The president spoke to the U.S. military, U.S. citizens and the world last night about his plan for the armed conflict in Afghanistan. He has committed the U.S. to an additional 30,000 troops in the conflict and a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. As a justification for this strategy, he offered two rationales – ridding the region of Al-Qaeda, and stopping the spread of the Taliban to allow civil government to take hold in the country.

 

Respectfully I submit that neither of these strategies makes sense and the president is taking us down a path destined to end in a highly unsatisfactory outcome. 

 

In our efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda, we fumbled our initial opportunity under the Bush administration when we failed in our goal of capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him to trial. In part, that decision, made years ago, has left us where we are today. Nonetheless, we made measurable strides against Al-Qaeda in the ensuing years, shattering the pre-9/11 command structure and killing important Al-Qaeda leaders.   The Al-Qaeda terrorist network remains a threat, but it is fragmented and dispersed into other nations and continents. As such, it can hopefully be dealt with by our intelligence networks and the diligence of our Homeland Security personnel. Nonetheless, Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is now rather small and focusing our military resources on that region is not an efficient strategy.

 

With respect to the task of nation-building in Afghanistan, let me be clear. Afghanistan and its inhabitants present no real clear and present danger to the citizens of the U.S. or our homeland. Ultimately, we will not ever change the centuries old tribal rule that is at the core of the Afghan nation, if you can call that fragmented group of tribes a nation.   If change is going to come to that part of the world, it must come through the Afghan people themselves, not through a foreign intervention which they deeply resent. 

 

Yes, there is a cult of jihadist that remains viable there, but they have proven to be mobile and integrated into the tribal factions of that unstable region. Moreover, they move easily into Pakistan, a nation we cannot directly invade. Our current level of military involvement is not going to rid the country of this, or any other form of corruption.

 

A military surge, limited in its timeframe, will not achieve the objectives stated by the President. This leaves us with two choices -- be willing to spend the political and military capital to succeed by any means necessary in purging this planet of the Al-Qaeda threat, or change our military strategy and begin by reducing our presence in Afghanistan. Half measures such as the President is proposing only consume more resources we can ill afford to waste, and moreover, our volunteer military could use a break to refresh itself.

 

In the bigger picture, the President correctly stated tonight that a nation’s defense depends on the nation’s economy to support such defense. During our Revolutionary War, our fledging country’s biggest problem was lack of funds, not lack of bodies willing to protect their property. The comparison to our current situation is eerily similar. The two wars we are currently fighting are being financed by the Chinese; to ignore that fact is the equivalent of having one’s head in the sand. Whom do you think is buying most of the bonds in our ever increasing weekly Treasury bill auctions?

 

We borrow cash from the Chinese to pay for oil and wars in the Middle East and we wonder why our economy and our national sense of well-being are constantly getting worse? To defend ourselves against terrorist threats abroad, we are creating a bigger threat here at home -- our indebtedness to other foreign powers, particularly the Chinese.

 

As a new candidate, I am often assailed for not proposing specific solutions to our problems. To answer that criticism, here’s what I would offer as an alternative to the path being pursued by the President:

 

 

1)   Find the grit to cobble together and mobilize a national energy policy, one that uses our own resources and thereby starves the Middle East of the American dollars that sustain them. Remember that Bin Laden has been funded in part by our “friends” in the Middle East. (click on this link to review my energy policy about how we can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil within 3 to 5 years).

 

2) Redirect the money spent on the war on terror to nation-building and job creation here at home, focusing on putting unemployed Americans back to work. Remember that our military might is ultimately only a reflection of our economic might. At the end of the day our economic strength will be the source of our salvation.

 

3) Rethink our strategic alliances in the Middle East and other parts of the world. For instance, we have pandered to the Communist Chinese and propped up the politically fractious Pakistanis at the expense of our relations with India. Why? India is the 2^nd most populous nation in the world and is a democracy; our political values and our foreign policy ought to be in alignment here. If we engage and empower India as a full and preferred economic and political partner, we can have a profound affect in this region of the world. After all, these problems are in their back yard, not ours.

 

In closing, we are tossing $35 billion out the window with this surge; the Chinese will fund it so not to worry, right? This is money that ought to be directed to putting our own economy back on a solid footing. I also resent that what will likely go unreported and largely unrecognized is the added sacrifice of American blood, limb, and sanity that will accompany this politically based decision. 

 

A person with common sense would pursue a more rational and morally defensible path.

 

Best regards,