Should we stay?
Mohammad Ismail, Reuters
The longest war in Afghanistan is coming to an end, and after 13 years, two US presidencies, and the first democratic turnover of leadership in Afghanistan, a promise to curtail but not entirely withdraw US and foreign troops in the region has generated controversy over how to actually bring an end to this war. Many experts have elicited their opinions and taken contrasting positions to this decision. Specialists such as those at the RAND Institute in Washington D.C stand in support of retaining troops while others such as Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor for the Observer (associated with The Guardian), are in firm opposition.
RAND experts on Afghanistan have followed the war closely and have collectively decided that President Obama is making the right decision in keeping troops on the ground. An American nonprofit global policy think tank, the RAND Institute aims to “improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis.” The group agreed that had the decision been to pull all troops out, the United States would have been ignoring the reality unfolding. With the fall of Kunduz, a northern city, to the Taliban in October 2015, the strength of the terrorist group would overwhelm Afghan forces there, which are currently supported by U.S. Air Force. James Dobbins, a Senior Fellow, believes that the level of US commitment is sustainable and that the threat of the Taliban is to remain long term. Dobbins also acknowledges the role the US plays in the country and that taking away this support would be detrimental to the largely unprotected civilians. Dobbins comments, “beyond the geopolitical and national security imperatives, there is a powerful humanitarian case for maintaining America’s current modest military presence in Afghanistan.” His colleague, Seth G. Jones, contends the security situation is actually worsening, stating, “The U.S. presence may prevent Afghanistan from deteriorating as quickly as Iraq did after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011. But it’s unclear whether the U.S. strategy and posture in Afghanistan will be enough to turn the Afghan ship around.”
On the other side of the debate stands a collection of people who are no longer sure why we are still fighting in Afghanistan. For Peter Beaumont and others, the war in Afghanistan began to help create “the beginnings of a modern, democratic state where the lives of ordinary people would be improved.” This was at the beginning. Now, Beaumont opines we have lost sight of our aims. Without a firm deadline, Beaumont writes, “the war in Afghanistan is a blank cheque written in the blood of Afghan civilians and the foreign soldiers fighting there. Drawn on a morally bankrupt account.”
The contending views on what is considered right for America’s remaining troops in the region raises more questions on how integral the US plays in the vitality of this country and how responsible we are for what is occurring on the ground. Time is ticking to answer these questions with the consequences becoming heavier each day. Yet there are repercussions with acting hastily. In this black and white debate, we realize the answer is gray, but that the most important unifier between diverging views is the goal to bring peace to the region and its people.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/observer-debate-afghanistan
http://www.rand.org/
https://www.gallaudet.edu/tip/english-center/writing/quoting-and-praphrases.html
http://www.rand.org/blog/2015/10/keeping-us-troops-in-afghanistan-rand-experts-react.html
