There has been a lot of talk in Washington about a policy of "phased withdrawal" to extricate American forces from Iraq. The idea, as I understand it, is to hand increasing responsibility for security over to the Iraqi government while withdrawing American troops in phases. That idea upsets the "stay the course" brigade in the White House and it does have its shortcomings - in Iraq.
Phased withdrawal might not be workable for Iraq but why don't we try it in Afghanistan? My thinking is based on the "you break it, you own it" theory. NATO forces are over there battling an almost impossible situation that has to be blamed, in large part, on the Bush administration's deliberate choice to neglect the Afghan war so it could conquer Iraq. There have been very real consequences to that decision which begs the question of why NATO troops should bear the brunt of it?
NATO went in to Afghanistan to free up American forces for their Iraq adventure. Fair enough. That doesn't mean that America shouldn't be expected to get out of Iraq and come back to Afghanistan to again take over its very own Global War Without End on Terror.
It was American intervention that toppled the Taliban. It was America that placed Hamid Karzai in charge of the place. It was America that had the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the run in the mountains of Tora Bora and it was America that botched the whole thing up by not finishing the job in order to go after Saddam Hussein. It is America that should take responsibility for cleaning up its own mess in Afghanistan. That's mess is neither NATO's doing nor should it be the alliance's burden.
There are any number of places where NATO's forces could be put to much better use to alleviate suffering and end oppression, places like Darfur. We could actually be saving lives and rescuing innocents - even if they are black and have no oil. What will be the price of staying in Afghanistan? Stuck in that quagmire, what unfortunates will have to pay that price?
My God, has it really come to this? Is this what it means to be warriors in George Bush's delusional adventures?
No, it's time to tell George we have better things to do and we're getting out. He made the mess, let him clean it up. Give him a timetable of phased withdrawal and let him take responsibility for his actions.
1 comment:
Darfur is not a closed question because of Sudan's rejection of foreign intervention. At the end of August the Security Council passed resolution 1706 authorizing the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers and there is a growing demand for action under the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.
Post a Comment