One of President Barack Obama's main "talking points" throughout his campaign was in regards to reducing the number of American troops in Iraq, and eventually, pulling out of Iraq altogether. This point, as well as his overall stance on the United States' military and troops abroad allowed Obama to gain a strong hold over the American population in terms of votes and popularity. However, now, about one month after President Obama took office, he has decided to send about 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan throughout the spring and summer. After addressing requests from commanders, requesting reinforcements to Afghanistan, Obama has decided that the "deteriorating security in Afghanistan demands urgent attention and swift action to address a problem that has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," and the way to combat this problem is by sending more troops to Afghanistan. While Obama may believe that sending more troops to Afghanistan will be most beneficial to the United States as a whole, the American public has to wonder why Obama would send more troops abroad before drawing troops out of Iraq.
The only plausible answer is in regards to time. President Obama must feel that he does not have enough time to reduce the number of troops in Iraq before he needs to send more troops to Afghanistan. However, this also brings up the issue of importance. Is it extremely important for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan immediately? If this was considered extremely important, wouldn't former President Bush significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan during his Presidency? Many Americans would think yes. While government officials say that these additional troops are needed in order "to help counter growing violence and chaos in the country, particularly in advance of the upcoming presidential elections, which are expected to take place in August," the American public needs to think about the big picture. If Obama can send more troops into Afghanistan almost immediately, doesn't he have the power to draw back the amount of troops in Iraq in a short amount of time too. Many would think the answer is yes. While it may be extremely important to send these troops into Afghanistan throughout the spring and summer, the American public should be able to see a timeline for when these troops, as well as those in Iraq will be able to return home. It is widely known that Barack Obama was elected President in order to bring change to the United States, especially in terms of the military abroad, and now that it seems Obama has become comfortable in Washington, the next step for Obama is to take action in terms of the troops in Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/02/obama_reportedl_3.html
6 comments:
The author’s point of why the president is sending more troops to Afghanistan before a withdrawal in Iraq is not as black and white as it seems. May 2010 was set by President Obama originally, which top military personnel have strongly recommended against. While it is easy to criticize the President for not setting a plan that will fulfill this, it is more commendable that he has not issued a swift declaration without consulting the military. It is safe to say that President Obama does not have all the answers, and the way that he has conducted his decision making process (on this issue) is true to his more important claim for bipartisan politics. Also, the answer to the author’s question is no: “If Obama can send more troops into Afghanistan almost immediately, doesn't he have the power to draw back the amount of troops in Iraq in a short amount of time too.” It would be much harder and foolish to just cut and run, which is why even President Obama’s plan has a 16 month timeframe. Deploying troops from US bases in non-war zones is not even close to comparable to removing large numbers of troops from a war zone filled with religious sects, fundamentalists, and little real stability.
The answer to another point, on whether or not it is important for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan immediately, is yes. It is important to realize that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not comparable. The former is considered by a majority to be a mistake, while the latter a necessary retaliation. When asked "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" 39% said worth it, while 61% said not worth it. Also, when asked the same question about Afghanistan, 55% said it was worth fighting, while 39% said not worth fighting. Also consider the success of the surge in Iraq, something worth repeating in a more important war to the public. In the end, the left wing experts had this to say: ''’We have no reason to believe that he is backing off of his pledge…’ said Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal group that opposed the war.”
Sources:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2DE1231F932A05752C0A96F9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/politics/18military.html?scp=1&sq=timetable+iraq&st=cse
Time may, like you said, be a plausible answer to Obama’s decision to send troops in to Afghanistan. American commanders in Afghanistan have been asking for an insurgence of troops into the country, as violence has grown out of control in the territory. However, an issue that has yet to be addressed is Obama’s intention for sending these troops. He is not acting in the best interest of the country if he is willing to send troops overseas without first announcing a plan of action. Committing troops to a war that has yet to be explained by the now President Barack Obama may need to be deemed as a foreshadowing of the years to come. The media should do its job to the people of the country and the men and women who have a difficult time ahead of them in war, to provide a full account of the new addition of troops in Afghanistan. Why, what, and how needs to be answered before the citizens of our country are placed in such an unstable and volatile region. What are we really doing there? Obama has very broadly explained that the troops are being sent over to Afghanistan because it is necessary to stabilize a “deteriorating situation.” In a written statement, and having not held a press conference about this issue, it is concerning to me that there is a lack of a strategy behind his action. Wasn’t transparency of the United States government a goal that Barack Obama personally viewed as necessary in the coming years of his presidency? Whether the reasoning behind the quietness is because there is no comprehensive strategy, or whether the reason is that the government is making the decision to withhold information from the people, neither is ideal. His written statement answers nothing in my eyes; the Afghan situation has not been fully explained to the American people, and we have been left in the dark, for the most part, as to future plans of action regarding this state of affairs.
