Remember, and listen carefully tonight, it’s what the hell we’re doing there in Afghanistan, i.e. the Mission, that’s what’s important, not necessarily whether we pull troops out or put more in.
For more in-depth perspective on Afghanistan, here’s a recent article, “Outside Thinking on the Inside of Afghanistan . . . What To Do?”, that tries to get to the nitty-gritty details of formulating a strategy that works.
I don’t like having troops there, either. I wish the Bush Administration had not dropped the ball by utterly ignoring its responsibilities in Afghanistan. But it’s the situation we find ourselves in, and we either have absolutely NO mission in Afghanistan (and / or the immediate region) . . . or we do. Forced to say one way or the other, I’d fall on the side that we DO have a mission there, no matter how confused, overdue, and largely ignored for years it may be.
But if that yet fails to convince, let’s look at it another way . . .
The reason more troops don’t seem to make sense — even to me — is because we don’t know what strategic objective we’ve been trying to accomplish for years. (Thank You, George Bush and Dick Cheney . . . You jerks.) Just like a fever is a symptom of something more serious, it’s the missing objective driving whether more or fewer troops make sense, not the level of troops in and of itself. Less (or no) troops make sense in the absence of any achievable mission. But more troops are absolutely worthwhile for an objective worth achieving.
If you’ve already made up your mind — even before hearing the President’s speech — then you’re not giving the matter the time and attention it deserves. I’m interested in listening to what President Obama has to say. What are you doing at 8PM?
