War in Afghanistan will be won with diplomatic efforts, not more troops
President Barack Obama said Tuesday more than 30,000 additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan in order to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.
The deployment is a response to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, who requested more troops for the war. By April, there will be 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. With so much insurgency and instability in Afghanistan, it’s hard to define what would constitute a victory, if it’s even possible. The way to change Afghanistan is not through extra troops, but diplomacy involving the support of other countries.
It’s a surprise that Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan, especially after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He seems more like a warmonger sending more troops to a war that only America is a part of rather than a leader trying to establish world peace.
The justification for the war stems from the lingering memory of 9/11 and the feeling that terrorism needs to stop. But even with 9/11 in the back of their minds, most Americans don’t support this war. To fight a war that costs billions during an economic recession doesn’t seem to make much sense, especially when the enemy isn’t clearly defined or easy to locate.
The problem with Afghanistan is that there is no clear definition for what would constitute a victory. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were seen as the enemy in Iraq. But even after overturning the government, the U.S. found itself in a quagmire that stretched on longer than its involvement in WWII. Afghanistan is far worse off than Iraq and lacks a centralized government. The U.S. is finding itself fighting against separate tribes that have a long history of war. It would take years and thousands of troops to establish a centralized government in Afghanistan, if it’s even possible at all.
Changing governments is not as easy as sending more troops and holding elections. The last elections in Afghanistan were met with accusations of dishonesty. If Iraq is any indication, democracies don’t happen overnight. The U.S. has occupied the country since 2003 and there’s still no sign of enough stability for the U.S. to pull out.
The 30,000 troops that Obama is sending to Afghanistan could even be sent to other parts of the world, where peace could be easier to attain. The genocides in Uganda, Sudan and Darfur could be stopped with the help of American troops. Stopping any of these genocides would be quicker than reforming Afghanistan and wouldn’t cost nearly as much.
If Obama expects to win the war, he will have to exercise his diplomatic skills over flexing his military might.
The support of surrounding countries such as Pakistan is much needed, since the Taliban uses the country to deflect U.S. forces. He will have to drum up support from other countries around the world, or the U.S. will find themselves in another Iraqi occupation.
America cannot win the war in Afghanistan on its own. It will take time and the cooperation of multiple countries to change Afghanistan, not a military campaign that sacrifices thousands of U.S. troops. Obama should be making these moves and not sending more troops.
