Western powers should leave Afghanistan
Western powers have been occupying Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001 and the escalating human, financial and political costs of the continued occupation far exceed any benefits, either to the West or to the Afghan people themselves. The time has come for the West to admit they cannot continue, as opposed to compounding the situation by committing more resources to a lost cause. Withdrawal would amount to a better outcome than the inevitable failure of persistence. We are in a hole and it is time to stop digging.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
A withdrawal does not equate failure or abandonment
The proposition side would choose to present a withdrawal as the vacation of Western powers from Afghanistan, in terms of NATO military forces, but the sustained presence of NATO agents who would be on hand to provide military advice on keeping peace. The aim would be to eventually hand over overall responsibility for security to Afghan forces, but the withdrawal would be staggered over 3 years on the condition that the civilian death toll average was reduced by the end of the year. Forces would first be reduced and withdrawn from more peaceful regions, leaving the densely populated centres until last. Effectually, the Afghan forces would have access to the experience of NATO forces, but would be the ones calling the shots so to speak.
When it comes to a country as unstable and ill equipped with efficiency as Afghanistan ,even the thought of withdrawing the only support through which it can grow back which is the help provided by the western powers, states only one bitter imagination which should not become the reality and that is Abandonment.Going by the propositions proposal, it seems after transferring the entire power to afghan forces, which in reality is not even in the condition of sustaining itself and so only god knows how it will take care of the entire country and the teeming millions living in it, they will apparently wait for the rate of deaths of the citizens to elevate in order to fulfill their “condition”.Also,what the side proposition proposes is that the NATO forces be eventually removed and that the power of governing be exclusively returned to the Afghans. The period of three years that they suggest seem to be a little too ambitious. By giving a three year time frame what they wish to suggest is that a country which in 5-6 years hasn’t restored themselves, will all of a sudden be self sufficient in 3 years.
After the preposterous logic given by the side proposition,the opposition would like to give a more practical and sane mode of operation. It is suggested that the forces need to be there for a longer period of time till the state is absolutely capable of functioning well on its own, which will be determined by the United Nations. What we are suggesting is that the united nations will conduct a full survey and publish a report mentioning the developments and state of Afghanistan once in every 2 years and only after the united nations is convinced that the country is self sufficient to protect and provide for its citizens will the NATO forces leave the State. Also, The World Bank and the United Nations should provide funds and aid in the country so as to slowly make them self sufficient. Efforts should be made by the western powers to maintain the financial assistance at around present levels for the next five years, focusing on reconstruction and reducing the proportion available for recurring expenses. Also, they should continue to emphasize human rights and good governance by making a long-term financial commitment to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC);
An unsustainable commitment of resources
The financial cost of the occupation is hugely detrimental to Western national interests and also impossible to support in cost/benefit terms. We’ve seen that the huge military investment represented by the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has failed in its primary purpose of safeguarding the lives of Western citizens and instead put the lives of thousands of our soldiers at risk. But this military investment is even harder to understand from an opportunity cost point of view. We have no confidence in specific estimates of these financial costs, such is their disparity, but all analysts agree that they run into hundreds of billions of dollars. Not only has this gargantuan investment failed to deliver its primary military objective therefore, it has deprived numerous far less oblique initiatives to improve our security from receiving the funding they need. Take the example of National Identity Cards in the UK; deemed to be a vital tool in the fight against terrorism, their introduction was shelved primarily on the grounds of costs estimated at £10 billion. But by any estimates this is a fraction of the investment expended thus far to conduct a war with no discernible benefit to our security. If we widen the argument to include investment in aid, the expenditure becomes even harder to justify. Again, figures are unreliable, but it is estimated that US aid investment will be approaching $10billion this year alone [[Congressional Research Service]], over 300 USD for every man woman and child, roughly equivalent to the average annual income. What do we have to show for this largesse? Has the quality of life improved for the average Afghan citizen? Has life expectancy increased, or educational standards risen? Maybe we can see improvements to the infrastructure? The answer is a resounding no. And again, what about the opportunity cost? Are the proponents of the occupation really asserting that this money could not be better spent on more deserving causes at home or abroad? Just take the example of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina that left thousands of US citizens homeless, many of them still waiting to be re-housed. The opposition side may want to point out that the already intended withdrawal from Iraq will mean resources can be merely redirected to Afghanistan, and there will be no net increase in spending. However such a commitment cannot coincide with the expected burdens of debt on the federal budget after the global financial crisis, or the planned healthcare reform in the USA. Remove the security dimension, in other words and this expenditure becomes utterly impossible to justify.
