Obama’s Dilemma on Troop Surge in Afghanistan Now Vexes Trump

    • WASHINGTON — A new president confronts an old war, one that bedeviled his predecessor. He is caught between seasoned military commanders, who tell him that the road to victory is to pour in more American troops, and skeptical political advisers, who argue that a major deployment is a futile exercise that will leave him politically vulnerable.
    • “They are going to be faced with the same questions we were,” said David Axelrod, a former senior Obama adviser, who worried, during the 2009 debate, that the generals were boxing his boss in. “How and when does this end? Or is it an open-ended commitment of American lives and resources? What will the investment produce in the long run?”
    • Historically, the United States has supplied about two-thirds of the soldiers in Afghanistan.
    • But Mr. Trump is discovering, as Mr. Obama did, that extricating the United States is harder than it appears. General McMaster and other advisers warn that without reinforcements for the Afghan Army, the security situation in Afghanistan will get even more precarious than it is now, potentially creating more sanctuaries for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
    • Currently, the international security force assisting the Afghan Army has about 13,000 troops, of which about 8,400 are American soldiers. Under an initial plan, which General Nicholson recommended to Congress in February, the United States would send 3,000 to 5,000 additional troops, including hundreds of Special Operations forces.
    • Such a deployment would allow American advisers to train and assist a more Afghan forces, and it would place American troops closer to the front lines at lower levels in the chain of command.
    • General McMaster headed an anticorruption task force that worked mostly out of the capital, Kabul, after Mr. Obama’s troop surge. He quarreled with Afghan officials and warlords in an often-futile effort to make sure billions of dollars in American aid went to the right places.
    • General McMaster’s exposure to rampant corruption would rob him of any illusions that a few thousand new troops could turn around Afghanistan.
    • Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, remains a crucial voice, despite his troubles over reported links to Russia. Though he has not taken a position on troops, his aides say he views his role as making sure the president gets genuine options.
    • Still, Mr. Trump’s heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics viewed as a weakness of the Obama administration’s troop debate, even with Mrs. Clinton’s participation: its overemphasis on a military solution.
    • “This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism,” said Daniel F. Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. “It has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component.”

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

What I think…

  1. How has our involvement helped?
  2. How can it be worse if we were not involved?
  3. Is it American policy to be the police of the world?
  4. What government has ever come close to being able to police the world?
  5. Is it the will of the people in America?

I am reminded of some words of Jesus and a principle that can be derived from it.

Mark 14:7 “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

That is, in the midst of trouble in the world you still have to set priorities.

If God designed governments to bring peace and stability to civilization and if God set the boundaries of these governments, what good is it for one nation to overstretch itself to its own demise?  I mean if a free nation helps a less free nation but collapses in the process where neither nation is now free, what good is that?

I believe it is very important for Americans to understand why there is such a push and presence in the middle east.  I am not convinced it has anything to do with freeing people or protecting them.  Instead, I believe it has to do with using people and exploiting them to the benefit of a military industrial financial complex.  The Deep State is using America to further its wellbeing.  This reminds me of another saying of Jesus.

Matt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

And one further point I would like to add.  If my neighbor is having a domestic dispute to the degree I can hear them yelling at one another, to what extent is that my problem to resolve?  Am I responsible to police my entire block or city or state or nation or world?  Inconceivable!  I would create a domestic dispute in my own home if I did!  Isn’t it much better if I see that no dispute erupts in my own home and simply encourage others to do the same by way of word and example?

Be Sociable, Share!

About Robert Coss

I was made in America by God. I hope you will see the quality of that workmanship.
This entry was posted in My Church, My Government and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Protected with IP Blacklist CloudIP Blacklist Cloud