Troops alone can't win Afghan war
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/afghanistan.kabul.security/art.kabulpolice.afp.gi.jpg caption="Afghan security forces patrol the streets of Kabul."]
Frances Townsend
CNN Contributor
How can we best meet our national security objectives in Afghanistan?
In Gen. Stanley McChrystal's assessment, Afghanistan requires an "integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign." The general put the request for civilians ahead of military because it is the most difficult to provide.
It is there first because what civilian capacity the U.S. government has at hand is weak, insufficient to the task and not deployable in the way required in Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan understand our need for civilian support, which explains why they attacked and killed six U.N. workers in Kabul in October. As a result, the U.N. pulled out 600 of its 1,100 staff. The U.N. withdrawal is a win for our enemies and will serve to further embolden and encourage them.
|
|
Filed under: Afghanistan • al Qaeda • Military |
About this Show:
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
Subscribe to the podcast
On Twitter
Search the AC360 blog
In my opinion, I don't think that soldiers alone can win this war. There have already been over 5,000 of our troops killed, that is so sad. So it really does'nt matter how many more troops we send, ten times more will just get killed.
Yet, the fact remains, we cannot fund this war much longer. Promise does not come without a price tag and just because we print it does not mean we should.