How soon should the US pull out of Afghanistan - Essay Example

Topic: Policy Paper: How soon should the US pull out of Afghanistan America's pledge in Afghanistan is primarily a question of responsibility the United States must take for the chaos that was bear out of years of negligence and under-resourcing for the period of the Bush period. In light of all we know regarding Afghanistan after nearly eight years, it shows solid ground for President Obama to direct the United States to pull out of Afghanistan is because the public is exhausted of war. Decision recommended: The decision recommended by Kristol is that to reduce forces, in order to serve the revised comprehensive policy: "America should do no more than what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, effective Special Forces units, focusing on the porous 1,500-mile boundary with Pakistan (Kristol, 2009)." Issue: As conveyed by the President of the Centre of a New American security, John Nagl. He stated that, America hasfundamental national security interests in Afghanistanthat makes fighting there crucial. The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a shelter for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the medium for a larger regional security meltdown. Afghanistan also a known foundation that United States uses to attack al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader operation against Afghanistan's terrorist organization one that we evidently must win (Stephanopolous, 2009). The United States policymakers have to; assess all actions in opposition to America's global concerns and the probable prospective costs. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, economical strategies don't have a positive record of achievements. The drone attacks are affecting the sentiments of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and are also greatly undermining the popularity of America. Hence, the relation of Pakistan and America is at stake. Background: As Kristol stated in his article; referring to the Op-ed's columnist George F. Will's article in which he discussed about the Afghanistan and Afghanistan's casualties he was not happy about the length of America's long shot there the dismissive of the involvement of America's NATO allies, disdainful of the Afghan central government, and struck by the country's diffident. Kristol share many of these opinions. However they are just views. It would be better to find a major change in America's nationalized security strategy on disputes--especially if they are advocating an amendment from a policy that's been sustained for eight years by a bipartisan accord, and that engages the area that was the platform for Sept. 11 (Kristol, 2009). According to a latest Rasmussen Report, a public telephone surveyed that twenty percent (20%) of United States voters say all American troops should be brought back from Afghanistan instantly. An additional 17% oppose an instant withdrawal of United States services but believe a solid timetable should be established to bring all troops home within a year. Fifty two percent (52%) see no need for a removal or a timetable right now. Eleven percent (11%) is indifferent or uncertain. Democrats are much more strongly in support of pulling out the troops, which poses perhaps a greater concern to President Obama with some in his party already discussing a possible challenge to him for the party's presidential recommendation in 2012 (Kristol, 2009). America should operate its war on terror from abroad and in order to do that it has improved its relation with Pakistan as Kristol admits in passing what seems to be an additional important national interest Pakistan, "a nation that actually matters." (Kristol, 2009). Alternative Option: The prime mistakes United States made in Iraq were the postponement in decision making and the reliability of required resources. United States managed to turn that mission around and accomplish victory because Washington made the tough choices that provided what was needed to get the job done. Additional hindrance in executing a same strategy in Afghanistan could see history repeating itself. Afghanistan cannot be left as a training platform for activists. The management's need to secure votes for their domestic agenda, should not effect the key decisions taken at troop levels are made to fighting against the enemy.Their most urgent intention is not only to support their troops back home, but get the word to the politicians that their boys are waiting for direction. As it is a lengthy procedure, it will take another three to four months before the troops allocated to the task today will be in acting and ready to slot in the enemy. The media's continuous hollering and measuring of public views poses a critical challenge to modern democracy: our leaders must stabilise the will of those who elected them with the need to make judicious policy choices (Sinha, 2009). According to Washington Post-ABC News, a poll proclamation claims that 51% say the war is not worth fighting; an Economist/You Gov poll pronouncement say that 32% agree with sending more troops and 65% expect that the United States will go away [from Afghanistan] without winning. All this ever-present polling makes it ever harder for our leaders to actually lead us.ABC News recently testified: "[Vice President Joe] Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the United States can't make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaeda (The Obama Report, 2009)." It is ridiculously short-term even though if this is correct. The true test of a leader is whether she/he can direct us down the