While the side opposition agrees that there is no sanity in continuing a “war” when the cost benefit analysis is negative however we feel that the State of Afghanistan is not yet ready to function all by itself. At this point we feel it is important to point out that the “war” that the proposition is referring is not why the troops are deployed there, the NATO forces are deployed for security reasons and to ensure that the citizens are free from the shackles of the “Taliban”.
The forces are a symbol of the state aid and protection which is being advanced to Afghanistan by the NATO countries.
As far as the propositions argument according to which “unnecessary” high expenditure has been incurred due to the military investment in Afghanistan without any acceptable output, the opposition would like to say that the primary motto of every country is protection of its citizens and if that motto cannot be achieved if those very citizens fall in the hands of terror.According to the side proposition, the expenses which were apparently “wasted” on this state could have been used for some other more useful purposes like the betterment of its own citizens.we the opposition would like to remind them that providing the citizens with all the luxuries or even necessities would be of no use if those very citizens would live under the threat of another 11th September to happen.
Moving on to the several questions which have been put forward by them, we would like to correct their misconception regarding the state of “no-improvement” in Afghanistan. Our largesse will allow us to bring to their notice that their has been considerable improvement in almost all the sectors of the state.
The economy of Afghanistan has improved since 2002 due to the investments in U.S dollars and the improvements in their agricultural sector. However it still remains as one of the poorest countries living on foreign aid. According to the IMF reports Afghanistan’s economy has grown by 20% year end of March 2004, due to international aid and end of droughts. An estimated $4.4 billion US dollars of aid entered the nation from 2002 to 2004, about equal to its GDP. A GDP of US $4 billion in fiscal year 2003 was recalculated by the IMF to $6.5 billion, after adding proceeds from opium products.Further more, the nations banking system has improved with 13 new banks, which were established in the year of 2003.
The national power of a nation is determined by the state of the people in the country. The state of the people is affected by the laws in force in the country. It was during the presence of the NATO forces during the so called “war” that the constitution of Afghanistan was adopted and made the law of the land. It was under the presence of the NATO forces that the interim government was set up with President Hamid Karzai as their interim president.It was during the time of the forces presence that the general elections were held this year and had it not been for the forces to ensure security the elections couldn’t have been conducted in peace with the “resisting” elements of the state obstructing it.
