Afghanistan... Now and Forever?
Senator Lindsey Graham advocates a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. It could be argued, contrary to Senator Graham's proposal of using military might to send a stabilizing "signal" to the region, that long-term U.S. presence in the region is actually destabilizing.
The performance of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan has been dismal. Plagued with performance failures, chronic over-charging and an utterly corrupted mercenary culture, the Pentagon continues to issue contracts to the likes of KBR and Halliburton. Why?
Reuters is reporting today:
Foreign military and civilian casualties are at record levels despite the presence of about 150,000 NATO-led troops, with 2010 the bloodiest year on record since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001.
The Taliban are at their strongest since they were ousted after they refused to hand over al Qaeda militants, including Osama bin Laden, after the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.
According to Brigadier General Josef Blotz, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, "Before it gets better, unfortunately is has to get worse and this is what we saw toward the end of 2010," he said.
That doesn't sound so good. If members of the media can divert their attention from 2012 for just a moment we might get some real news on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment