Robert A Whit
12-15-2012, 06:32 PM
Don and I go way back and he sent me his article and I make his article available to the forum.
Very good article in my opinion.
dgill000@aol.com
Dec 14 (1 day ago)
to dgill000
This article appeared in TC Palm this morning.Donald L. Gilleland: Why are we still in Afghanistan?Will we still be there in 2073?
Donald L. Gilleland, Suntree, served 30 years in the military and is former corporate director of public affairs for General Dynamics Corp.
Friday, December 14, 2012
President Barack Obama has committed to withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and is negotiating with Hamid Karzai, the 12th and current president of Afghanistan, for a residual American force to stay in Afghanistan for an unspecified period after 2014.
Why? Why are we still there? What is so special about 2014? And why do we need to keep forces there on a semi-permanent basis? Is it possible we could still be there in 2073? That's what happened in South Korea. We're still there more than 60 years after the armistice was signed.
December will mark the 133rd month of U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. It is the longest combat commitment in our history. Why? Our mission there has changed dramatically over the years.
Following the World Trade Center disaster on Sept. 11, 2001, with virtually complete support from the American public, we sent our military forces to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban training camps where al-Qaida operatives learned how to wreak havoc around the world.
We accomplished that mission rather quickly and the few remaining al-Qaida operatives fled Afghanistan and took up residence in Pakistan. We should have declared victory right then, and brought our troops home.
We had decimated the people responsible for 9/11 and our mission was complete. Instead, we changed our mission and allowed ourselves to get sucked into an unachievable and prolonged commitment to nation building. Our new mission focused on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan citizens and training their security forces so they would be able to defend the country against the Taliban — while simultaneously killing as many Taliban fighters as possible.
Forget for the moment that democratization of a tribal nations is nearly impossible and that local Afghanistan police may never be a match for the Taliban — which ran the French and Russians out of their country and will eventually run us out, too. It is logical to think that al-Qaida and the Taliban will return to power after we withdraw our forces, and we will have gained very little for our 12-year sacrifice.
According to a far-reaching study by Boston University, the United States will have spent a total of nearly $4 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, costing 225,000 lives and creating 7.8 million refugees, by the time the conflicts end.
Contrast that with The New York Times estimate that it cost al-Qaida roughly $500,000 to destroy the World Trade Center. By almost any measure al-Qaida's success was cost-effective and ours was problematical.
Isn't it time for us to cut our losses? I can't imagine a single U.S. goal in Afghanistan being worth another American life. I have a question for our president: What do you hope to achieve in two more years of effort that could not have been achieved in the first 12 years?
There is no assurance that the Afghanistan military will be any more ready to stand alone in two more years. Bring our troops home now and quit pretending our accomplishments will eventually match our sacrifices.
Very good article in my opinion.
dgill000@aol.com
Dec 14 (1 day ago)
to dgill000
This article appeared in TC Palm this morning.Donald L. Gilleland: Why are we still in Afghanistan?Will we still be there in 2073?
Donald L. Gilleland, Suntree, served 30 years in the military and is former corporate director of public affairs for General Dynamics Corp.
Friday, December 14, 2012
President Barack Obama has committed to withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and is negotiating with Hamid Karzai, the 12th and current president of Afghanistan, for a residual American force to stay in Afghanistan for an unspecified period after 2014.
Why? Why are we still there? What is so special about 2014? And why do we need to keep forces there on a semi-permanent basis? Is it possible we could still be there in 2073? That's what happened in South Korea. We're still there more than 60 years after the armistice was signed.
December will mark the 133rd month of U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. It is the longest combat commitment in our history. Why? Our mission there has changed dramatically over the years.
Following the World Trade Center disaster on Sept. 11, 2001, with virtually complete support from the American public, we sent our military forces to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban training camps where al-Qaida operatives learned how to wreak havoc around the world.
We accomplished that mission rather quickly and the few remaining al-Qaida operatives fled Afghanistan and took up residence in Pakistan. We should have declared victory right then, and brought our troops home.
We had decimated the people responsible for 9/11 and our mission was complete. Instead, we changed our mission and allowed ourselves to get sucked into an unachievable and prolonged commitment to nation building. Our new mission focused on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan citizens and training their security forces so they would be able to defend the country against the Taliban — while simultaneously killing as many Taliban fighters as possible.
Forget for the moment that democratization of a tribal nations is nearly impossible and that local Afghanistan police may never be a match for the Taliban — which ran the French and Russians out of their country and will eventually run us out, too. It is logical to think that al-Qaida and the Taliban will return to power after we withdraw our forces, and we will have gained very little for our 12-year sacrifice.
According to a far-reaching study by Boston University, the United States will have spent a total of nearly $4 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, costing 225,000 lives and creating 7.8 million refugees, by the time the conflicts end.
Contrast that with The New York Times estimate that it cost al-Qaida roughly $500,000 to destroy the World Trade Center. By almost any measure al-Qaida's success was cost-effective and ours was problematical.
Isn't it time for us to cut our losses? I can't imagine a single U.S. goal in Afghanistan being worth another American life. I have a question for our president: What do you hope to achieve in two more years of effort that could not have been achieved in the first 12 years?
There is no assurance that the Afghanistan military will be any more ready to stand alone in two more years. Bring our troops home now and quit pretending our accomplishments will eventually match our sacrifices.