds of people versus the millions living in their country.

Attacking a country is never going to get to the actual terrorist cells or do anything but involve the whole country's innocent civilians who have nothing to do with a terrorist act or activities. The terrorists involved with the world trade center attack had ties to terrorist groups from several countries.

This would be like the KKK organizing a terrorist act on Russia and having Russia retaliate by declaring war with the US and going into a massive invasion to root out KKK cells throughout the country.

We are in middle east countries that have some of the most convoluted social factions and tribal entities within those factions of anywhere in the world. The fact we are there draws aggression and resistance. If we were not there the "terrorist" actions against our soldiers would not be brought to the US. Fighting and skirmishes do not validate that we are accomplishing any eradication or control of terrorism that would be brought to our country if we weren't there.

One other thing, let's start using real casualty numbers, there are 280,000 soldiers applying for disability, the permanent brain damage concussion rate is staggering as is the impaired but may make a full recovery category. the numbers of 21 to 30 year olds with cancer and other depleted plutonium related complications. The abnormal early cancers, high suicide rates, and later deaths from complications of the original injuries incurred in combat are casualties Bush prefers to classify as something else. The numbers of concussion injuries alone are kept secret on the grounds that it would be demoralizing to the troops still deployed. They should be aware of the dangers associated with being over there and breathing the air.

Rating : 2 stars Reply to this commentReport!