Painful Dilemma: Why US Hawks Unwilling to Leave Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by Neo, Sep 2, 2015.

  1. Neo

    Neo Senior Member Senior Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Painful Dilemma: Why US Hawks Unwilling to Leave Afghanistan

    19:55 01.09.2015


    The "untimely" withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan may deal a heavy blow to Washington's image, undermining its global dominance, the University of Oxford alumna Muska Dastageer notes.

    The US leadership is making a grave mistake while considering withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan amid the remobilization of the Taliban, Muska Dastageer, an alumna of the universities of Oxford and Copenhagen, believes.

    "For the civilian leadership of the United States, the untimely drawdown of the combat mission in Afghanistan, denounced by its own generals in the Pentagon, may cost it much more than it gambled for," Dastageer warns in her article for the Diplomat.

    "For a campaign that cost the US $685.6 billion and 2,259 casualties, the current state of affairs in the country should give observers of the long war in Afghanistan cause for reflection. The combat mission has ended at a time when the Taliban and its affiliated factions — Hezb-e-Islami and the Haqqani Network — still remain deeply entrenched in the country, and genuine rapprochement with Pakistan is yet to be seen," the analyst stressed.

    Dastageer underscored that the situation is deteriorating rapidly: the Taliban movement is re-emerging and there are also clear signs that Islamic State is ready to step in.

    "We risk yet another Iraq, crippled by a premature withdrawal, rendering the vast expenditure in lives and treasure wasted," the analyst emphasized, adding that the ability of Washington to project itself as a "normative influencer," a "first among equal," is under "dire threat."

    Curiously enough, it is not the first time the alarmist stance regarding the US' long-anticipated withdrawal from Afghanistan has emerged in the media.

    In early July, US Senator John McCain slammed Obama's "untimely" decision to bring America's longest military campaign to an end.

    "A calendar-based withdrawal — that would be a tragedy, and in my view, an opening for the Taliban to gain and create success here in Afghanistan," McCain said in an official statement in Kabul.

    "The Taliban still has significant capabilities, and those capabilities can best be countered by continued US military support and without that the place is at risk," the Senator insisted.

    Indeed, Washington has faced a painful dilemma. To complicate matters further, China's political and economic influence in Central Asia is growing rapidly.

    According to Andrew Small, a transatlantic fellow with the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Beijing is trying hard to settle down the ongoing strife in Central Asia, negotiating with Afghanistan, Pakistan and their neighbors.

    "Beijing's longstanding concern that Afghanistan might become a safe haven for 'East Turkestan terrorists' is now coupled with worries about the dangers that instability there could pose to Beijing's various Silk Road economic schemes, particularly in Central Asia and Pakistan," Small noted.

    The Chinese government has kicked off a genuine diplomatic charm offensive, expanding its economic and political ties in Eurasia. And, predictably, it prompts concerns among American geo-strategists.

    However, the question remains open, is it worth it to prolong America's exhausting campaign in Afghanistan in order to maintain control over Central Asia and prevent China from gaining ground in the region?

    "After 13 years of war in Afghanistan — the longest in US history — the US government has achieved no victory. Afghanistan is in chaos and would collapse completely without regular infusions of US money. The war has been a failure, but Washington will not admit it," former American congressman Dr. Ron Paul noted in October 2014.

    Furthermore, in his recent book "Swords into Plowshares: A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity" Dr. Paul stressed:

    "The hypocrisy of the instigators of wars should be enough to awaken the people to reject the war profiteers. The true warmongers rarely die in war, nor even serve in the military. But, they reap the material benefits of the wars they provoke and promote. The chicken hawks of today should be held in contempt. Those who promote war, but never participate in war, should be seen for what they are — hypocrites of the worst kind."
  3. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Nov 24, 2014
    Likes Received:
    This article is more propaganda than based on any facts , It says US is leaving Afghanistan which is wrong , US is planning to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2024 . Yes they are reducing troops but have increased there private military contractors who are not counted as troops .
    Military contractors are best known for wet work and they are not answerable to the American people.
  4. DingDong

    DingDong Senior Member Senior Member

    Oct 24, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Those who claim that the US lost it's war in Afghanistan are living in fool's paradise. A War is waged to achieve certain objectives, may I ask which objective did US not manage to achieve?

    The US managed to overthrow Taliban, hunted down Bin Laden, and has established a military base in Central Asia.
    Sylex21 likes this.
  5. Sylex21

    Sylex21 Regular Member

    Sep 6, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Honestly the war in Afghanistan ended when the Americans came in and almost instantly broke apart the Taliban and sent them fleeing. The next phase of providing stability and reconstruction, is the one that has been less than successful and is more of a police/paramilitary issue than a military one.

    Honestly I think the USA finds itself stuck between the use of military force and a modern world that cries out at any civilian killings. When you have cancer, you kill more healthy cells than cancerous ones, but it has to be done or the whole body will eventually succumb to the cancer.

    The USA should have gone in, killed the crap out of everyone. Told Pakistan that it would have blown it to bits, if it dared to aid even a single Taliban member and then actually followed through on the threat. The USA just prolongs wars, by trying to be all politically correct and responsible. Nation building is also not America's responsibility. If the nation we bombed reelects another problem maker, it would cost a tiny fraction to wipe them out again, rather than spending Trillions to try and help a nation.

    Ultimately there is a reason that ISIS controls SUNI lands and not SHIA ones or that terrorists can run around Pakistan so much more freely than in India. The people have to lend some support, have some sympathy or at least tolerate terrorists, for them to thrive. So the civilians as a whole, aren't so innocent after all.

    If the consequence was the USA coming in and killing everyone even remotely suspected of being an enemy, the civilians themselves would have raised up and overthrown ISIS long ago.
  6. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Aug 12, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Just compare the situation of US in Iraq.

    US has left but now Iraq is in pieces.

    US wanted to invade Syria but Russia denied it, so the destruction/invasion was outsourced to ISIS.

    Now US would not leave AFG fully, rather it would let the region engulfed in strife/civil war forever.

Share This Page