The future of Afghanistan is clouded today, with no certainty that freedom and democracy will thrive, or even that the Taliban can be pushed back into the wilderness.
The future role of U.S. troops is unclear as well. The Pentagon is weighing a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal for more U.S. and NATO troops to counter the growing strength of insurgents. Critics of this approach are pressing for a timeline for withdrawal. “I do not believe the American people want to be in Afghanistan for the next 10 years,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Sunday.
But Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview on CNN, argued that a premature pullout of American and NATO forces would amount to a victory for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
U.S. interests in central Asia remain the same today as in 2001 ”“ strengthening local government and denying a base of operations for terrorists. The best option still seems to be the administration’s original plan: To support the Afghan government and military forces until they are strong enough to stand alone. If the Pentagon calls for a surge of military effort to accomplish this, we hope the president strongly considers it.
Airstrikes, drones and warlords ”“ key elements of the strategy of the previous administration ”“ have not proven effective in stabilizing Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfeld’s approach did not succeed, and the Taliban and al Qaida took it as an opportunity to return in strength.
President Hamid Karzai appears to be a weak link in the partnership to rebuild Afghanistan. In vote counting after the Aug. 20 election, he leads with 54.6 percent of the vote, but widespread evidence of fraud could easily force a runoff election.
With uncertainty now gripping Afghanistan, a strong NATO presence there is as important as it has ever been. More military force appears to be an essential ingredient to keeping the country stable and protecting Western interests.
— Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen Schulze Muszynski or Nick Cowenhoven at 282-1535 or kristenm@journaltribune.com or nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less