We've reached a stalemate with current military strategy
NATO allies have been reluctant to support the USA in providing more soldiers to accompany the 17,000 troops Washington plans to send to Afghanistan. As any hope of success would rely on having a high number of troops, it is unlikely increasing our commitment to Afghanistan will be a viable option. During the 1980s even Russia had far more troops yet was unable to succeed on military strength. If the West fail to acknowledge the true size a further commitment to Afghanistan would be, the undertaking would not only equate signing a blank cheque, but would be a preordained failure for the insufficient number of troops we do send. Not only has the mountainous rural territory proved a significant obstacle for Western forces, but in recent years much of the south has fallen out of Western control. Up until now, the strategy for dealing with specifically adverse areas of conflict has been to increase the troops posted to that area, but as we can see from the following example, the proportion of troops added to greater control in the area is minimal. Proof of this comes from the fact that for example until 2006, [["From insurgency to insurrection", The Economist, August 2009]] the southern Helmand province had only 300 American combat troops and as it grew as a hub for the Taliban's resistance more troops were sent into the region. However three years down the line and the area is still uncontrollable, the only difference being there are currently 20,000 British and American troops stationed there. The extent of this inefficiency seems enough to justify a withdrawal. The impact of this is augmented in light of the fact we are being given a run for our money by guerilla fighters despite the Western military being equipped with the latest technology. Surely this tells us the wrong thing to do would be to continue the war effort? Casualties among Western forces now add up to 1311 [[Source: Nato icasualties.org]]. Most damningly of all, the rate at which these losses are being sustained is accelerating. More Nato and US troops died in the first eight months of 2009 than in the whole of 2008 [[Source as above]]. At this rate it will not be long before more US citizens lose their lives "preventing a repetition of the attack on 9/11" than died in the original attack itself. This logic is even more dubious in the case of the UK, where, to prevent atrocities such as took place on 7/7 claiming 52 lives, 204 lives have been lost as we write, a Pyrrhic victory indeed. Furthermore, casualties among Afghan forces and civilians exceed these appalling figures by several orders of magnitude. What it boils down to is diverting from the status quo by either deciding to reduce or amplify our military commitment in Afghanistan, and we can safely deduce that after nearly a decade of occupation, if we have not yet been able to reach a point of stability, there will only be mounting causalities and perpetuated instability both politically and socially if we continue to occupy Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is not "fundamental to the defence of our people"
The primary justification for the invasion of Afghanistan in Oct 2001 was US national security, and, by implication, the security of the West generally, and in this aim it has palpably failed.
The rationale went as follows: under Taliban rule Afghanistan was a safe haven for Al Qaeda; a breeding ground for international terrorism from which Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants could plan, train for and launch further attacks with impunity. It was therefore deemed essential to Western national security that this capability was destroyed and Bin Laden brought to justice. But it is a curious solution to the problem of safeguarding the lives of Western citizens, which entails airlifting tens of thousands of those citizens to place them directly in the firing line of the enemy, particularly in a terrain infamously hostile to occupying forces as has already been mentioned. Even if we were allow the occupation has played a part in forestalling further attacks on Western soil – a huge assumption when one considers the attacks on London and Madrid took place after the invasion – in plain numerical terms the occupation of Afghanistan has emphatically failed to save Western lives and Osama Bin Laden is still at large. The "war of necessity" attitude assumes that denying Al Qaeda a major territorial stronghold is the only thing currently preventing them from launching an attack on the West on a similar scale to 9/11, when we can understand that if there were to be an attack, it could very much occur without the Al Qaeda control of Afghanistan. There are even countries available such as Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea or Uzbekistan [["A war of necessity?", The Economist, August 2009]] where Al Qaeda could set up camp if that is in fact what they required, while we continue wasting time and effort in Afghanistan. This is even ignoring the case that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are overtly present in Pakistan.
We as the opposition feel strongly that it isn’t time yet to let go! However much the proposition would contend that what we suggest is to full fill our egos and is to deny defeat, it is rather dramatic of them to suggest the following. As countries of one world it is our collective responsibility to ensure protection and development of nations and its citizens. When a country is sick and is unable to improve on its own we see no harm in lending that helping hand. Our rationale is that we will only let go the hand once the nation can stand on its own. What we feel and will prove is that Afghanistan as much as we would like it, isn’t ready to left all by itself. It will be an experiment which the world will regret.
Contrary to what the proposition thinks that all the responsibility of Afghanistan can be slowly handed over to the afghan forces, the situation in reality suggests otherwise.
One such instances is that of the new laws being passed in the state (country is being referred to as state). Does the proposition really think that a state which allows refusal of food to a wife if she refuses intercourse, are in a position to govern the whole country all by themselves yet?
Also the Afgan forces aren’t prepared enough to restrict the forces of Taliban from entering and re-establishing their hold. When a country like Pakistan which has been governing its own nation for more than 60 years can’t contain the Taliban to one territory without the help of the U.S army, how can a country as unstable as a tight rope walker manage to stand up for itself against the Taliban and it is imperative to point out that once the Taliban re-establishes itself there is no questioning the degree of terror they will unleash.
