Afghanistan Strategy

Everyone has their favorite reason for the continue occupation of Afghanistan. I also have my explanation.

Since WWII, United States has attempted to control other country’s policies with the use of diplomacy and threats, violence, or war. Every President since FDR has threatened to use nuclear weapons at least once. United States has become more than the world’s policeman. The current phrase is “all options are on the table”. How that came about is another matter.

Of course, threats can not be used without violence or war, else the threats would not be taken seriously by the country being threatened. If the United States is defeated in a war then the threats also lack creditability.

I think, most objective observers will have to conclude that United States is unable to resolve the political conflicts in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Historically, both countries usually resolve political conflicts with violence or war and might engage in civil wars once the United States ends the occupation.

It appears to me that the policy of “declare victory and go home” that was used in Vietnam has been changed to “send in additional troops and then declare victory and go home”. Washington, D.C. hopes that this new policy will keep allow the United States to be seen as a creditable threat. A slow withdrawal of troops will allow the United States to reverse direction if a civil war in either country appears to be getting out-of-control.

I suspect Washington, D.C. has also considered the following nightmare scenario. If both Iraq’s civil war and Afghanistan’s civil war flare up at the same time, Washington, D.C. will look helpless and not a creditable threat.

In my opinion, most of Washington, D.C.’s foreign policies are poorly conceived and outdated. Eventually these follies will have to be corrected. Now you have another explanation of foreign policy. Let me know what you think.