Will al-Qaida Go Home As Well?
- Print print this page
- Discuss 27 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
From this easy chair, it almost feels wrong to comment. Other men and women have sacrificed. They have fought to protect me and my family, just as they've fought to protect yours. Much blood has been lost.
And we say from the safety of our homes, our couches, our dens, that we are war-weary, we are tired, the war in Afghan-istan is too expensive.
Presi-dent Obama will begin a phased withdrawal of our troops starting with 10,000. He promises to extricate all our troops by the end of 2014. For this, the president enjoys broad and unlikely support. Voices from the left, the right and even some tea partiers all agree: It's time to come home.
But there are still a few, like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, who quietly ask: Are conditions on the ground in Afghanistan such that it is safe to bring our troops home?
When we are gone, will al-Qaida go home to their families as well? Will they also decide that the war has been too costly? Will the Taliban be satisfied to leave Hamid Karzai and the provincial governing bodies in power?
Will these ideologues of radical and militant Islam admit defeat at the hands of our forces? Once we're gone, can we rest comfortably that no more 9/11s will be hatched from within Afghanistan?
In Thursday's New York Times, there were two articles on the same page. The first, "Obama Adviser Outlines Plans to Defeat al-Qaida," described the Obama administration's switch in tactics to use targeted special forces, intelligence and drone missile attacks to destroy al-Qaida. Heavy troop presence is no longer necessary and was a mistake of the Bush administration.
The second piece, "Assault Dims Hopes for Security in Afghanistan," described firsthand accounts of Afghan security forces running away from the terrorist attack at the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul. The attack was ended only after NATO helicopters began shooting terrorists off the roof.
Eyewitness Nazir Armini said of transitioning forces out of Afghanistan, "If they give security responsibility to the current government at 10 a.m., the government will collapse around 12 noon. They cannot live without foreigners."
Many years ago, in another war, the new prime minister of Great Britain came to the podium and spoke for the first time in front of the House of Commons. Rallying that government, some might say waking it up to the reality of Hitler's western stampede, Winston Churchill said:
"You ask, What is our policy? I will say; 'It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
Who really knows? Maybe tactical and surgical strikes by special forces are sufficient to destroy al-Qaida. Perhaps Afghanistan will be able to defend itself once we leave. The attack on the Intercontinental would seem to say otherwise.
What is most troubling about all this is that the Obama surge and conventional forces stabilized Afghanistan against an enemy whose ideological goals are very similar to those of the Nazis: the destruction and consumption of nations.
Do we really believe Afghanistan boils down to dollars and cents? What would we say exactly to the families of our 1,631 fallen soldiers who died there if the Taliban and al-Qaida resume control after we're gone - "We did significant damage to the enemy while we were there"?
This weekend, we celebrate another anniversary of our freedom, liberty and independence. I will be thinking about and thanking our troops who have made this continued luxury possible. I will think about the great leaders of days past, and the brave soldiers of yesterday who clearly saw the threat, and with determination and courage, using every means at their disposal, destroyed those threats.
This is uncomfortable to say, but plans to exit Afghanistan before assured victory doesn't feel right at all. Time will tell.
Geoff Cutler is owner of Cutler Tree LLC in Southern Pines and is a regular contributor to The Pilot and PineStraw magazine. Contact him at geoffcutler@embarqmail.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
I supported the original action against the Taliban and al-Quaeda under President Bush (something that was apparently immediately forgotten when I dared to even question the invasion of Iraq).
But we accomplished the original mission, to remove the Taliban from power. We've severely reduced the ability of Al-Quaeda to attack us. Many of the documents seized in the raid that killed bin Laden detail his fixation on hitting our country again and his people's frustration at not being able to do that.
Right now, we're spending "all our might and with all the strength that God can give us" to chase a few hundred raggedy hillbillies around the mountains and down alleyways. And we're doing it in a place where we're surrounded by so-called "allies" we can't trust.