When the whole world is on ventilators due to the attack of the Recession, we can not desert a poor country like Afghanistan to battle it on its own.While the proposition will contend that the forces is all that they propose to move and not the investments, the presence of the force is a symbol of the presences of the nations ready to bail them out. Once the forces are moved the nations will have no mean of keeping a check on the functioning of the state and there is no wondering what the state of its citizens will be and what will be its implication on the world.
therefor. the supposed "war" in afghanistan is not only fundamental to the defence of the people of the western countries or other nations but also to the helpless citizens of that state.
There is floundering support for the cause
The pitiful turnout in the current election in Afghanistan, and plummeting approval ratings in the US and UK demonstrate the political folly of continuing with this misadventure.
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) commander General Stanley McChrsytal has recently said Afghanistan is encumbered with a "society that's got to be repaired, and I don't know if we can fix it. But we can't ignore it...there is a tremendous desire to sort it out". We agree with the General up to a point. Yes, the society needs to be repaired and yes, there is a will within the society to see a change for the better, and yes, Western forces probably won't be able to fix the situation. However, whereas General McChrystal would construe a withdrawal as "ignoring" the situation, we would argue that a withdrawal would probably be a better option if we wanted to promote social progress in Afghanistan. "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. " [[James Madison, Political Observations, 1795]]
ISAF has become a symbol of the futility of the West in the minds of the Afghan people, as the trade-off for having a continual foreign presence for 'security' does not seem worth it when there are civilians dieing in worrying numbers due to car bombs and suicide attacks daily. Much of the way the Taliban gain support is by using the West as a figure of resentment, therefore, surely if we remove this factor we remove much of the Taliban's ammo, and the country can stop fixating on blaming the West for the current situation and focus on moving forward. Afghanistan has unfortunately had a previous case of occupation with Russia, where at the time deteriorating infrastructure was easily appointed to a foreign power, and a bitter resentment for the Russian power was the underlying force in driving Russia out of Afghanistan. With air raids becoming a more frequently used military tactic due to reduced ground ability, civilian causalities are a frequent consequence and cases where wedding parties [["Losing Afghanistan", The Economist, August 2009]] have been rained down on with shells have not done much to improve the Western image. Major-General Zahir Azimi himself has said that "Where international forces are fighting, people think it is incumbent on them to resist the occupiers and infidels" and so removing the foreign force and handing over to Afghan security forces may hopefully culminate in a social confidence that is necessary to bring Afghanistan out of chaos.
A perfect example of the mismatch between political ambition and reality is provided by polling results released in the past few days. The Babaji area, for example, was an insurgent stronghold expressly targeted by UK troops with a view to liberating the population of some 80,000 to vote. Thirty seven British troops were killed and 150 injured in the process and 13 polling stations duly set up. The result? On average eleven votes were cast per station. Or fewer in aggregate than the number of troops injured and killed, as the headline in today’s Daily Telegraph grimly proclaims. This should surely come as no surprise. For exhaustively well-documented reasons of history, culture, ethnicity and religion, Afghanistan is uniquely ill-suited to adopting western-style democracy. So, not only has the invading force failed to capture the hearts and minds of the local population, support for their cause is actually declining at home and abroad. While this is understandable in the West, given daily pictures of troops returning home in body bags, it is harder to understand on the ground. It should be remembered that there was little initial resistance to the invasion of Afghanistan among the general population such was the abhorrence of the Taliban’s repressive and regressive regime. In many respects therefore, our intervention has been a miracle of mismanagement, turning a largely supportive population increasingly against us. What makes our continuing presence so hard to understand in this light is the fact that this is a uniquely timely moment politically for us to withdraw. Without wishing to minimise the political cost of pulling our troops out, this is not Barack Obama’s or Gordon Brown’s war. Unlike Blair and Bush it should be possible for the new UK and US administrations to present the decision to leave domestically as a pragmatic reaction to changing circumstances, while to the Muslim world the withdrawal could be styled as a qualified concession to international law and sovereignty. The longer we remain, however, the more surely Obama and Brown, too become tainted by association with the invasion and the harder it will be for them to leave. The withdrawal would work to prove to countries in the Middle-East such as Iran, that Obama is serious about 'unclenching fists', and ultimately it will be the break down of East-West tensions that will end the 'War on Terror'.
