Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the editor:
U.S. must defeat Taliban, al-Qaida
Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.
The column by The New York Times’ David Brooks that was published in Sunday’s Las Vegas Sun, “Peace in Afghanistan is worth the war effort,” is a dramatically correct and powerful assessment of the need to not only win in Afghanistan but also to not fold and run home with our tails between our legs.
Mr. Brooks has incredibly accurate insight into not only the reasons why America must stand up to the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also why this nation must continue to fight and win the broader and deeper war against radical Islam — a conflict which Brooks points out has been in the making since 1979. Brooks accurately notes that when extremism pushes us, we must push back.
Mr. Brooks firmly endorses the Gen. Stanley McChrystal plan to bolster our troop commitment to Afghanistan significantly and engage in a full-scale counterinsurgency. The only point of departure I have with Brooks is that I believe the first priority should be to rain down terror on the Taliban with the full power of our military assets, with the intent of destroying the Taliban and disrupting and destroying al-Qaida, and then get on with the political and social matters that need attention in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, the position advocated by Brooks is a superb recommendation for the Obama administration to act on, and one that I greatly hope President Barack Obama will follow.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Obama has to re-chose one of three Afghanistan strategic paths
1. Counterinsurgency -The path Obama took during and after the election to surge the good war, and take the fight to the enemy "with troops on the ground" to take them down. A counterinsurgency strategy of clearing, holding, and rebuilding so we could disrupt, dismantle, and defeat the Al Qaeda
2. Counterterrorism -Go back to the Bush Afghanistan approach of a "spooks and drone containment war" to interdict and disrupt the enemy activities.
3. Quit - the fight and when the next event occurs treat it as a police action
Unfortunately when Obama chose strategy 1, he also placed new restrictive rules of engagement on our troops and gave the enemy many civilian civil liberties. Now with the 2009 summer offense nearly over the military is saying they need another 40,000 for a total 100,000 troops to fight under Obama's rules.
Obama is dithering.
Joe Biden seems to be arguing for a return to the option 2 Bush strategy. This is the discredited John Murtha over the horizon approach - Think aspirin factory and Chinese embassy. But remember the campaign when Barack Obama and Biden repeatedly said that the Gen. David Petraeus troops in Afghanistan are "air-raiding villages and killing civilians".
While the MOVEON dot ORG crowd wants option 3, because war is always wrong.
The people are against the Obama escalation for one of two reason, either they are anti-war pacifiers or they cannot support more troops in Afghanistan if Obama is commander in chief.
We have a weak administration with no stomach for defending America.
Obama is ambient about the military and the CIA - devastating the effectiveness of both regardless of the ultimate consequences.
Obama cannot lead with a weak spirited attitude.
The troops are not allowed to go after the enemy when they hide in buildings.
In addition to previously giving terrorist the Miranda rights, hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system.
We thought it would be tough, but as long as Secretary Gate was in place through this year we could be confident that Obama will allow the conditions on the ground to be the basis of actions. The critical time would be when in about 3 months when Gate leaves and who replaces him.
No more. The Military is not running the war effort.
We are reminded of Bob Woodward in "The War Within" criticized the president for failing to fulfill expectations.
"He had not rooted out terror wherever it existed," Woodward scolded. "He had not achieved world peace. He had not attained victory in his two wars."
So while Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff want more troops what will Obama do?
I think it is FUTILE to believe that ANYONE could ever defeat the Taliban or Al-Quaida. That's like saying we could defeat fundamental Christianity, or any fundamental religion. It will never happen. You might knock em down for a while, but as long as people breed, you have a ready supply of new "members" to indoctrinate.
More of our troops only means more American lives lost in a battle that can't be won, and more money spent that we should be spending on home soil to fix our own problems.
The US should stop trying to be the world's protector.
Radical Islam, including the Taliban,al Qaeda, and the home grown variety that we are experiencing are in a global war with the US and free world. What are we to do, roll over and let them destroy us or fight back and attempt to dismantle and destroy them ?? This is a life and death fight. The stakes are getting even higher with Iran's adventures. We must see this for what is is. An interwoven global enemy that is bent on destroying every thing we stand for and us too. We have to fight back!
After the end of World War 2 the west lost it's stomach for fighting wars and the rest of the world knows it. We must not value the lives of other people like we value are own' Only then will we start winning again.