Connect with us on Facebook!
Subscribe.
Follow us on Twitter!
Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!There is a debate on whether the US should rely on long-term counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or engage in counter-terror operations in Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries, following the moving targets of al-Qaeda (reference below).
I guess it’s a tough call. Yes, money is tight. But I wonder which one would be better, between cleaning up countries one by one starting from Afghanistan vs. moving around different countries following targets like vagabond. Always, I tend to favor long-term measure over short-term one.
Michael O’Hanlon states, “on Pakistan, Obama has more than doubled U.S. aid, solidly backed Pakistan’s democracy, and intensified the drone strikes that the Bush Administration …” in “Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam”, his contribution to Politico. I have more faith in this kind of more fundamental, comprehensive treatments to the root causes of terrorism in Afghanistan than temporary, shallow cosmetic one. People prone to terrorism when their lives are harsh, have nothing to live for. Helping to stabilize their society politically and economically is the way of eliminating the root cause of terrorism. When people have jobs and food and become busy with their own lives, they forget about bombing invisible enemies.
Published January 2, 2010 by Mikyung Lim |
Permalink
| Tags:
Afghanistan
Barack Obama
Foreign Policy
Military
Politics
Public Policy
War
