Should U.S. stay in Afghanistan?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/2/2008 1:45:00 PMBookmark and Share

Afghan-Pakistan borderAn Australian defense analyst believes the situation in Afghanistan is much worse now than right after the 2001 terrorist attacks -- and he is convinced the U.S. must take a long-term role there.

 

Recently the top U.S. general in Afghanistan said insurgent attacks have increased 40 percent this year over last year in the eastern section of the country. Major General Jeffery J. Schloesser says his troops have been tracking the movements of what he called "a syndicate" of terrorists, including Taliban, al-Qaida, Pakistanis, Afghans, and others, who move back and forth across the troubled Afghan-Pakistani border.
 
Schloesser told a Pentagon news conference that terrorists are attacking Afghan civic centers and schools, killing teachers, students, road crews, and others who are working to improve life in Afghanistan, but the coalition is still making good progress in training the Afghan army.
 
Greg Copley is president of the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA). "The situation in Afghanistan is actually much worse than it was just after September 11, 2001. And the problem is, if the United States wants to play a long-term role in stabilizing the Pakistan-Afghan border region, it's going to have to be on the basis of spending the money not on ordinance, but on building roads, schools, clinics, and the like to open up the territory so that we can see that area modernize," Copley explains.
 
Copley says it is important for Afghanistan to modernize so it does not remain imprisoned in the old tribal mentality.

 


Please log in to comment on this story.

Click here to log in


Comments on this article:
  • ""take the out men, women and children if necessary?" as colonel kilgore said Napalm, son. Nothing in the world smells like that. [kneels] Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end..."
  • "Ordinary citizens do not have a clue about what is going on over there. All they see is the negative reports on the media. The media is there to make money and that is all they care about. Afghanistan is a legitimate cause; I am not so sure about Iraq - I believe that was mainly about oil. Either way we are over there and have a job to do. That job is to keep people that have nothing better to do than complain about what we are doing free and alive so they can keep complaining."
  • "What are you saying? Of course we must stay in Afghanistan. In fact we must devote more investment right now in Afghanistan than in Iraq because Al Queda and the Taliban are coming back, but this time they are stronger than ever. We must stop that at all costs, no matter what!"
  • "Of course we should stay in Afghanistan. We should never have left Afghanistan in the first place and gotten involved in the Iraqi quagmire. We were on the verge of capturing Osama bin Laden there, but instead gave up the chase and redeployed our military mistakenly. It was a colossal blunder."
  • "Involvement in Afghanistan was the undoing of the Soviet Union. Terorists are moving the theatre to Afghanistan. I think we've accomplished our mission get 'em home. We accomplAs Be careful!"
  • "The author of this article is wrong on many levels: 1- the US should not stay in Afganistan unless there is a clear mission and the plans to carry it out are clear and concise 2- Afganistan may not need to modernize as the author says so. It may be just as happy keeping its tribal ways Afganistan is not strategic to the US. If there are known traning camps and groups that harbor terriorists - then take them out - men, women, and children if necessary."
  • "Hmm.. interesting. So.. our presence in Afghanistan made things worse? Just like in Iraq? What a surprise! Too bad so many people are still naive enough to believe this is entirely accidental, when of course destabilizing the area was the plan from the start, so that we could justify a long-term militiary precense there so we could "control" the area to a degree.. or at least the oil."

Other Stories in National Security
Should U.S. stay in Afghanistan?
Global warming -- a national security risk?
Bauer: Elections have consequences
Bush -- 'king' of AIDS immigration?
Conservatives unhappy with Bush over NK sanctions
Palestinians break cease-fire
Talk-show host risks life crossing the border
Islam critic hopes Israelis strike Iran
Border fence ruling praised
Gitmo torture -- where's the evidence?
Adios to the Southwest?
Bush honors retired Marine; homosexuals up in arms
EU approves tough guidelines for illegals
Media glances over landmark decision
Border Patrol patrolling for agents
Is Gitmo a day spa?
Navy conducts successful ABM test
Hi-tech security gear to China
Will homosexuals join military ranks?
Construction slump sends illegal aliens packing


If you believe OneNewsNow.com is an important source for Christian news,
please consider a
 
small tax-deductible gift for this service.