« Obama Can't Do It Alone: It Takes A 'Team' which he Lacks Right Now | coonsey's Blog | $1 Trillion Dollars on Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq »

Taliban Must be Stopped --- They Allowed Al Qaeda to Grow in first place


The recent leak of a confidential assessment of the situation by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man Mr. Obama hired to turn around and win the war says,

"This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment,"

Nowhere in McChrystal's memo did the words "Al Qaeda" appear. The definition of what it means to defeat Al Qaeda had expanded - from disrupting, capturing, or killing its operatives to creating conditions that wouldn't allow their return.

Shouldn't the key words here be put together like this;  We should be creating conditions that prevent a return of the Al Qaeda?

What or who caused the conditions as such to allow the Al Qaeda's growth?

Remember back in 2001 after being attacked on 9/11 when form President George W Bush gave the Taliban the ultimatum to turn over the members of the Al Qaeda?  Here is part of the transcript from his announcement as we started bombing in Afghanistan:

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

"These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

"We are joined in this operation by our staunch friend, Great Britain. Other close friends, including Canada, Australia, Germany and France, have pledged forces as the operation unfolds.

"More than 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and across Asia have granted air transit or landing rights. Many more have shared intelligence. We are supported by the collective will of the world.

"More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network. And return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in their country.

"None of these demands was met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.

It seems to me that now that Al Qaeda is all but eliminated from Afghanistan, unless we have proof that the Taliban are harboring some of them, we've more than made the Taliban "pay the price".

However, if the reason the Al Qaeda were able to gather so much strength in the beginning is because of the Taliban and their help - then the Taliban must also be eliminated or their chances of controlling the nation must be stopped -- or we risk having them allow the Al Qaeda back into their country to set up camps once again.

President Obama has defined the mission in Afghanistan as rooting out Al Qaeda and preventing a return of the Taliban to power.

He must stand by his words or lose any credibility he might have with this nation and the world.

How he accomplishes that goal is another story.  I'm more than willing to allow him time to do so.  The troops that he authorized to be sent over earlier this year have not all arrived yet.  Yet there are those pushing for even more troops.

These same people are the ones that allowed the Bush/Cheney administration a full 8 years without demanding more in Afghanistan -- in fact they claimed victory with in the first few months.  And now we're supposed to listen to their wishes this time around? 

I don't think so!


1 Comment

| Leave a comment
user-pic
What, in the end, does state building in Afghanistan have to do with protecting America from terrorist attacks? If state strength is a cure for terrorism, why do we worry about states that sponsor terrorism? This problem was brought nicely into focus by special envoy Richard Holbrooke, in a March press conference explaining the administration's new policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan presents the greater challenge for U.S. counterterrorism efforts, Holbrooke explained, "because it's a sovereign country, and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again. No foreign troops on our soil." In other words, the stronger the state, the more able and willing it becomes to create "denied areas"—that is, regions where American counterterrorism forces are not allowed to operate. We don't need to generalize wildly here. But the very possibility that state building can make counterterrorism more difficult a possibility never even mentioned in McChrystal's weakly reasoned report—further undermines the credibility of his "new strategy," this time by throwing its central but wholly unargued aim in doubt.

from: Strategy, What Strategy? Obviously there are terrorist safe havens/training camps allowed in Pakistan (to use against India or to project power in Afghanistan), unless those are rooted out completely any effort to do so in Afghanistan will only be temporary.

Leave a comment

coonsey

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 24

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Illinois
  • Politics Independent

Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address