As for the alternative, suffice to say that all current estimates of the time needed to complete the Afghan project made by its advocates talk in terms of decades, and, less volubly, trillions of dollars. Yes it will hurt us to leave, but better now than never.
The entire argument presented by the proposition reflects on how the attempts made by the NATO forces to restore normalcy have not been much successful. What they are forgetting is that, the very fact that the concepts like "election process" etc which were taken towards democritisation of this state were actually able to be implemented show that a change is taking place and this time for the betterment.
I t is jus the starting. if for the first time the turnout for voting was 20% then next time it will increase n so will the hope of afghanistan to restore its normal state.
Failing the seconday objectives
In addition to failing to achieve its primary objective, the occupation has failed to achieve a number of secondary objectives, particularly minimising the production and trafficking of heroin.
For all their corrupt and barbaric practices, the Taliban were by general agreement successful at reducing production of opium. Some estimates suggest that opium production fell by as much as 90%. [[See e.g. unodc.org". http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html.%5D%5D
Since the invasion, however, production has risen to the point that Afghanistan has been restored to its former inglorious position as the world’s leading producer of heroin. [[Source: abcnews.go.com http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79842&page=1.%5D%5D
One of the effects of the dependence of Afghan farmers on this pernicious trade is that it makes the cost of diminishing incentives prohibitively expensive. Either Western powers must commit unfeasible sums to compensation, or, they must face the consequences of depriving the economy of its main source of income.
As for securing a sufficiently stable regime to enable, as has been suggested, the construction of a pipeline to assist the security of oil supplies to the West, this now looks like more of a pipe dream than ever.
There are flaws in the opposition’s proposed withdrawal strategy
Firstly, to clarify our model for the opposition. Recently during the occupation in Afghanistan we have seen annual deaths increasing, therefore, we would deem a decrease in this measure as the starting gun for beginning a withdrawal plan. The opposition look to contest the 3 year time frame, using the fact that Western occupation of Afghanistan has far exceeded 3 years yet there has been no substantial approach to self-sufficiency in that short time. We on the proposition think this point strengthens our case. We see the situation as one that is bound to stagnate. Senator Gates of the USA talks about Afghanistan "10 or 20, 30 years in the future in terms of a completely democratic, corruption-free, fully economically developed ally". Are we meant to believe that up until that hardly distinguishable point in the future we will be bearing the burden of the occupation of Afghanistan? (Which a member of the US administration has already mused could be the next three decades.) Within the 3 year time frame for withdrawal, we do not expect the country to be self-sufficient. The essence of our argument is that Afghanistan will not be able to reach that self-sufficient stage whilst we are occupying it. The alternative presented by the opposition is neither realistic nor relevant. To refute it briefly, the UN has had a history for indecisive action and bureaucracy, and bringing the UN in as the ultimate authority on the occupation cannot be justified when the initial action was not sanctioned by the UN.
The fine line between support and interference
The current occupation is providing support to the embryonic democracy, not assuming a role of temporary governance! The opposition side seems to be in favour of prolonged occupation in order to take control over legislation in this politically chaotic country, citing the case of “refusal of food to a wife if she refuses intercourse”. Despite what sharp critics of the invasion will pronounce, the West are not there to govern Afghanistan but to help clear the country of rebel forces so that it could have a fully functioning independent democracy. To interfere with their legislation would not merely be to breach national sovereignty to a crippling degree (a regression in any progress made to installing a self-sufficient democratic system) but would be totally contrary to the aim of setting up a democracy, as the point is that the people of Afghanistan should be governed by the laws they want, and not laws which have been approved by the West or any other country.
