ArchivesIn my column back in October I once again made it known that, in my opinion, we were fighting a war that we can't win. That column brought comments of agreement by e-mail, phone calls, and chance meetings. There was not one in disagreement!
|
|
I have often written that the American people may be a tad slow about a decision, but they always come up with the correct answer.
Many people were against the war from the beginning, but Mr. Bush wanted his war. He acted prematurely without a plan of action. He sent troops into battle before they were ''combat ready.''
It turned out he spread death and destruction on the wrong country.
So, as an alternative, our generals and ''council of war,'' without determining what they were leading America into launched an attack on ''terrorists'' in Afghanistan. Why? I'll be dogged if I can comprehend.
There are two possible reasons for doing so .The companies that supply war material are pleased with the arrangement. The U.S. pays well and promptly. The stockholders are quietly contented.
So, with the help of the thousands of lobbyists the war drags on. And, of course, the military officers remind themselves they have long-wanted to lead men in battle, and here is their chance.
What other reason can you think of that would keep a top general at war; a war he knows that after eight years of trying can't be won even if it goes on ''another 10 or 20 years,'' ( a quote from a number of Washington officials.)
It is well known that America is hated and feared by many countries of the world because of our aggressive actions. They believe we are infidels and they will be rewarded by the Powers of Heaven if they can kill one or more of us. They believe this so firmly they readily join suicide squads. It is difficult to conquer an enemy motivated by a faith of this magnitude.
There is talk in some circles that our problems in the Middle East could be settled by diplomacy. How's that for a hole in the bucket? These countries have been battling for generations. To them diplomacy is an exploding bomb.
How much better would it be if we withdrew our troops to handle homeland problems? Put the troops on the border to wipe out smuggling, drugs that kill, and stop illegal immigration.
There are schools to be built, highways and bridges to be repaired. We would be saving lives and dollars instead of wasting them. What do you think, Mr. and Mrs. American?
The president is struggling with the request for 40,000 more troops to be deployed. God forbid.
For the sake of those troops let us get word to the Oval Office ... ''President Obama, end this war!''
Anyhow, that's the way I heard it.
(E-mail George at redbird1@cox.net.)
Popular Searches
Comments
valdezj001 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 12:21 AM:
I understand Mr. Gardiner’s feeling about the war and I held many of the same views about Iraq that he holds now about Afghanistan.
I was never against the war in Afghanistan and I continue to support this incursion. If we leave now, the terrorists will win and they will attack again us on American soil.
The bombing of the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and the crash in Pennsylvania of Flight 93 that was destined for the White House were conceived by teams of well-organized, well-funded terrorists. These attacks compelled an invasion to take out the Taliban militias responsible for these atrocities.
It is clear that President Obama will send additional American troops to the Afghanistan in an effort to prevent terrorists from once again establishing a regional nation-state. It is not unreasonable to expect that additional deployments numbering in the hundreds of thousands will be necessary in the months and years to come.
It is an open secret that U.S. Troop numbers in Afghanistan (currently 67,000) fall well short of the force levels necessary to mount an effective counter-insurgency in a country roughly the size of the State of Texas (600,000) according to the U.S. Army Manual. Perhaps the only way to win in Afghanistan is to do so in large numbers.
It is also apparent that America’s soldiers, their families and the public who supports them are all incredibly tired of war. The American people are tired of sending their sisters and brothers, their mothers and fathers, and their son and daughters off to fight and to sometimes die alone in strange, distant and unfamiliar places many of us have never heard.
The strategic importance of the region relative to Pakistan, India and China to the East and Iran and Iraq to the West cannot be overstated. To this end, the Obama Administration is in the process of asking the ultimate question any war commander must consider; what is the mission and how do we define victory?
While the American People will not stand for open ended deployments, I also do not think they want 9/11 to repeat itself. Direct threats to our way of life, to our liberty, must be turned back and they must be given no quarter. We must accept that we will be in Afghanistan for the long haul.
The Obama Administration may come to the realization that controlling all of Afghanistan is not a practical goal but occupying a strategic part of that region may be vital to protecting U.S. interests going forward. Being the strongest warlord in the region may be all that is necessary to thwart future threats to American interests. This is a mission that the American People might be willing to support.
In the meantime, let us pray for our troops and their families and let us be thankful for those in uniform who sit on the wall every night and every day protecting our freedom. Let us never waver in saluting them for their sacrifice and their service.
Louie Valdez
Phoenix AZ "