Spring has many connotations to it. Spring for students means a break from school, fun, and parties. For most adults, spring means time for cleaning, purging, and organizing.
In Afghanistan, spring means a new offensive of planned attacks and attempting to bring destruction on its enemy. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said they had been planning these attacks for months and called the most recent attack a "success".
Nearly everyone echoes the absolute truth that there is "no longterm military solution," and sources about that preach the need for a "comprehensive approach", including economic development, education, and good government. One needn't look very hard to get an overwhelming amount of information concerning the intricacies of Pashtun tribal structures.
How do you fight anyone who calls an 18 hour long assault a 'success'? Or should you? What is the end game in Afghanistan. Better yet, who should decide what that looks like?
Americans are rejoicing at the troop withdrawal scheduled in 2014 (myself included). I have brothers-in-arms coming home. What they do after a tour in the sandbox is a topic for another post. My question is, what are they leaving behind?
The 'deciders' up to this point have been an odd mix of military and elected officials - AMERICAN elected officials mind you. Perhaps we can use a similar move from another theatre, put our own elected officials over the country, and then have them decide – but it amounts to the same thing doesn’t it?
What happens if there is a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ in Afghanistan? Who will it benefit? Certainly not the people, and certainly not the orphaned children who have known nothing else but fighting and violence.
There is continued hemming and hawing about the 2014 deadline. There are cries for 'more' - more guns, more money, more time. But that is from our side. I have yet to find a source that have Afghanistan asking for 'more'. Indeed, most cry out, "Enough! Enough fighting! Enough violence and bloodshed!" But can we just walk away from it and risk 'dishonoring' the fight? Can we risk what will be left when we do?
To throw in a quote which I feel has bearing in the argument, Ronald Reagan asserted in 1980 that Vietnam was lost not because of flaws in mission or strategy, but because politicians allegedly forced soldiers to fight "a war our government (was) afraid to let them win."
Our brilliant founding fathers deliberately gave Congress (elected officials) authority to decide and fund war – not the military. By separating political from military power and giving elected representatives the final say, it constructs a fair democracy that prevents military dictators that arise when no such separation exists.
And now one casts a sad and quizzical eye at Afghanistan. Is there really for anything else? What will spring 2015 look like?
http://www.filmannex.com/webtv/rjamestaylor
