Bring Home the Troops From Afghanistan

Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is not a good strategy. Some argue that we need to "clean up Bush's mess." I won't even mention how paternalistic that is (See what I did there? That's a trick I picked up from Fox News). It assumes that adding more troops will somehow stabilize Afghanistan. It assumes that Bush brought war to that war-ravaged nation. It fails to put this latest phase of the war in Afghanistan into context.

Afghanistan has never been a "country" in the way the United States is one, with a government providing for every corner of the nation-state. Don't give me that bullshit about King Zahir Shah. He couldn't control the disparate population of Afghanistan if you gave him another 40 years as the nominal head of state!

Let's forget the fact that Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and every other historical power you can name couldn't control Afghanistan; Afghanis (with actual legitimacy) haven't even stood a chance! Even when the Taliban captured 90% of the country before the American invasion, they held very little de facto control. Sure, they enforced some outrageous laws in some high-profile places, but let's give the Afghan population some credit. The Taliban did not and will never truly rule over the majority of Afghanistan. They have some pull in the south of the country and the U.S. occupation has done nothing to diminish the Taliban's popularity in the Pashtun heartland. But most people in Herat and Kabul will always resent their presence. In Hazarajat and in the north, the Taliban will always be mortal enemies. There shouldn't be much concern that the Taliban will sweep through the country if and when the U.S. leaves.

Afghanis have been fighting since the late 1970s, and no one has been able to set up anything resembling a functioning government. Perhaps, least of all, Hamid "The Election Stealer" Karzai and his band of corrupt cohorts. They are the U.S. allies right now. If, by some miracle, the U.S. is able to create a stable and secure Afghanistan, it is these frauds that will run Afghanistan's future. Seems pretty futile, doesn't it?

There is a big concern that, if Afghanistan crumbles (it hasn't already? Then what do you call the last 30 years?), Pakistan (a nuclear state, we are constantly reminded) will follow. The problem is that virtually everyone in Pakistan hates the U.S. and every action it takes. As a result, the population tends to support the force opposing the U.S. regardless of its ideology. If the U.S. were to leave, it's clear Pakistanis would disavow the various Talibans, neo-Talibans, and post-modern Talibans. If you haven't noticed, Pakistanis aren't big fans of foreigners operating militarily within their sovereignty. And what are al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban? Foreigners. They're just "less" foreign than the U.S. And if the Pakistan Taliban did attempt another foray towards grabbing power in Islamabad, they should just remember that it didn't work out too well for them the first time.


To sum up: Let the Afghanis control their own destiny, especially since the U.S. can't be anything more than a band-aid on the swine flu. If the U.S. withdraws, it would likely increase the Pakistanis resolve to fight certain radical groups, because those groups would no longer serve their purpose as anti-U.S. (and, really, anti-Karzai - because the Pakistani military has always viewed Karzai as nothing more than an Indian proxy) forces. (more at International Affairs Edition)

Close Guantanamo Prison

The U.S. has stationed military personnel in Guantanamo, Cuba for about a century. In recent years, the U.S. has used part of the land it leased from Cuba to hold detainees suspected of links to terrorism. The prison should be closed and U.S. military personnel should leave the island of Cuba.

The United States Supreme Court decided that inmates in Guantanamo Bay prison should be awarded a trial. This decision came after some detainees had been held in the prison for years without so much as being charged with any crime, not even jaywalking. There's an old saying on the streets of Kabul: Don't jaywalk, you might end up in Guantanamo Bay prison! While detaining prisoners for an indeterminate amount of time is certainly unconstitutional, the more pressing issue is its inhumanity. Detainees face harsh conditions and are forced to endure humiliating acts. Remember, these people have not been convicted of anything, not even copying their friend's math homework in fourth grade.

The presence of the prison is one of the most egregious acts committed by the United States in the eyes of the Muslim world during its war on terror. It should be considered the same in the annals of our nation's history. It goes against every ideal we hold as a nation. If these people are guilty, they should be punished, but they should first be tried. If they are innocent, we must feel an immeasurable amount of shame in our horrific hypocrisy.

While the existence of the prison fans the flames of anti-Americanism in the world, the presence of U.S. military on the shores of Cuba serves to keep tensions high between the two neighboring nations. U.S - Cuba relations have been strained since Castro's rise to power in 1959. With the end of the Cold War, there is no justification to keep tensions at this level. This month, Russia has moved military equipment to Cuba in an effort to intimidate the U.S. Russia was able to do so because the United States never worked to reconcile the divisions that defined the Cold War era with regards to Cuba. Whether in terms of geo-political strategy or a humanitarian concern for the people of Cuba, it makes sense to engage with the regime in a constructive manner, as opposed to push the leadership towards America's enemies and the Cuban people further into isolation. (International Affairs Edition)

U.S. Troops in South Korea

Since the Korean War, fought from 1950-1953, the U.S. has had troops stationed in South Korea. Those troops should be brought home immediately.