Bin Laden once boasted that he could tie up several US divisions by simply having a couple of fighters raise an Al-Quaeda flag in some remote spot. We keep major combat troops in there now, we're fighting the war he wanted us to fight. And you don't ever want to fight an enemy on the terms he dictates.
JeremyG 1 year, 10 months ago
I'll re-post a comment I made on another article:
The wars of the last decade will leave the lasting legacy of screwing the generations to come as trillions were spent on the waste of blood and treasure that is nationbuilding. These trillions could have gone to reparing and modernizing America's crumbling infrastructure, education, and bold new innovation. Instead this money is forever lost to the sands of the Middle East. We could not have given Al Qaeda a better gift than grinding ourselves down in seemingly endless war.
theonewithsense 1 year, 10 months ago
Better yet, we could have not borrowed and spent the money at all. Who would have thought that 3 years into his presidency that Obama would be as much of if not more of a war hawk than Bush. As a senator he sponsored a bill to make Bush remove the troops within about a year, as a presidential candidate, he promised to bring the troops home, as president he keeps the war machine going, starts a new war and then says he'll bring the troops home in 2014......
JeremyG 1 year, 10 months ago
Obama is definitely deserves blame for keeping the machine going. I am writing in Bernie Sanders in 2012 at this point.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
The two biggests problem I see in Afghanistan, is the high percentage of people who are illiterate and having to deal with such a corrupt leader, who half the time is sympathic to the Taliban and has already reinstated some of the ridiculous harsh laws of the Taliban. All of this reminds me of Vietnam, to a degree, revisited. A very corrupt government, ours soldiers hands, to a degree, tied to what they can and can not do, and an enemy with a devout idelogy, such as the Vietnamese communists had. Not to mention both countries haven't know what life is without war, for what seems like forever. With that said, I too wonder if downsizing too soon, will result in us facing an even bigger dilema over there somewhere down the road and all our efforts and sacrifices, in vane. Diane
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
I like to find the humor in most everything and MikeNC (Diane) has given me a gem. Do you see the humor in her statement : "..the high percentage of people who are illiterate" followed by "...our efforts and sacrifices, in vane." For those who don't, get out your dictionary. As for the serious topic at hand: Bring all of our military home now and lets start building the United States of America back to what it once was. The military can be stationed on all the borders to protect us from all who want to do us harm. The money being spent "nation building" can be spent building our nation.
pcvsherri 1 year, 10 months ago
It was a democratic congress that sent us there and a republican congress that wants to bring the troops home. A democratic president kept us there for a couple of years and increased our presence. Where are the libs that believe the terrorists will leave us alone in this picture?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Where are the libs that believe the terrorists will leave us alone in this picture?
You'll never get an answer to this question. People like Chief Hammer love to make up imaginary "libs" to rail against.
JeremyG 1 year, 10 months ago
I never said they would leave us alone if we brought the troops home now. Please don't put words in my mouth. The terrorists won't go away if we stay either. We are giving them so much of what they want by grinding ourselves down over there. Good intelligence (which obviously waved bye bye to you along time ago), very small specialized covert ops when necessary, and good law enforcement are far more effective then nation building on a mass scale. Endless war is not the answer.
Easygoing 1 year, 10 months ago
Geoff's statement "Will these ideologues of radical and militant Islam admit defeat at the hands of our forces? Once we're gone, can we rest comfortably that no more 9/11s will be hatched from within Afghanistan?" is telling. He apparently believes we are in a holy war against Islam. Of course there is no guarantee that new plots will not be hatched in Afghanistan. No more that we can guarantee that any new home grown terrorists in Idaho will be planning to blow up government buildings. It's a fact of today's world that nut jobs are everywhere. His proposition that we stay there is ridiculous. There is no such thing as "assured victory."
geoffcutler 1 year, 10 months ago
No...not a "holy war against Islam," a world war against radicalized, militant Islam.
coffecreme 1 year, 10 months ago
So what is it you want Geoff ? In or out... does it depend on what Obama wants and you want the opposite? Seems that way to me.