Maybe President Obama has come to find out that it's not just as simple as "Okay we're getting out of Iraq now". When you have the general of the army (and im sure many other high military officials) advising the president that pulling out of Iraq could be a huge problem, you realize that maybe it isn't the smartest thing to do. If a president could prevent the loss of American lives, he would, even President Bush. I find it frustrating when people say how easy it is to just withdraw troops from Iraq. If it was that easy, it would be done. But the war in Iraq (as Jefferson said about slavery) it's like grabbing a wolf by the ears... you don't want to do it in the first place, but now that you have, you can't let go.
While reading the original article, I thought deploying troops to Afghanistan seemed like a quick decision, that might not have been fully thought out. I never meant to say that President should pull out of Iraq right away, I was just saying that before we send more troops to the Middle East, shouldn't the American people be told when soldiers are going to be coming home. I think American citizens deserve to know an approximate time when a sizable number of troops will be coming home.
In addition, I agree with Katie's argument that Obama should have a plan regarding the troops in Afghanistan. If he is going to deploy 17000 more troops to Afghanistan, the people of the United States should be told why they are being deployed, where they are actually going, how they are going to "help" the deteriorating situation, and when they will be coming home. To just send troops blindly to Afghanistan will not set well the American people and I, for one, believe that at the present time, there are many issues going on inside our country that should be considered before taking on issues abroad. I understand that it is important to help Afghanistan become a stable country, but is now really the best time for it. I can't personally say if the addition of troops is warranted or not, but I do believe that it is important for American citizens to know why these troops need to go abroad now, and why they were not deployed at an earlier time.
Overall, I fully understand that President Obama cannot just pull out of Iraq, but I think it is necessary for him to not only provide the American people with a strict time plan for pulling troops out of Iraq, as well as a plan for the troops being deployed to Afghanistan.
It is unnecessary for the government to be defending their every military move to the American people as to do so would severely impact how effective they are. The United States government works on a system of constitutional representation and it is the people who choose their representatives. This is in place so that decisions can be made without asking the permission of the American people. We have elected our government and if we are not willing to trust their decisions then they should be replaced. With the availability of information on the internet it is easy get involved with politics in America but this does not mean that our trust in our government should go away. There is a ration of about two to one of blogs that criticize political decisions to those that simply report upon them. Many would say that it is thinking like this that has made the war in Iraq seem like such a defeat but it is important to remember that despite the abundance of political criticism that is on the web the American government is in place to represent the interests of the American people.
I agree with Brett's thought that pulling out of Iraq is not as easy as people make it out to be. As idealistic as that may sound, it just isn't feasible right now. To pull out right now would be to implode the country -- they would fall apart in no time. The structure is not in place yet, and to take troops out of Iraq would, in my mind, put even more troops in there in the future. If Iraq falls apart, the past few years that we have been there will be waster, and the U.S. would have to put even more troops in Iraq to settle the catastrophe that would ensue. Obama may have talked about pulling troops from Iraq, but as Brett said, as Obama hears more and more from people who are certainly more qualified than he is in this area he is going to realize that his strategy is not the right one for this moment in time. Maybe what Obama should do is explain to the American people what is happening instead of leaving them in the dark when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Explain why troops must remain in Iraq and why that means new troops in Afghanistan, rather than letting the public think what they want to on the subject. Either way I feel like Obama is in a really tough situation that unfortunately he is stuck to clean up after Bush made a mess out of the Middle East.
Post a Comment