Friday, January 27, 2012
Afghanistan makes agreement with France while still arguing with US
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that he does not want to make such an agreement with the US unless "NATO-led night raids" are stopped. He holds the US responsible for the civilian casualties such operations cause, despite being NATO-led. Karzai also wants a handover of US detention facilities.
"The U.S. is our largest and most important ally. What’s important for Afghanistan is the quality of the document, not how fast we can rush the signature," said Janan Musazai, a spokesman for the Afghan Foreign Ministry.
Blaming the US for civilian casualties of NATO operations seems like an attempt to appear strong and sovereign on Karzai's part while still leaving other means of support open. Kabul needs foreign aid to be able keep its influence in the country.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
References to Biblical Passages on US Guns in Iraq and Afghanistan
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Taliban Leader says U.S. is in Defeat
In March, the president ordered more than 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. This really scares me. Are we just fighting a losing battle? Do you think sending more troops to will help? Or was this message just sent to manipulate and scare the American people? How seriously do you think the government will or should react to this message? It's pretty frightening.
Friday, November 20, 2009
After Fort Hood, Soldiers Still Willing to Deploy
I applaud this kind of resilience from these soldiers. It truly shows how dedicated some of the troops are to our country. These are the actions that make me grateful for the soldiers fighting for us. Hopefully, shootings like the one at Fort Hood never happen again as these soldiers are the last people to deserve that sort of hostility.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-19-replacements-fort-hood_N.htm
Monday, November 16, 2009
Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for her son
This is quite a dilemma for Hutchinson, torn between her family and her job. What do you think is more important in this situation, serving one's country? or caring for one's family? Should charges be filed? Is it justifiable? I feel like family is more important because her child is an infant, and I believe that as a mother, she must do her best to make sure her son is taken care of, regardless of the consequences. However, we must remember that she still has a duty as a soldier to follow orders and protect the country.
(link to the story embedded in the title)
Monday, October 12, 2009
Enough is enough
"If the president should listen to McChrystal and adopt a troop "surge," the question remains: How many is enough?"
Currently the United States has around 48,000 troops in Afghanistan not including Iraq. General Stanley McChrystal plans to put 40000 more troops into the area to help keep things "under control."
But is there a point to all the troops going into Afghanistan? Will the 40,000 US troops make a difference in subduing the insurgencies going on?
The current state in Afghanistan has gotten to point where it is nearly a civil war. Although Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War claims that the extra 40,000 troops may reduce the amount of violence in the country, I feel that adding the 40,000 may not help the overall of the war. Sooner or later, the US will have to pull out because our economy won't be able to support our troops there and the insurgents aren't just going to fall back and retreat just because we added in a more troops.
Just last week, eight more US soldiers were killed fighting hundreds of insurgents in the lower areas of the Nuristan province. If we add 40,000 more troops, what's stopping the insurgents from rallying up even more people to help "fight the US" off?
As Rep. Jim McGovern says, " We need to come up with a strategy that includes an exit strategy, because it'll also put pressure on the government of Afghanistan to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Palin in Foreign Policy
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Palin_presses_White_House_on_Afghanistan.html
Sarah Palin. Most likely the first thoughts about her would be her inept stupidity. Notably, how she thought that Afghanistan was a neighboring country. Amazingly Palin is able to string together something competent about foreign policy in Afghanistan in a speech yesterday. Imagine that! Surprisingly, she actually makes some decent points about how we should go into Afghanistan rather than stay in Iraq. "Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. ".... But when did she learn foreign policy? She can hardly manage a state. And where was this speech when Bush was in office. Looks like another case of band-wagoning when things look good. I'm pretty sure everyone thinks that we 'ought to get out of Iraq, not much to restate the obvious Palin.