correct path, even when it is the least admired one. President Obama's plan focuses on sheltering the Afghan population and strengthening the Afghan security forces, deserves the awareness and resolve of government officials and security forecasters alike, above all because at this point, abandoning Afghanistan is the one choice we absolutely cannot afford to follow (The Obama Report, 2009) Recommended Option: According to Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the naval postgraduate school expressed that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting only if we have clear definite goals and a pragmatic political and military tactic to achieve our goals. Presently, we have neither of them. If the goal is of putting it together a secure, "self-governing" rule in Kabul, we will indeed fail. Afghans will not at all see such government in Kabul as officially authorized as democracy has been never a source of legitimacy for governance in Afghanistan. Legality in Afghanistan for thousands of years has curtailed from dynastic and religious sources. Just as we misinterpreted the basis for government legality in Afghanistan, we also deeply misunderstand the nature of the enemy. In Afghanistan, we persist on fighting a counterinsurgency approach rooted on separately defined objectives, while the enemy is struggling jihad which is inspired by the religion. It's tough to defeat an enemy if lack understanding about it. Most insurgencies stop through any sort of combination of conciliation and understanding, but the jihadists will never honestly consult with us. Our "clear, hold, and build" approach is failing in Afghanistan for the similar reasons was futile in Vietnam -- as we insist on acting against the approach repeatedly but not simultaneously. We can accomplish something in Afghanistan, but we require village base strategy and decentralized representation, tangle nation building based on traditional Afghan ethnic leadership and legality (George, Freidmen & Bhalla, 2009). The possible advantages of waging war simultaneously and changing the mindsets of the people of Afghanistan would be that, the war could come to an end ultimately and the people of Afghanistan would then realize that this is the right solution for them and their country's prosperity and development. Hence, they would also help the American troops in defeating extremist Taliban and Al-Qaeda. However the disadvantages would be that Afghanistan would demand the sovereignty of their nation and would demand the withdrawal of the U.S troops from Afghanistan and hence making it all difficult for the prevention of terrorism (George, Freidmen & Bhalla, 2009). Possible consequences: The consequences of removal of American and NATO troops from Afghanistan would be too dreadful to bear. Terrorism expertBruce Hoffmanhas advised to disengagement from Afghanistan could destabilize Pakistan and yet "guarantee" an upcoming attack on the United States from this region - this is an attitude that is shared by other regional specialists, such as AfPak Channel (a special project of foreign policy and New American Foundation) editorPeter Bergen, who has said, "The United States can neither precipitously withdraw from Afghanistan nor help foster the emergence of a stable Afghan state by doing it on the cheap; the consequences would be the return of the Taliban and al-Qaeda (Sinha, 2009)." Correspondingly, over the weekend,Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British overseas secretary's astonishing delegate for Afghanistan and an earlier British ambassador to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, stressed the crucial role of the United States and publicized that, "walking away would destroy everything that has been achieved The pullout option is not one that any government could responsibly follow (Sinha, 2009)." The evaluation over either to send additional troops of United States into Afghanistan may hang up until the contested Afghan polls is determined, United States officials said on October 18. The declaration comes asUnited States President Barack Obama is looming a decision on the war in Afghanistan. During the 2008 United State presidential operation, Obama argued that Iraq was the incorrect war at the wrong time, but Afghanistan was a required war. His reasoning went that the intimidation to the United States came from al Qaeda, Afghanistan had been al Qaeda's shelter, and if the United States were to abandon Afghanistan, al Qaeda would re-establish itself and once again terrorize the United States homeland. Abandonment from Afghanistan would hence be treacherous, and tribunal of the war was therefore essential. References: - George, Freidmen, and Reva Bhalla. "Stratfor: the U.S. Challenge in Afghanistan." Fabius Maximus. 20th Oct. 2009. Web http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/stratfor-11/. 9 Nov 2009 - Kristol, William. "No Will, No Way." The Washington Post. 1st Sep. 2009. Web. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/no_will_no_way.html. 9 Nov 2009. - Sinha, Q. S. "President Obama don't listen to the public on Afghanistan." The Afpak Channel. Web http://afpak.foriegnpolicy.com/post. 12 Nov 2009. - Stephanopolous, George. "Feinstein: Obama should approve Mc Chrystal's Recommendations." ABC News.11th Oct. 2009. Web. http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-afghan-strategy-options-coming.html. 10 Nov 2009 - The Obama Report. "White House: Obama sent troops to the battlefield for political reasons". Yahoo News. 31st Aug 2009. Web. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2329172/posts. 16 Nov 2009 Read More