...(whatever that means) it would first be necessary to win the hearts and minds of the people -- the American people. Let's face it: from the beginning, the public has never been on board with this war. But as long as somebody else's kid did the fighting and no one had to pay for it, the attitude of the American public has been, "War? Yeah, sure. Whatever." Without having to sacrifice in any way, it's been easy to tune it out, especially after the U. S. invaded Iraq. Absent a draft and/or a tax to pay for the war, it's been hard for the average American to take the effort seriously. Putting a SUPPORT THE TROOPS magnet on the back of your SUV just doesn't demonstrate much of a commitment. Seeing your neighbors' kid come home in a body bag or actually paying for it does.
The president should re-open the debate. (Or open it for the first time.) Why are we in Afghanistan again? What are our objectives there? What exactly would "victory" look like? How long will it take? How much will it cost? And how many American lives must be lost in the effort? Is this something that we really want to do?
David Gregory had a few guests on Meet the Press yesterday who were experts on the subjects of Afghanistan and/or warfare. (They all were for continuing the effort.) I don't pretend to be well-versed in either. But I do know that it's extremely difficult to conduct a war in America without broad public support. And right now, the war doesn't have it. I think you'd be very hard pressed to find many "average Americans" who could answer the questions in the preceding paragraph.
The experts yesterday said that the counterinsurgency strategy currently being pursued in Afghanistan would take at least another ten years. Would the public really be up for that kind of commitment? Really?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment