| Well with Afghanistan, you guys had some sort of justification to go there (Not including the Pipeline theory) while Iraq shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Afghanistan does pose a chance of success for one main reason that seperates it from past conflicts in Afghanistan:
If you have the people of Afghanistan against you, then you will never win.... much like the insurgency in Iraq. But it's the Taliban that are being fought..... whom seem to be hiding in Pakistan and crossing the borders to attack.
The people of Afghanistan see the changes in their lives and see small improvements, but in order to win the war, you need to win over the people, and I will single out the US in Afghanistan for being the worst offender of trying to win them over.
With numerous air strikes and rampant shooting sprees reported which have killed more civilians then Taliban, it's not only making the US's battles harder in Afghanistan, but every other Allied Nation's role more difficult in Afghanistan, because they see us all as the same. When we're just as careless for civilian life as the Taliban, then we're no better then the Taliban, and when that happens, the people not only won't know which side is the good side, but they'll usually stick to what they're used to..... The Taliban.
One has to tell and show the Afghans that we're there to at least try and improve their lives and give them control over their own country for once. When it seems like all that's happening is that NATO forces are fighting the Taliban and they're just stuck in the middle of it all, not actually helping the people moreso, then the support will be frail.
But in order to help the people more, rather then continual warfare, more troops are needed.... Canada has been saying this for a long time.... not directly to the US, but other allied nations who haven't really done much to contribute in comparison. And if there isn't enough troops on the ground, then we can not patrol and cover all the areas we win.... we get spread out too thing, and then the security goes to crap and we're back to square one, just like what has been happening each year now.
Obama has the right approach. It may sound stupid, but he's only trying to correct existing mistakes made by a previous president. Removal of a good chunk of US troops within Iraq would at least reduce the tensions between the waring factions within Iraq where most of their reasons of fighting are simply due to having forign troops/Non-Believers in their Holy Land and fell the other side is prolonging your pressence in Iraq..... sounds simple, but that's one of the main reasons why it's taking so long.
On top of the many situations in Iraq of some US soldiers and Mercs planting weapons and tools on civilians that were shot and labeling the innocent as terrorists, rapes, torture, etc..... there's a lot of bad blood there that's not going to go away anytime soon. The best option is to let the Iraqi's handle their country in their own way. Saddam was removed, no WOMD were found, case closed, move on. If they don't want a democratic government, then that's their democratic right to decide.
Sure the US might lose out on a crap load of investments in Iraq in the long run, but the US shouldn't have been there in the first place...... hell, none of us should be in Afghanistan for that matter.... but unfortunatly we are.
But at least Obama is giving the public some actual plans and goals.... what has Bush done?
"Stay the Course"
Sure ok buddy..... what's the course again? |