“The surge of troops is needed to provide us with time and space to further build our own security forces,” stated the Ambassador of Afghanistan to the U.S. Said T. Jawad at my Center on Politics & Foreign Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies last week in Washington, D.C.
Speaking to a crowd of 100 guests with the speech carried live on C-SPAN, the Ambassador pointed out that American troops are in his country “to have safe streets in the United States and Europe” and that it is “mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Afghans”. He went on to say that “not being in Afghanistan is equally dangerous”.
It is easy to understand and remember the original reason and rationale for going into Afghanistan. We were responding to the vicious and unprovoked attacks on us on 9/11. We overthrew the repressive Taliban government and attacked the Al Qaeda training camps and tried to wipe out the Al Qaeda leadership. The U.S. intervention was overwhelmingly supported by the American public and by most of our allies around the world. We all assumed it was a successful operation so why eight years later are we sending a “surge” of troops back to this country to defeat an enemy we supposedly defeated years ago? Why is the Taliban resurfacing? Why hasn’t Al Qaeda been destroyed? Why is it on the day the President of the United States receives the Nobel Peace Prize that the first of the American troops are getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan? There are many inconsistencies in the whole affair that will soon see more than 100, 000 U.S. troops in this mountainous nation.