Afghanistan

Afghanistan

 
The US Should Maintain a Long Term Military Presence in Afghanistan.
 
Posts  1 - 4  of  4
Afghanistan discussion
 
thinreDline
I believe that the United States should maintain a prolonged
and robust military presence in Afghanistan. It would
serve as the Command Center for Anti-terrorist Operations
in that part of the world. It would be Pentagon East. All
personnel, equipment, intelligence gathering and analysis
would be focused on the elimination of terrorism directed
at our homeland, citizens, financial and political interests. Terrorism, i.e., that emanates from this region,
or is abetted by forces at work in the region.
By "Robust" I mean an activist, proactive attitude toward
the terrorist threat. Naturally, Afghanistan must be secured
for this Command to be successful. It can be secured, but
not by the passive, inert approaches taken by Bush and Obama.
Hopefully, someone will be elected President in 2012 who can effect this Program. It would be a staging area for
combat operations against al-qaeda or anyone else for that
matter in the area. Hopefully, it would eliminate or reduce
the privileged sanctuary provided by Pakistan and the Paki
government.
Anyone agree/disagree with me? Your thoughts please.
           
 
alitude14a
replied to: thinreDline
This is a good idea, though you should consider how you would find aq budget for it. Did you know that if the U.S. used all the money in the world to pay off its debt, we would still have a budget deficit of a billion dollars! To eliminate terrorism before it grows to large is a good idea, but most are against war in general, even if it is against terrorists. They might say "oh, they have freedom to practice whatever", but to not deal with them would be suicide, for if we don't, I don't know, attack them first they eventually will attempt tpo destroy us. Already They are developing nuclear weapons in secret and who knows what else? They don't care if they destroy half of the world if it means preserving Islam and getting whatever they want or getting revenge on whoever has offended them. Are you following me? Hope my opinion agreesw with yours,
H.A., age 13
           
 
thinreDline
replied to: alitude14a
Funding a project this size would be a problem. Afghanistan
has no economy(except heroin production), so it can provide
no capitalization. I like the idea of diverting money from
projects of a lessor priority than terrorism. Foreign aid
programs and our UN participation would be the first do go.
This would be an occupation, like Japan and Germany after
WW2. Unlike the other two, this occupation's priority
would not be nation building. It would be to detect and destroy terrorist activity emanating from this part of the world(Middle East, Africa, & Near East). The native Afghans
would be housed in centralized camps in the larger Afghan cities. They would have essentials provided for, but not much else. The days of insurgents hiding among the civilian population would come to an end. The poppy fields would be burned and the drug lords executed. the border with Pakistan would be closed. Drone activity over Paki territory would be increased.
President Bush said after 9/11 that the world had stranged
and that we would have to re-think and retool our approach
to national security, among other things. We were now going
be pro-active in fighting terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was an example. I believe a prolonged presense in Afghanistan is not only sensible, it is necessary. Leaving
Afghanistan would be a mistake. It's here. It's ours for the
taking. Not to plunder, but to use as resourse. Fund it
and let our commanders inthe field make the decisions, not
politicians in Washington.
           
 
thinreDline
replied to: alitude14a