I think this is a bad idea.....From FoxNews -- WASHINGTON -- A leading Republican lawmaker on U.S. military policy says he wants American officials to consider establishing permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina says that having a few U.S. air bases in Afghanistan would be a benefit to the region and would give Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban.
Graham tells NBC television's "Meet the Press" that he wants to see the U.S. have "an enduring relationship" with Afghanistan to ensure that it never falls back into the hands of terrorists.
I'm no military strategy expert but having an enduring presence in a hostile country full of America-hating terrorists and a barely functioning, corrupt government just seems like a bad idea to me, not to mention the prohibitive cost of keeping the soldiers and assets safe in such a theater. We should be out of the business of keeping the peace in every God-forsaken shithole of a country in which we have no economic interests.
We should leave Afghanistan to its own devices for a year or two, let the Taliban reform and organize, then every couple of years, surprise carpet-bomb every site our satellites tell us there are collections of two or more terrorists.
This accomplishes three worthwhile objectives in my opinion: first, we keep the Taliban terrorists local and on their heels and unable to launch any real attacks on western targets. Second, we fulfill the Bush doctrine of taking the fight to the terrorists in their back yard instead of ours. And third, every now and then our military needs to test new weapons and purge our stockpiles of old ordinance. What better wasteland to do this than on the prehistoric country of Afghanistan? It's not like we'd be bombing them back to the stone-age....they're already there.
I see lots of upside to my argument and very little down, I mean other than the regular condemnation of other Muslim countries and the UN but, really...who cares?
7 comments:
Read a little between the lines, Ed. An AB in Afghanistan (and also Iraq) is within easy range of things we might like to "go boom" in Iran and other nasty or potentially nasty countries. Bases are relatively easy to defend, especially in third world countries. I'm really with Lindsey on this one.
Bill, we can't afford to maintain an airbase in Afghanistan. We should be drawing down our forces in other countries. Besides, there's nothing there of value, unless you count the poppy crop. Furthermore, we have no problems projecting ordinance anywhere in the world where ever there's something we'd like to destroy. Our guys would be sitting ducks for Islamic extremists. Plus, there's no beer to drink and no skirts to chase.
We have the ability now, with great expense and danger of failure, to project ordinance anywhere in the world with our 19! operational B-2's. If there is a safe tanker orbit within range, we can send the some of the 100+ F-22's. We may one day have "prompt global strike" with conventionally armed ICBM's or hypersonic cruise missiles, but don't now.
A base, that can be secured, in the area can put a complete strike package over a target.
What we couldn't afford was 9/11/01. What we "can't afford" is a nuclear bomb from Iran going off over Tel Aviv or Atlanta. Nothing is cheaper than what it takes to prevent a war.
Isolationism has never worked for this country, not even in the age of ocean liners and troopships. It sure has heck can't now.
The only way I'd support this if we divert all the money spent on military personnel, bases, etc. in Europe to pay for the Afghanistan presence. And all the troops in Europe would be transferred to Afghanistan where there is arguably a real military mission.
How long would we potentially stay in Afghanistan? 10 years? 20 years? Forever? You can't be serious? These people can't even form a basic government and certainly are as corrupt as the day is long. So the mission would be to just sit there defending the base perimeter at great expense of blood and treasure while we wait for the "go" word to attack Iran?
Describe a scenario in which we would need to attack Iran at a moments notice, such that cruise missiles, F-16's from Aviano, or Israel couldn't do the job for us. I can't think of a sudden situation requiring such proximity.
I also don't think leaving Afghanistan to it's poppy industry and dark-ages culture would inevitably lead to another 9/11. Unless there is a credible threat to the US, I don't see that we have business there other than regular bombing runs(civilians be damned), but nothing permanent.
I'm afraid we're talking past each other, Ed. I seemed to have failed in explaining why I don't think strikes from far away like Aviano or Israel aren't good options tanker tracks, time, losses, etc.
I don't think I suggested we just sit there defending the base while waiting to hit Iran or anyone. There's keeping al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run as well.
If the IDF has to do it because we won't they'll take a lot of losses and may well fail. We're the only people with B-2's and F-22's and we don't have enough of the former while refueling the latter without nearby bases would be a serious problem. Iran strikes would be against a good air defense system.
Just have to disagree on this one.
It just seems like an open-ended commitment that once begun has no possible end. Do we really need boots permanently on the ground in Afghanistan like in Iraq? Bosnia? For what? All we're doing is postponing the inevitable relapse while we trade pot shots with insurgents in dirty night-shirts. If our being there really stopped another 9/11 for sure, then I'd be for it. I just don't think it does. If we really wanted to stop another 9/11, we'd attack Saudi Arabia and Yemen. But we won't do that even if it's proven that they sanctioned 9/11 because we need the oil.
You may be proven to be right about this but I'm just too big of a cynic to believe it at this point.
Post a Comment