geoffcutler 1 year, 10 months ago
While it's true I think this president is the worst thing to befall America in its entire history, and Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan, I have also been fair to this president when he deserves it, and given him credit when it's due. Look back over my stuff.
coffecreme 1 year, 10 months ago
I think George W. Bush Jr was the worst President since Harding.
geoffcutler 1 year, 10 months ago
So we've heard.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
JER, I get a kick out of your statements. Such as, if the money stayed here, we'd be building our nation. Would an example of building our nation be the 800 Billion Stimulus bill and Shovel Ready Projects? I can't seem to find those damn shovel ready projects anywhere this year, how bout you? Bottom dollar, the government takes billions, spends trillions and guess what? We're all sittin here wondering "wha happened." (PS Wha was deliberate.) Diane
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
From the Congressional Budget Office:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326
*CBO estimates that in the second quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies: Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent, Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points, Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise.
(Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)*
But as usual, don't let facts get in your way.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
They had a news blurp this morning on just what you guys are talking about...The stimulous plan and its effectivemess; or lack of I should say. They (CNN) said that according to WH reports and the CBO that more jobs would have been created and the economy would have improved better on it's own if the stimulous plan did not happen.....Mike
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
Ya know what James...If GWB would have ever come up with that "Jobs saved" bit...he would have been laughed out of office and I couldn't have blamed the laughers.....Mike
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Funny how you link to a Weekly Standard article that misrepresents the report and omits its final conclusions. Why is that? Why do neither you nor the Standard mention the last paragraphs of the actual report, as follows?
This report continues the Council of Economic Advisers’ assessment of the economic impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the response of the economy as of the first quarter of 2011. The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been. As discussed in previous ARRA reports, measuring the impact of policy on growth and employment is inherently difficult because no one can observe directly what would have occurred without the policy. But multiple methodologies and multiple sources point to similar estimates of ARRA’s impact on the economy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf
Why'd you leave that out, James? Why didn't you go to the primary source? Hmmmm?
Roorke 1 year, 10 months ago
So much of the stimulus was used to keep some jobs going, when the stimulus funds ran out so did the saved jobs. All the taxpayers present and future for several generations will have to re-pay that money back, money that is lost forever with no known results. Shows that redistribution of wealth does not and will never work.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Compared to what would have happened without the stimulus, yes.
I merely posted the link to the Weekly Standard
Without clicking through to the actual report itself and seeing what the report really concluded. Weak.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
I already answered this question. Read the post you're replying to.
Fact is, the report that the Weekly Standard article cites as evidence of a failed stimulus actually concludes it has a positive effect in the economy. Therefore, yes. For the second time, yes. A success. Do I need to repeat it again?
I've answered your question twice, now answer mine: why'd you leave that part out? I suspect it's because, like most right wingers, you blather a lot about how everyone else needs to "get the facts" while blithely ignoring the actual ones.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Having answered your question twice, I decline to answer it a third time. Having determined that you failed to actually read the report to see if it upholds your contention of failure, but rather that you merely parroted the Weekly Standard blog's cherry-picked and distorted interpretation of said report, I decline to take you seriously on this issue, any more than you'd take me seriously if I'd claimed something was a success because a blog post on DailyKos claimed it was.
If anyone's still reading this, which is by no means a sure thing: any time James (or, apparently, The Weekly Standard) links to something and claims it proves a point, follow the link and read it carefully. It almost never does.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
I merely posted the link to The Weekly Standard, and the article speaks for itself.
what The Weekly Standard claims is a failure, [is] irrelevant.
Heh.
If it's irrelevant, then why'd you rely on their interpretation instead of reading the report itself? If you did read it (which I doubt), why didn't you tell the readers about its final conclusion?
And I note that you now say I answered your question...so why do you keep asking it?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
I'd already posted the link, James. And your failure to answer MY questions, after you concede I answered yours, is duly noted.