Yet on the other hand, whilst presenting Afghanistan as a country in which the notion of democracy is on par with the impossible, the opposition side wish us to take the recent elections as the pleasant fruition of our efforts in Afghanistan. Well, there is plenty of evidence, whether sprawled across newspaper headlines or present in the current plight of the Afghan citizens, that the recent elections were not a pleasant experience. We on the proposition think that the case of the recent elections works in our favour as it proves that years of occupation have amounted to a ‘democratic election’ where there have already been 2207 complaints registered, [[“Complaints of Afghan elections pour in”, Channel 4, 28th August 2008]] defining this election as barely credible by any standard, let alone the democratic standards of a war torn country. The opposition side try to use the fact that there was an election held at all, as a sign that the situation in Afghanistan is improving and hold faith that larger turnouts to elections will coincide with this. However, the previous elections in 2004 saw not only a larger turnout, but had greater credibility, so if anything we have seen a regression in the situation.
Aid and investment are not mutually exclusive to a military withdrawal
Western forces would still be able to provide Afghanistan with aid, which it does so in substantial amounts, and withdraw its forces from the country. There is nothing to stop the World Bank supporting Afghanistan as it is a separate organisation to NATO, and a NATO vacation of the Afghan area only means removing military presence, not removal of political support, or any other form of support.The opposition side use the 'world recession' as a further reason why it would be morally heinous to 'abandon' Afghanistan. This view fails to register that perhaps continuing the West's identity in the country as one willing to provide aid and investment, without the presence of military hostility could work in favour of the West. The West may even then be able to focus on refining its aid strategy in Afghanistan because currently improvements to infrastructure seem to be futile when the lives of citizens are disrupted by conflict, and the ongoing conflict obviously makes the distribution of aid problematic. Withdrawal would see military conflict fade away leaving room for the aid workers and peacekeepers to follow successfully.
The proposition side have depicted the situation in Afghanistan which leaves us with a particular choice. The demonstration of the shortage of resources means that continued involvement in Afghanistan, as the opposition advocate, must involve either a reduction in the commitment and the demands we place upon the existing resources, or an actual increase in those resources. Proposition have proven the latter to be unfeasible, with discussion about the opportunity cost of the continued diversion of domestic resources. Therefore, we expect discussion to centre on the nature of the commitment decrease. However, side opposition seem to advocate a third way: an INCREASE in the demands we place on our limited resources.
In response to proposition demonstration that the war we are now fighting cannot be meaningfully called one of "necessity" in terms of preservation of Western security, they have had to justify continued involvement by extending the term 'necessity' to include a host of other objectives. Side opposition would have us fight a war whose obligations include legislating ("Does the proposition really think that a state which allows refusal of food to a wife if she refuses intercourse, are in a position to govern the whole country all by themselves yet?") and whose main war aim is "lending a helping hand". However, as we have already shown, we can still provide aid in the form of military guidance and financial aid itself, whilst still exercising a military withdrawal.
But even if we were to ignore, with the opposition, all the costs associated with committing the resources and lives that we are to Afghanistan, there still remains the second line of proposition argument, which has been that the Western involvement in Afghanistan has limited possible success. We have proven that the flagging support, the failing military strategy, the fact that a state of war is not conducive to the restoration of liberty and the existence of Taliban influence in states outside Afghanistan, all indicate that the operation itself will not bring about success. The opposition side have not convincingly argued that this success is possible. Instead, they have chosen to advocate continued involvement with reference to the "collective responsibility to ensure protection and development of nations." Aside from the fact that there was no analysis to support the existence of such a responsibility, we would say that the existence of such a responsibility, binding enough to commit us to this highly costly and inefficient operation, would in turn have to commit us to a huge number of other global operations. Particularly as we suspect the opposition of including legislative development in their objectives. If we were to follow their logic through, the result would be a much greater one than simply biannual UN reports. The fact that they did not acknowledge this suggests to us that they, like us, have little actual faith in this "collective responsibility." The real flaw however, in justifying the occupation in this way, is that it would qualify piecemeal commitment. If the reasons for involvement are as it were moral ones, rather than consequentialist ones, then any involvement or 'lending of a helping hand' becomes justified, even if it does not bring about success. We have an obligation to TRY to work towards moral obligations - that is part of their nature. In matters of war, however, we do not have an obligation to embark on unsuccessful or unfeasible missions. Indeed, the expectation of success is a condition for a war to be considered a just one. In war, only success can qualify an invasion. This is why our proof that the mission as it is cannot be successful is so important: these are now WASTED resources, and our opportunity cost points here become particularly salient. The reason opposition are unfazed by the shortage of resources is because their reasons for fighting are absolute - they do not require success to have fulfilled their "responsibility."