As of now, the U.S. has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea. That is down from 37,000 in 2000, but it is still entirely too many. The justifications to leave the troops there include the fact that the war between North and South Korea is technically not over. In addition, North Korea had been deemed a state sponsor of terror before it was removed from the list earlier this year. The main concern was North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. troops serve no real purpose in South Korea except to increase the tension between the two hostile nations. There has been an armistice in place since the end of the war in 1953. While the war is technically not over, in reality, though it is a tense situation, the fighting ceased over 50 years ago. There is no real threat of North Korea invading its southern rival, largely because South Korea's military prowess is greater than that of the extremely poor North. Despite the North having nuclear weapons, there is no real threat of their use. They are simply utilized as a tool by North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-Il, in order to extract aid from wealthy nations.

The continued presence of U.S. troops in South Korea is a humiliating reality to the sovereign nation. South Korea is a so-called developed nation, only furthering the shame. In 2002, two thirteen year old South Korean girls were run over by an American tank. This year, South Koreans flocked the streets in protest of a trade deal regarding U.S. beef made by President Lee Myung-Bak. The citizens felt the deal was unfair in favor of the United States. These are examples of incidents that reinforce South Korea's submissive status in its relationship with the U.S., which is epitomized by the presence of U.S. troops on South Korean soil.

The troops must come home in order to restore the United States' relationship with South Korea and to take an essential step towards lessening the tension in the region. (International Affairs Edition)

Come Home from the Mountains

Regardless of one's stance on Iraq, everyone seems to agree that the U.S. needs more troops in Afghanistan. Even the shoe-throwing Iraqi reporter thinks an Iraq-like surge of troops would be prudent... not least because it would get the troops the hell out of his country. Much like the rest of my life, in this I walk alone.

The U.S. should pull all of its soldiers out of Afghanistan immediately. There is no achievable goal and thus, no logical reason to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The region has not been conquered by any outside forces for thousands of years. More importantly, it will not be conquered in the near future.

As the U.S. stays in Afghanistan, the Taliban continues to be relevant. This is a group that feeds on warfare. They grew during the civil war of the 1990s, but once they controlled most of the country by the turn of the millennium, they kept fighting. The Taliban proved ineffective at governing the country and needed to continue the war in order to maintain its power. When they first came onto the scene in the mid-1990s, Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, backed the Taliban because they were seen as the best hope to bring about peace. The country soon learned that the Taliban desired anything but peace and many turned their backs on the collective. Warfare sustains the Taliban.

Afghanistan has been overwrought with warlords over the last couple of decades. During the initial invasion the U.S. allied itself with the warlords, particularly those belonging to the loose alliance known as the Northern Alliance. This strategy proved disastrous for the people of Afghanistan because it empowered the warlords, who had made their livings off of plundering and purging the populace. Much as is the case with the Taliban, war behooves the warlords because it keeps them important and powerful.

While the removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan will not create an immediate peace within the country, it is the first step. The U.S. forces have no realistic broad aims that can be accomplished. The country will not fall in line behind President Hamid Karzai simply because the American military attempts to make it happen. Enemies of the U.S. are now often seen as protagonists. If U.S. troops are taken out of Afghanistan, the Taliban loses credibility and U.S. soldiers would no longer needlessly be in harm’s way. Many Afghans would not support the Taliban or al Qaeda but for the two organizations’ anti-Americanism. If there is no American military within Afghanistan to despise, the tide may very well turn against the Taliban and any al Qaeda members left within the Afghan borders. (International Affairs Edition)

Don't Lie to Me Obama

Come on Obama, don't lie to me man. His campaign was centered on ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing the troops. On Meet the Press yesterday, Obama called his new plan to remove the troops from Iraq a "draw down." He claimed that he would leave a residual force of 35,000-50,000 troops to protect American civilians still stationed in Iraq.

This new plan directly contradicts his campaign promises regarding the war. A draw down is clearly not the same as a withdrawal. In essence, this new plan to leave a large residual force in Iraq does not differ from John McCain's proposals on the same subject. Obama believes that the American occupation of Iraq was and is wrong. Leaving one third of the troops used to invade the country is nothing short of an occupation.

There should not be any U.S. troops or civilians in Iraq. We invaded their country. Our continued presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency. The insurgency is not upset because we have too many troops in Iraq, they are distraught because we have any troops there in the first place. The war did not fail because we had too many troops during the invasion; it failed because we invaded in the first place. The subsequent reconstruction of Iraq did not fail because we have had too many troops in the country; it failed because the presence of American troops is responsible for the insurgency's existence. These civilians that this residual force is supposed to protect will include the same corrupt corporations that have stolen tax payer money since the outset of the war.

I figured I'd be disillusioned with Obama at some point, I just didn't think it would start more than a month before his inauguration. And I support his cabinet nominations, even though liberals are few and far between. They are practical selections. But his new policy on the war in Iraq is not practical. Bring home all the troops from Iraq. (International edition)