Bottom line: both the Council of Economic Advisers' report and the earlier CBO report I posted earlier (which James probably also didn't read, since Bill Kristol hasn't yet told him what to think about it) conclude that the stimulus program helped the economy. Anyone like James who tries to obfuscate that point by cherry-picking one negative statistic is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
Yea, Diane, we get it. It's all Obama's fault. Things were just perfect until he stole the election from the more qualified candidates. PS: "wha happened"...is this how far the right wingnut cutbacks are going? Eliminating wasteful letters?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
How about a list of his accomplishments?
Here ya go:
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=15
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
http://obamaachievements.org/list
Now, since we know that mauiman suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome and cannot under any circumstances give the President of the United States any credit whatsoever for anything, it only remains to be seen how he'll try to weasel past this. Will he ignore any of the points on the lists and just claim the sites pointed to are "liberal"? Will he move the goalposts? Will he claim none of those achievements matter because they're things he doesn't agree with? Will he once again make veiled references to the the "demographics that put [Obama] in office"?
Which of the BSWATS will he use? http://jdrhoades.blogspot.com/2010/12/bswats.html
honesty2 1 year, 10 months ago
Just curious...how many of these accomplishments fall under Obamacare?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Why don't you read them and count for yourself?
honesty2 1 year, 10 months ago
It's Independence Day- why so snarky? Shouldn't you be celebrating? Hate to break it to you dr, but these accomplishments in no way make up for his increasing failures nor his "arrogance of power." So glad you agree though that he has overstepped re: WPR. Are you also not concerned that he is overreaching in other areas as well?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
James, the person who won't read is as bad off as the person who can't.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
With the soaring price of milk, food, clothing, gas, and electric bills,cutting back on letters, is all I have left. The wallet is empty. Diane
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Has someone told you you have to pay for letters? Wow, you're more gullible than I thought. And that's saying something.
honesty2 1 year, 10 months ago
Wow. You really are testy today. Maybe the letter bank is low due to verbosity in other posts.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
It's a joke, Dusty. Happy 4th. Got to get to the parad and recruit some GOP hopefuls. Diane
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
I see she cut back on the "e" in parade.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
Life is Good...Our personal little spell checker....Mike
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
Ah, Big Mike to the rescue.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
Unfortunately with our immigration policy, these piles of dung can be born in the US and be a US Citizen
Actually, that's not "immigration policy," that's the 14th Amendment. You know, the Constitution?
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
Well here is someone with solutions to problems. First, he calls people "piles of dung", then "Bubbas and Juniors". Next, he would love for all of us to "just get along". Calling people names should help that cause. Next, he is ready to start killing anyone who does not agree with his thought process. And then he tops it all off with by invoking gods blessing on his tirade of hate. I would say this guy is someone who really hates what the United States of America is. Perhaps he should be the one to "get the H$%L out".
moonchild7 1 year, 10 months ago
Why are there STILL over 52,000 UNITED STATES Service man and women in GERMANY?
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
And because if they were in the U.S. they would be unemployed. Better to keep them in Germany drinking beer.
moonchild7 1 year, 10 months ago
Of course I meant to say men and not man but I just came back from the mountains of NC where my son and I were "entertaining" his friends from NYC and I was tired. Anyway, there's no reason for us to have any bases in Germany anymore. There is more reason for us to maintain a base in Afghanistan than in Europe. Our military/defense departments need TOTAL re-evaluation from top to bottom and I do hope when President Obama is re-elected that he will make that a FIRST priority. Oh, by the way, the NYer's we entertained first here then in the mountains were very impressed and came away with positive opinions of our state. They had very negative idea's of how "life" was here in the SOUTH but went back home actually rather sad to have to leave. Having farm fresh fruits and veggies, NC BBQ, conversing with "the locals", and that all-important trip to Walmart(twice)was only a small part of their experiences but they went back wanting more.
Courseaire 1 year, 10 months ago
Glad you're back to give us the liberal skinny on things. We've missed you this last week. Guess you had no WIFI or electicity backwoods to keep up with things in the Sandhills. Hope you said a big hello to Jed & all his kin.