So we see that the proposition case really amounts to two lines of argument. One has been the task of demonstrating the shortage of resources available to carry out opposition's operation. The second has been to show that this operation would be unsuccessful, even if the resources necessary to carry it out existed. This is how the substantive points we have offered work to demonstrate that WESTERN POWERS SHOULD LEAVE AFGHANISTAN.
We contest the above debate as a definition challenge on the basis of truism as the proposition has defined what the present status quo is but as a responsible opposition we still would like to give a summary.
The proposition needs to get their facts right. They ought to be aware that Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest nations which is battling a civil war for the past 30 years and where five million depend on charity for their basic nutritional needs.The very idea of proposing a withdrawal of the NATO forces from this land is completely absurd and illogical.The proposition seems heavily inclined to the presence of the Afghan forces and they propose that that the task of restoring peace and security should be given to them.How can we think of taking such a drastic action as the country as of now only has 160,000 domestic security officers out of which nearly 70% are ill equipped,inadequately trained and are also illiterate.Recently the Obama administration has mulled the expansion of the U.S.military soldiers and troops. The senators Joseph Lieberm, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, recently wrote to the White House that any further postponement of a decision to support a surge in Afghan forces will hamper U.S. efforts to quell an insurgency in its eighth year.The primary task of the western forces in the form of NATO and U.S. military troops is not only to restore the nation to normalcy but also to make it self sufficient.The International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF) establishment of provincial reconstruction teams (PRT) across the country is of key importance in this regard. The 26 PRTs, 12 of them under US leadership, construct things like roads, water canals, schools, clinics and police stations, and create projects in fields like security, education, health and management to provide technical and logistical support for development and security. An example is the Afghanistan Technical and Vocational Institute the US opened in Kabul, which is training students to meet the need for qualified workers. PRTs have completed 126 projects, with 268 still ongoing. Another 284 proposed projects are waiting in line.
Afghanistan is also plagued with the presence of Taliban which has destructed mankind in the region and has acted ruthlessly by mercilessly killing people. Hence withdrawing the support of the western troops from the region would amount to utter nonsense at this critical juncture.The proposition needs to be made aware that it is only owing to the western forces in the form of a U.S. drone attack that the chief of the Taliban Baitullah Mehsud was killed.\
The proposition claims within they do not expect Afghanistan to be self sufficient if the Western forces are deployed there. Let me tell them self sufficiency is not build on their loose expectations rather it is a continuous process which can be realized and accomplished if the people are shown their worth. Isolating Afghanistan by withdrawing the forces would be totally preposterous and would prove fatal not only for them but for the entire mankind as it would give the Taliban to breed freely and destruct the mankind.
NATO and U.S. are no fools that they are extending their support to Afghanistan even in these recession tattered times. The US has already spent $33.37 billion on rebuilding the country and now the U.S. is planning to send nearly double the existing troops of 37,000.The cost of this doesn't come easy and if such an amount is spent, it is done with a purpose guided by rationality and which is in the larger interest.The proposition has just come up with a loose statement that" Withdrawal would see military conflict fade away leaving room for the aid workers and peacekeepers to follow successfully". We wonder on what grounds is the rationality of the proposition guided as they all they just come up with this statement without an alternative.
American President Barack Obama during his election campaign himself said that said Afghanistan would be his number-one foreign policy and extending military support is of utmost importance to the welfare of a country as disintegrated and cursed as Afghanistan in which barbaric attacks in galore.
What do you think?