(I'm not promoting this as an endorsement of Ann or the foreign policy, but because it's nice to see the CD2 campaigns begin to pivot into the meat and potatoes of issues. Let the debate begin! - promoted by Dean Barker)
Ann just sent out a note to her email list about her thoughts on our continued military role in Afghanistan, and I wanted to share it with y'all here as well:
"Like many Americans, I am deeply troubled by the situation in Afghanistan, particularly because we have courageous American soldiers putting their lives on the line every day. General McChrystal has given the President a bleak assessment that should give us all pause. No matter how many troops the US sends to that country we cannot protect a regime seen as corrupt and illegitimate by its own citizens. Unfortunately there is little doubt about the level of corruption and international monitors are convinced fraud permeated the recent election.
It does us no good to look back on the eight years our troops have bravely fought in Afghanistan and wonder what could have been if we hadn't made the deeply flawed decision to divert our focus and resources to the war in Iraq, which I opposed. We must make sure, however, that the same mistaken mindset and flawed reasoning that trapped us in Iraq does not control our future in Afghanistan.
We must ask the tough questions we should have done a better job asking about Iraq: What is our goal and how do we know when we've achieved it? Is it possible to achieve that goal with the current Afghan government and its policies? What is our exit strategy? What are the risks and costs of our future involvement? And finally - is the international community committed to supporting the strategy and sharing its costs?
In my view we should not consider sending additional combat troops to Afghanistan unless the Afghan government meets three conditions:
They must agree to a sustained crack down on corruption at every level of their government.
They must create a political reconciliation involving President Karzai and his chief opponents that results in a real sense of legitimacy for the Afghan government.
They must substantially increase the size of their own military and police force.
Even if those conditions are met, however, we must ask ourselves one additional and essential question before putting more troops in harm's way or spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars. The question is simple, though the answer is not obvious--is this war vital to preventing future attacks against the United States and its allies?
Only those with direct access to intelligence information can make this judgment with any certainty, but I have grave doubts. The cancer of Al Qaeda seems to have spread to Pakistan and beyond. A wider war in Afghanistan will have little impact on the Al Qaeda leadership outside that country's borders. Moreover our recent successes against Al Qaeda have come not in large scale military engagements in Afghanistan but through pinpoint attacks.
In short, the US should not commit more troops to Afghanistan unless that country commits itself to the reforms that are a prerequisite to success, as well as to building its own self defense forces; until we have a real plan for what it will cost and how it will end; and until we are convinced that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent Al Qaeda from striking America."
Thanks,
Colin
www.KusterforCongress.com
(I work for Ann McLane Kuster for Congress)
