The Afghanistan Dilemma
I write this before Obama announces his revised Afghanistan policy. Like many other major problems facing our country right now, this one is complex and fraught with risks every which way. I supported Obama because he seemed the only political leader with any prayer in Hell of achieving results on the myriad of problems facing the entire planet. I think he has the intelligence, the disposition, the personality, and the experience needed to get others to face reality and bite the bullets necessary to avoid disaster on many fronts. Having said this, another part of me feels things may well be past the ability of anyone to avoid several impending disasters. Whatever follows here is based on far less information than available to Obama. In some sense democracy is failing because the issues are so complex these days that most voters haven't a clue about solutions. Politics and special interests drive everything. The recent health reform activities reflect just how irrational things are. Here is a complex issue with a zillion nuances and yet who is for or against any package is divided exclusively between parties. In other words, every vote is based on the political perceptions that will result from your vote---and little to do with health care reform.
At any rate, given my understanding of the situation in Afghanistan I am opposed to sending American troops to fight any battles against terrorism--- which is not equally supported by other major powers. The war in Afghanistan is about fighting terrorism. Clearly logic dictates that in the absence of terrorism who would really care who controls Afghanistan? No one.
But now the whole issue gets really dicey. Every terrorist in Afghanistan could be driven from the country and terrorism would proceed unabated. Terrorists don't need to meet in buildings or control any country to be effective. With the internet, cell phones and a host of other communication devices, any group can stay in contact with others just about any place in the world. Does it really make any difference whether any terrorist group operates out of Afghanistan or Somalia or Sudan or downtown Detroit? Terrorists don't need uniformed soldiers, expensive modern weapons like 'smart bombs' to be effective. Blow up most any building, kill a lot of people in the process, and you will have terrorized those who live in that country.
The point is that we can win the War in Afghanistan and such an effect on terrorism will be minimal and temporary. Americans tend to think of terrorism in terms of Al Quaida (sp). Al Quaida started out as a group opposed to American military bases in Saudi Arabia. Chased out of Arabia they migrated to Sudan and then to Afghanistan and now I guess Pakistan. The methods Al Quaida uses have simply been adapted by all angry dissident groups across the globe. So if the Sunni blow up Shiites we tend to call them Al Quaida. Most of these active terrorist cells across the globe probably have little or no contact with Bin Laden. He may be respected by them as the Father of Terrorism, but each terrorist cell pretty much runs their own show. They have to since too much communication with known terrorist leaders can get them arrested.
Here is a simple reality: Whoever fights the terrorists across the globe becomes the target of the terrorists. If we get suckered into fighting a hugely expensive war against terrorism on our own while others spend their money on domestic needs, we fail to meet our own domestic financial needs and we allow ourselves to be the target of terrorists across the globe. Other countries are perfectly willing to let us fight terrorism on our own because it saves them from being a major target. Since terrorism is a major threat to civilized governance, my position is that all governments fight it together or we should decline to play the role of fool. The U.S. better start rethinking this idea of maintaining military bases all over the globe. For many reasons, but mainly with the increasing disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, terrorist groups are going to grow as this disparity continues to increase. Terrorism fits those with nothing left to lose like a glove. The advantages of having military bases abroad now are outweighed by not having them there to irritate opponents of that nation's current government.
In addition to all of the above, what is the point of driving out terrorists from controlling a area inside a country when they will return as soon as your forces leave? Who can afford the manpower and cost of maintaining troops on every street so the terrorists can't return? When we talk about winning the hearts of the people the term hardly applies in places like Afghanistan. The reality for the people of Afghanistan is that they better cooperate with whatever group is in control of their community at any given time. At this point in time they have no luxury of choosing which group controls them, or whether they end up being tortured or killed by Bin Laden supporters, Dick Cheney supporters, War Lord supporters, or centrol government forces.
Perhaps this sounds absurd, but terrorism might well be Mother Nature's way of reducing human population on our planet. Mother Nature always bats last. The laws which drive God's created evolutionary process will prevent humans from destroying the planet or all life on it. If humans have not evolved enough mentally to control our own population growth, then survival of the fittest will do the weaning out. Terrorism, and the response to terrorism is already wiping out millions of humans every year. Terrorism may well continue to grow until once again there is enough land, water, and clean air to support the remaining life on the planet. There is no American destiny, no God favored tribe, no God needing our worship to have His will be done, and it is up to humans to use our mental energies to control our own population in a civilized just way OR this terroristic battle between the Have-Nots and the Haves will bring global chaos and the subsequent mass slaughter of human, plant, and animal life.
