![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
When President Obama agreed to send 17,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded by questioning the President's plan to increase the American presence in the south Asian country. He advised that the White House needed a strategy before committing more troops. Despite a larger US and NATO presence in the country since 2006, the last few years has seen a deteriorating secuirty situation. Feingold warned that a military escalation could further alienate the population, making the operation's goals more difficult to achieve.
General Petraeus, the mastermind of the Iraq "surge", mentioned that military reinforcement is a short-term solution. He explained that there needs to be more emphasis and more money devoted to good governance, fighting corruption, and building up the Afghan military and police. Obama's military "surge" may produce short-term benefits, but there is no strategy for sustainable improvement.
Even with a "surge" in troops, there would not be enough military personnel to hold the ground and secure areas that are now reclaimed by various groups of insurgents that have no common ties other than a common enemy - foreign troops. Using this logic, the military seems to be following a mantra of "when in doubt, escalate!"
The U.S. and its allies effectively control Kabul and the provincial capitals. That is, until a few days ago when insurgents launched coordinated attacks on three government buildings in the capital. Resistance fighters include Islamic fundamentalists (Taliban and al-Qaeda), as well as Pashtun nationalists and local tribal chiefs and mullahs. The Resistance is self-sustaining with opium profits and a population that wants nothing to do with an influx of foreign troops.
When Moscow illegally invaded Afghanistan, it had that modest goal of trying to "prop up" the communist-friendly regime under threat of civil war and U.S.-back mujahideen. The original goals of Operation: Enduring Freedom were to capture al-Qaeda and to topple the Taliban government. What is the new administration's goals?
General Petraeus, the mastermind of the Iraq "surge", mentioned that military reinforcement is a short-term solution. He explained that there needs to be more emphasis and more money devoted to good governance, fighting corruption, and building up the Afghan military and police. Obama's military "surge" may produce short-term benefits, but there is no strategy for sustainable improvement.
Even with a "surge" in troops, there would not be enough military personnel to hold the ground and secure areas that are now reclaimed by various groups of insurgents that have no common ties other than a common enemy - foreign troops. Using this logic, the military seems to be following a mantra of "when in doubt, escalate!"
The U.S. and its allies effectively control Kabul and the provincial capitals. That is, until a few days ago when insurgents launched coordinated attacks on three government buildings in the capital. Resistance fighters include Islamic fundamentalists (Taliban and al-Qaeda), as well as Pashtun nationalists and local tribal chiefs and mullahs. The Resistance is self-sustaining with opium profits and a population that wants nothing to do with an influx of foreign troops.
When Moscow illegally invaded Afghanistan, it had that modest goal of trying to "prop up" the communist-friendly regime under threat of civil war and U.S.-back mujahideen. The original goals of Operation: Enduring Freedom were to capture al-Qaeda and to topple the Taliban government. What is the new administration's goals?