-Weilu Jia
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Night of the Living Taliban
With the assurance that all combat operations will end in Iraq by late 2010, and that our troops will be evacuated by 2011, President Obama now refocuses American foreign policy and troops on fighting the problems in Afghanistan. However, the situation in Afghanistan is much like having a house whose occupants you evicted, you left for a while to deal with other houses and now those original occupants are back and bugging the current owners. Apparently, the Taliban are back and causing enormous problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But first, a little history of the Taliban (because I think it's important for later on):
The Taliban (which sort of means "religious students") started as a mujahideen ("holy warriors") group back when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. When the Soviets retreated, the Soviet-backed government had hard times trying to control the conflicting mujahideen and ultimately failed into obscurity around the early 90s, letting Afghanistan fall into the hands of corrupt warlords holding sway over their local territories. The Taliban up to this point, had been composed of various factions of religious students who had fought the Soviet occupation but were still unorganized and unpowerful when they were separated. However, in 1994, the Taliban united under the local faction of religious students in the city of Kandahar, taking that city, then began a push that eventually ended up with the now united Taliban capturing the capital city of Kabul and thus taking control of Afghanistan in 1996. At the head of the Taliban was a fierce cyclops of a man, Muhammed Omar, a one-eyed cleric who believed devoutly in the practices of Islam. He imposed Sharia, or Muslim law, over Afghanistan, banning education or other rights for women and supporting terrorists in the country. But yet, most citizens were relieved to see him come because he took power from the corrupt warlords and restored a sense of peace and trade to the region that it badly needed. Situations in the country deteriorated under the Taliban's rule, but Afghanistan WAS united (for the most part) rather than involved in an all out civil war. The Taliban continued in their oppressive peace from 1996 until 2001, when the United States invaded and took them out for harboring Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda ("the base" for those who don't know) in their country. The United States forced the Taliban out of power by aiding the opposing northern alliance of Afghan tribes and by bombing key Taliban military installations. The Taliban fell out of power and the new government, led by a funny-hat wearing man by the name of Karzai, seemed fit to rule instead. We thought that the Taliban was dead. Most of their leaders had been killed or had fled, and the Taliban as a whole seemed to have lost all power. We thought wrong. While the United States was fighting for six years in Iraq, the Taliban had come back from the dead, like very determined zombies. Violence and attacks by the Taliban have been increasing annually, with two NATO troops being killed just today in a car bombing. Their ties to Al-Qaeda have only strengthened and they are making a comeback. Yet, now that the Iraq War is (hopefully) winding to a close with the agreements that we will have our troops out within a year or two, the United States is ready to come back into Afghanistan and kick some ass! But it's not as simple as we found it. We can't just focus on Afghanistan if the Obama Administration is serious about taking down Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who support them. There's a problem, though, in that the Taliban and the majority of their ethnic make-up, the Pashtuns, have very strong ties to not only Afghanistan, but Pakistan. We didn't eradicate the Taliban, we just let them slip through our fingers into Pakistan where they've been gaining strength and occasionally mounting attacks into Afghanistan. Muhammed Omar, the cyclops leader of the Taliban, still eludes capture and the Taliban themselves guarunteed a safe haven for themselves while we were busy dealing with the climax of violence in Iraq, around late 2006 to early 2007. In those years, ex-president of Pakistan Musharref ("friend" of the United States) signed a deal saying the Taliban could hold sovereignty and rule over the area they had been basing in, including the Pakistani city of Quetta, which seems to be the stronghold of the group. Fans of the agreement argue that it contains the Taliban and helps prevent more factions from springing up elsewhere. Critics say it gives the Taliban and thus, also Al-Qaeda, a base of operations. However, this region and the city of Quetta are where "Cyclops" Omar and the rest of the Taliban have been planning against the new Afghan government and the resurging United States' plans of operation. The Pakistani government (without Musharref now) have seemed ambivalent towards the Taliban living within their borders. The Taliban have fought against the established government and caused trouble for the current leaders. And thus, according the the BBC, "Mr Obama has pledged substantial economic assistance for Pakistan - more than $1bn (£684m) annually over the next five years - but the money will depend on the army's performance against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. " While Obama was at the G20 conference and touring Europe, he sent special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to the capitals of the those respective countries to "clarify Washington's thinking" and guaruntee the funding to the Pakistani Government. However, at the same time, according to the New York Times, "American officials say that Pakistan's military intelligence agency has continued to offer money, supplies and guidance to the Taliban forces in Afghanistan as a proxy to help shape a friendly government there once American forces leave." Pakistan's government refuses to be resolute on where it stands and could become a threat to the United States when we start to focus our efforts on destroying Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Afghan War might just expand to be the Afghan-Pakistani War and destroying the terrorist organization and capturing Osama Bin Laden could become bigger than just "refocusing our troops in Afghanistan."
Obama "unveiled a new strategy which suggested both Afghanistan and Pakistan needed to be fully engaged in the confrontation if the militants were to be defeated." (BBC) The presence of the Taliban in Pakistan is a big threat to the United States for two reasons: one) The Taliban have been closely interconnected with Al-Qaeda for decades, and their presence in Pakistan means there is an Al-Qaeda threat in Pakistan. and two) their presence in Pakistan gives a major base of operations to oppose any economic prosperity and peace United States' troops could fight for in Afghanistan.
I wanted to make sure people understood the background if this war gets bigger. Couple of questions though: Should we continue to fund Pakistan when we know there performance against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been shaky in the past? Would it be reasonable for the United States to expand it's war against terror into Pakistan, or would we be disrespecting the rules of internation law and sovereignty by exercising our own views and wills on a certain group? What should we do and how much power do we have to eliminate threats like terror in other people's countries? and to that same effect, what right do we have to carry on with drone attacks in Pakistan, and what does that show if our attacks are inhuman?
My information on the Taliban came from my own memory and summaries from the New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/) and infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html). The future plans of the Obama administration came from the article from the BBC and from the administration's website (whitehouse.gov).