9/11: four years after

U.S. Considering Troop Reduction In Afghanistan Move Next Year Would Hinge on NATO By Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A26

I apologize for not having written anything during the past two weeks, but with the semester beginning once again, I have not had much time for anything.

This past Sunday marked the fourth year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Four years ago, the fighting 69th was charged with guarding the smoldering remains of one of the greatest symbols of our power. This past week, right before the fourth year anniversary of those attacks, the fighting 69th returned from their one year tour of duty in Iraq. On September 11, 2001 we were attack by the al Qaeda organization, based out of Afghanistan, in October of that year we sent our men and women into combat to remove the Taliban from power and to kill or capture the leaders of the plot that had killed over 2500 Americans. Four years since, we have yet to fulfill many of the promises we made to the Afghan people, we have yet to destroy the Taliban guerrilla, and have yet to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or Ayman Az Zawahiri. In fact, even as we remembered those who fell on that sunny september morning, ABC released a video from Adam Gadahn (an American al Qaeda member) threatening attacks on Los Angeles and Melbourne, Australia. In that video, Gadahn also extolls al Qaeda's exploits in Europe, and celebrates those who carried out the metro attacks in both Madrid and London. Furthermore, al Qaeda cells have spread all throughout the Muslim world and Europe, and one must assume America as well, and yet, rather than press on with the offensive to kill or capture the remnants of the al Qaeda leadership, currently thought to be hiding in the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, we announce that we are considering troop reductions in Afghanistan? Does it make sense to withdraw from the one country that borders the Pakistani NWFP, where we think al Qaeda is hiding and planning for future attacks against us? This even as "intensified fighting in Afghanistan this year has killed more than 50 Americans, the highest death toll in any year since the troops arrived." Obviously, the threat is still present in the country and yet, while NATO discusses plans to increase its troop levels in Afghanistan we discuss plans to withdraw 4,000 of our 20,000 troops from the country.

In the story we are also told that "U.S. troops have so far borne the brunt of the fight with Taliban insurgents, whose strongholds are in remote parts of the south and the rugged hills of eastern provinces bordering Pakistan," and that this has been partly a result of NATO "member countries that have been reluctant to put their troops into combat as opposed to the less risky job of peacekeeping in relatively secure areas." While this might be seen as an attempt by the administration to widen the role of NATO outside of Europe, it is troubling that we would devolve our duty to bring "our enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies" as the President so famously put it, to someone else.

According to the story our Ambassador to Afghanistan has said that U.S. forces will continue to provide airlift, intelligence and other logistical assistance to NATO allies and that "NATO is not a question of providing some excuse for us to quit the mission early." Still, reducing our presence in Afghanistan feels exactly like that, like we are more interested or preoccupied with other matters, to devote much time to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

The ambassador also states that "under a longer-term alliance plan that envisions NATO taking command of Afghanistan's eastern sector, U.S. ground forces would continue to play the lead role there," however that role is not specified. In light of the many things coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, including stories of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by al Qaeda to track Pakistani troop movements, you would think we would be worried enough that we would want to engage the enemy more fully. Afghanistan, even more than Iraq, is where our focus should be. While I do not believe we should leave Iraq until we have accomplished our mission, I also believe that part of our greater mission lies in ensuring the future of the Afghan state. Unless we do so, we will have failed the memory of those we pledged to avenge. Our vengeance against al Qaeda is not only ensuring that they are brought to justice, one way or another, but also ensuring that the future of Islam and the Arab world is different than the one they sought to bring about through thier mass casualty attacks. A muslim world that is more tolerant, peaceful and open to globalization and its benefits would hurt bin Laden more than his own death. While we still have much work to do in Iraq, we must always remember that al Qaeda is not based there. It is, and has been based in Afghanistan and Pakistan since before the 9/11 attacks. We cannot forget that, we have to keep our focus on the goal we set ourselves four years ago. Iraq, is important, but Afghanistan is doubly so.

UPDATE

Allies rule out bigger Afghan role Richard Norton-Taylor and agencies Thursday September 15, 2005 The Guardian

Apparently the Europeans got cold feet at the last minute on expanding their mission in Afghanistan. Nothing like hearing from US government officials that if NATO expands its mission, the US will reduce its own troop levels to make a new committment appealing. As stated above, this undermines what we are trying to do in Afghanistan (i.e. create secure conditions so that Afghans can establish a more representative government than what they had under the Taliban). It also smacks of abandoning our mission before that mission is done (think President Bush in an aircraft carrier with a banner in the background reading "Mission Accomplished," at this pace and with the strategies pursued by this administration, not likely.