First, some Afghan surge strategy news. Lt. Gen. David Rodriquez, the day-to-day commander of US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan provided a first glimpse of the actual implementation of the new strategy involving the addition of 30,000 more troops. In regard to the deployment of the thousands of surge troops, Rodriquez stated; “It will happen between nine and 11 months by the time you get it all done.” This basically means it will likely not be until November 2010 until all of the 30,000 troops arrive. He went on to explain why it would take so long; “It depends on so many things. Security, logistics challenges and weather all have to line up perfectly.” Though the first brigade has already been deployed, this news runs counter to the rapid quick surge that the Obama administration was describing after the West Point policy roll out. President Obama stated in his 60 Minutes interview that we should see progress within a year from now and of course the soft drawdown deadline of July 2010 is still basically in place. Just by looking at the time crunch of these matters makes one wonder if this is too short a time frame.
Well, what signs of progress or the lack there of should we be looking for by December 2010 and beyond? Lt. Gen. Rodriquez asserts that a crucial sign would be the opening up of insurgent-infested roads between Afghanistan’s agricultural breadbasket in Helmand province and the Pakistan border. He states; “There are pockets of security—but they are not connected…Afghan people need, in addition to being secure, to be able to move to places that are important to them, such as to sell farm produce. We’ve got to be able to expand the secure areas for the people, and improve their freedom of movement.” We know that a central part of McChrystal’s strategy is to protect major city centers in Afghanistan’s southern and eastern provinces, but the paths in between are just as vital. So here is one concrete item to measure the success of the surge in the next 2 years; Can Afghans in the south safely use transportation routes?
Huffington’s Wrong Huff
Changing topics, I came across a disappointing news item earlier today involving Arianna Huffington and the morality of US presence in Afghanistan. Yeah, I said that right. Ms. Huffington on an ABC political roundtable discussion made this statement: “Afghanistan is the gold standard of a dumb war, immoral and unnecessary.”
Now, I am all in favor of criticism of the US policy of having thousands of our fellow citizens fighting in Afghanistan. This is a free country first off and secondly, there are many valid arguments in its favor (here’s one). Huffington herself even goes on later to offer worthy critiques of the Obama administration’s surge policy in the same roundtable. But in my opinion she is just wrong to call the war ‘immoral’. The United States was attacked by elements from Afghanistan that are still present along with their goals to cause us and others pain. The US and NATO are not in Afghanistan to cause harm, but to prevent it, and hopefully bring stability and progress to a region in desperate need of these. Now good intentions have paved many a disastrous road, but they are still good intentions. Burning a girl’s school to the ground is immoral.
