For nearly nine years, the United States has been overseas fighting wars that most people who are not directly affected by seem to have forgotten about. But I cannot forget about these wars, because one of my friends has to walk with a cane since his service Iraq. I was pleased to see that the Obama administration is withdrawing our troops from this quagmire of a war; however, even after the seven years the United States has spent in Iraq, our government still thinks it’s a good idea to continue invading and influencing sovereign countries. According to a CNN poll, six out of ten Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. With this being said, is a troop surge into Afghanistan the right decision?
I have been asking myself from the beginning of these wars, why is our government still policing the world? Since our involvement in the Middle East after 9/11, the government has been getting itself involved in needless conflicts. The United States’ involvement in the Middle East has been nothing but problematic. Now, with more troops than ever in Afghanistan, our country is continuing to create more problems for itself.
The United States should look to history to see that this decision is a mistake. In the 1800s, the British tried to colonize Afghanistan with little success and were run out after many fruitless years of war. At the time of the British involvement in Afghanistan, the British had one of the most powerful military forces in the world and were run out. The same thing happened to the former Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The United States should learn a lesson from history and realize that foreign influence is the last thing that Afghani people want. Also, I recall another country that was fighting off British imperialism … oh, wait, that’s us. I find it ironic that a country that was birthed from rebellion against a foreign power is now invading a sovereign country.
I would argue that the United States’ involvement in the Middle East is going to cause more violence and more terrorism. Imagine some other country invading our own. I don’t think I can grasp what it would be like, considering that I am a born and raised Yooper, and the closest I have come to a war zone is the start of hunting season. Still, I can imagine that having bombs land in my backyard would not be a pleasant experience. With more than 11,000 civilians killed within the past six months, it’s no surprise that the Afghani people are wishing for our troops to leave or, as it has been the case throughout history, forcing them to. In John Mercer’s article “Presence in Iraq beneficial,” he stated, “Soldiers on the ground are our most vital diplomats.” No diplomat solves a conflict with bullets or bombs, but with words and compromise. If the United States wishes to improve relations with Afghanistan, we must withdraw our troops and let the Afghani government make its own decisions.
The best course of action for our government is to go back to its policy of non-interventionism. The United States in World War II had a policy of non-interventionism. Our country was attacked and we had to use military force. After World War II our country has changed its foreign policy to needless intervention and needless loss of life. Korea and Vietnam are perfect examples of this, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are simply echoes of this flawed policy.
Iraq and Afghanistan did not bomb the world trade center, terrorists did. This was an attack on our citizens but there are plenty of countries that are harboring terrorists that the U.S. is not at war with. I am not saying that we should isolate ourselves, but using military force should be our last option. Instead of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a war that is just creating more problems, think of better ways to spend it. Our military’s budget is $623 billion dollars. Given the current state of the economy, it is ridiculous for the U.S. to be spending like this. At the time that I am writing this article, the U.S. debt clock is at $13,584,802,000,000. I checked this on Wednesday, Oct. 13, and by the time this paper is in your hands, it has already exponentially risen. Instead of spending this money fighting overseas, how about we use it for our citizens. Think about how much that money could do. We need a military to serve and protect Americans instead of police the world.
Eskylynch • Oct 22, 2010 at 10:09 pm
In re. Martin’s comments:
Greetings. Your pugnacious tone reminds me why I rarely leave comments to stories.
1. You misquote me. I did not ask, “Who’s gonna attack us.” I stand by my question as worded. Massive armies and nuclear weapons systems are not what we need to fight lithe terrorist cells.
2. “City on a Hill” is a metaphor used throughout US history, most notably in recent times by Mr. Reagan. The point is that we were to be, at most an, example to others. If you would prefer our not even being THAT presumptuous, I’m cool with you.
3. My beef is not with any specific war spending, but overall military spending.
4. You misquoted me re. Afghanistan. I did not say it bankrupted the USSR. I implied with the word “including” that it was PART of the USSR’s military spending albatross, which it was. Certainly competing with Star Wars was part of their problem too, but it was a part of a systemic failure: a flawed, command-style economy that could not support a massive military. The seeds for this downfall preceded Star Wars and Reagan.
Peace be with you.
Wingnut • Oct 22, 2010 at 6:16 am
Yeah Martin, America forces 18 yr olds to join the Free Marketeers competer’s church, or starve. Are “the controllers” offering them a cooperator’s church/society at age 18? No. ANY chopice allowed by them… at age 18? No.
America also does PAY UP OR LOSE YOUR HOUSE, and not everyone is born equal, but instead born at their parent’s layer on the rat-racing pyramid scheme called capitalism, whose Columbian Freemason pyramid scheme symbol is right there on the back of the USA dollar and whose headquarters is in a “District of Columbia” and not part of the USA proper.. What a fine democracy. (yikes!) Did you mean a con/sham herd control system?
Martin • Oct 21, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Eskylynch- How much does China spend on its military? Since our military is doesn’t know their exact numbers and capabilities, you might want to share your info with the Pentagon.
Wisdom of waging two land wars in Asia aside- let’s be realistic about military spending. Defense is FOURTH on our budget. Big, but not even close to the top dog- Social Security. You ask, “Who would attack us?” AL QAEDA. Nine years ago. Where are they now? AFGHANISTAN. I’ll entertain a strategic debate about the wisdom of our current engagements, but financial arguments are a red herring. We’ve spent more money on new entitlements in the last two years than the war(s).
Speaking of Afghanistan, that war didn’t bankrupt the USSR. Regan did. Socialism couldn’t keep up with our capitalist society. They actually believed we had laser beams in space.
Finally- city on a hill? America was never supposed to be the refuge of rapture. That’s a pretty lofty goal. Is it enough to settle for the land of opportunity and the most powerful democracy in history?
Eskylynch • Oct 21, 2010 at 3:03 pm
What a cogent article. Very well put, Mr. Fix.
America was supposed to be an example, a city set on a hill, not the policeman forcing others to be like us.
Blame the Cold War, when WE were what was left to stop the commies from taking over the world. Now we’re left with spending more on military than all other nations combined. More on the Afghan War than China spends total. Just how many nuclear carriers and subs do we need in 2010?
But in Congress, one doesn’t dare cut military spending. One is a “wimp” and voted out. And with two oceans around us, we theoretically could have been spending LESS than some nations. Who’s ever gonna invade us? It would be aMAzingly cost-ineffective.
It is bankrupting us now, just as USSR’s military involvement (including, uh . . . Afghanistan) bankrupted it in the 80s/90s. So it goes. Be well, all.
Wingnut • Oct 19, 2010 at 2:01 am
Doesn’t it get old and stale when people repeatedly call occupations and police actions… wars? You’d think that eventually… people would get past the over-dramatized mis-labeling. But, apparently not.
Navygirl • Oct 17, 2010 at 5:15 am
I think that we need to withdrawn from Afghanistan. We are not wanted there so why continue. They do not want change and to force them is ridiculous. Why are we constantly told that we will be withdrawing troops when all we are doing is sending more. At this rate, there will be no troops to defend the USA, because they will all be over there.