The United States in Afghanistan

 If the United States had kept military pressure in Afghanistan they could have prevented the “inevitable” Taliban dominance over the country. After about 20 years of United States military presence in Afghanistan the Taliban has taken the country back, and it leaves many wondering if sustained US military power would have prevented this outcome. Although the United States did not officially pull out of Afghanistan until August 20, 2021, (just 4 days after the Taliban officially reclaimed Afghanistan), their military pressure was not nearly the same as it was many years ago. Many United States Citizens, although not content with the way in which the US pulled out of Afghanistan, believe that even a continued military presence would not have prevented this outcome. Peter Henne speaks on this point when he states, “I said it’s horrible that the Taliban have taken over the country, but it was also inevitable; it’s unlikely a sustained US presence would have led to any other outcome”  (Henne). While many people may agree with Henne’s statement, US military pressure could have prevented this outcome.

The United States was able to keep the Taliban at bay for most of the long 20 year span their military spent occupying the country. While the war did not seem to have a definitive end, there was no doubt that the United States presence was helping the citizens of Afghanistan. The government was able to take control of a majority of the country under the US presence. If the United States military had more available troops the military could have been more effective than keeping the military at bay. Nicholas Grossman advocates for this fact when he states, “In Afghanistan, the U.S. has had fewer than 15,000 troops since 2014, and in the year before the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban agreement, Americans were killed by hostile fire at a rate of 1.5 per month. That certainly wasn’t costless, but it was sustainable indefinitely” (Grossman). Although Grossmna does not directly claim more military pressure would have been successful, he does mention that the United States had significantly less troops occupying the country than was the case in Vietnam. Furthermore he points out that not many US troops were becoming casualties while occupying the country. Although I am not arguing whether or not the United States should have stayed in Afghanistan or not, I have no doubt that with an increased number of military troops and more military technology the United States could have prevented the “inevitable”. 

Sources Cited

Grossman, Nicholas. “Every Option in Afghanistan Was Bad.” Every Option in Afghanistan Was 

Bad - by Nicholas Grossman, Arc Digital, 18 Aug. 2021, https://www.arcdigital.media/p/every-option-in-afghanistan-was-bad?s=r. 

Henne, Peter. “Disentangling the Disaster in Afghanistan.” The Duck of Minerva, 17 Aug. 2021, 

https://www.duckofminerva.com/2021/08/disentangling-the-disaster-in-afghanistan.html.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ICC articles

When it comes to the arguments on the International Crimes Court, I think the article presented by Daniel Abebe is the most convincing to me. After reading the article presented right before it, (the article by Anne Marie Gotez), it seemed that maybe the best way to fix the problems within the ICC would be to give them more funding and allow them to give more financial aid to the victims of these war crimes. Furthermore, she said that the funding for this program had been below a million and it was not enough for the ICC to function effectively. However, after reading the article presented by Abebe it stated that since 2002, the ICC has spent over a billion dollars. If in 20 years they were able to spend this mass amount of money, then there is no way that they are being underfunded. Moreover, Abebe states that the funding for the ICC is over 100 millions dollars a year, which is an incredible quantity of money for people to be asking for more money to be pumped into the system. Abeb...
Read more

Global Justice and Nationalism

  The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy writes in brief the philosophical values and traditions regarding global justice, how it is defined by their standards, and how it is played out within other nation states. I will be focusing mainly on section 2.3, which discusses the duties of compatriots versus non-compatriots, and goes on to further understand the differences between the two, such as how state actors and non-state actors view one another and potentially interact. While most have viewed nationalism in a positive light, nationalism goes beyond respect for national sovereignty, this ideology can perpetuate negative attitudes towards other countries and sometimes even make one states citizens seem morally superior than another citizen who is belonging to another state (Gillian, 2015). There is a debate among egalitarian theorists discussing whether or not concerns with equality should be confined to state members or be granted to every individually globally (Gillian, 2015). ...
Read more

The United States and the World Trade Organization

     Recently there has been large debates regarding the implications regarding the possibility of the United States potentially pulling out of the World Trade Organization. While some politicians and economists supported this idea and have argued that it would be beneficial for the US to leave this organization, the US would have to face some serious consequences that would be hard to bounce back from, not only domestically, but globally since other countries could potentially be positively affected if this deal were to go into effect. The debate is still ongoing, but the consequences and risks of this action, especially during an economic crisis from the covid-19 pandemic, are too great to ignore and continue to be in pursuit of departing from the World Trade Organization.       There are several strong arguments that support my claims that leaving would present more bad than good. First, the US being involved in the world trade organization adds gre...
Read more