Yet Another Surge

I remember when the declaration was made that US forces would be sent to Afghanistan. In the months following the attacks of September 11th it was inevitable that troops would be sent to quell an enemy that had run of a nation and that had provided a base to some of the most devious terrorist masterminds the world had seen. Most allied nations were with us as well. After seeing the horror and devastation that was visited upon New York and Washington it wasn't surprising to see so many nations coming out in support of the proposed war in Afghanistan. But things didn't quite work out the way they should have. Rather than sending an overwhelming force to Afghanistan to stop the Taliban and al-Queda, the military was sent over in relatively smaller numbers and was expected to subdue the organizations that ran the terrorist networks.

Well when US forces managed to oust the corrupt and malicious Taliban government it seemed like mission accomplished and now on to Iraq to many people. Unfortunately what many of us fail to realize is that unlike wars in the past where there was a clear cut definition of who was our enemy and who were our allies, in Afghanistan those lines are somewhat more muddled. You see the main problem, as I see it, is the fact that just ousting the central government from Kabul was not the main problem. That was part of it; but what needs to be realized (and I believe that many of our military leaders and government leaders should be aware of this) is that Afghanistan is made up of more than just a single people but numerous tribes and villages spread across the country. Not all of them recognize or care about the government in Kabul. They are so far flung that they often side with whomever appears to be most sympathetic to them or who seems to understand them better.

Another way to think of it is to consider that if Canadians came to the US and declared that our federal government was corrupt and evil and they were run off into the countryside, would our nation come to a standstill? No. Simply because power also rests in the states and that is more or less what is happening in Afghanistan. That being the case then how can you reasonably attempt to quell an additional uprising by various tribals who are often inspired by terrorist networks like al-Queda? This isn't like Germany in World War II where once the Nazi party was finally defeated that the conflict could end and the rebuilding could begin. This is country where even the basics and things we take for granted here are something relatively unknown and often times have no real value.

So what if we bring democracy to this nation and allow it to thrive? If the people of Afghanistan feel that there is still unfair religious bias in a government that's in power then do you think they'll support it? They'd rather support the terrorists that fight against the perception of a corrupt government. So what does this have to do with the surge that President Obama introduced to the American people last night? Simply that depending on what the scope of this surge and the mission of those in the military that will be going to Afghanistan (or are already there) really is this surge can either end up being a good thing or a very bad thing. It will be a good thing if realistic and plausible solution that should be spelled out. It will be a bad thing if it becomes a self-perpetuating problem that will continue ad naseum.

The mission in Afghanistan was the one that really needed to be accomplished before we began looking at other 'clear and present dangers'. Iraq was just one problem spot in the world and although there is no longer any evidence that the inevitable nuclear missle strike that Iraq supposedly had is gone we can concentrate on fighting those that really attacked us on 9/11. President Bush made a bold statement at the time during which he said to those nations that harbored terrorists, "you're either with us or you are against us". Those are prophetic words and after only completing part of the mission in the country, it was left at the wayside when Iraq took center stage. And if, as many people still believe, that Iraq was a danger than needed to be quelled sooner rather than later then what about other nations that have also shown signs of unrest and genocide like North Korea, Sudan, Mogadishu, Rwanda? The list can go on but what should be done should be a realistic option.