Researching of Crisis in Afghanistan

After the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan, the U.S. evacuated the Americans by Aug. 31. The mission was complicated by difficulties at the airport, caused by a sizeable local population wanting to escape from the new governments control. Although the Taliban regime had already been overthrown 20 years earlier with U.S. military support, the collapse of the government happened quickly.

It is important to note that the Biden administration claims an international agreement with Taliban representatives to allow the United States to remove its citizens from Afghanistan safely. Nevertheless, there are reports of Americans being delayed at the airport, which Biden is prepared to deal with. More than 30,000 Americans have already been evacuated when this article was published, and 11,000 more in the last 24 hours. Several large commercial aircraft and civilian aircraft have been mobilized on a mission to transport citizens from temporary shelters to their home countries.

The rapid change in power in Afghanistan came as a surprise event. Many politicians were not prepared for it, so Washington is skeptical of what the new authorities are saying despite the Taliban promising to leave civilians alone and protect rights. Sullivan stated that the U.S. does not plan to trust the Taliban but will closely monitor and review the new governments actions to ensure they do not violate human rights.

The reason for this tragedy was the disorganization of the Afghan military. It was caused by the desertion of many soldiers, the lack of motivation, and the lack of morale in the army. In addition, the support of the Taliban by some states such as China, Iran, and Russia also weakened the effectiveness of the Afghan military. Biden believes the decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan is correct because he does not understand the rationale for keeping soldiers in another country.

The president says that the United States accomplished its task 20 years ago by bringing bin Laden to trial and protecting Afghanistan from a terrorist takeover. Biden has also explained that he believes it is necessary to shift the U.S. course to fighting terrorist groups worldwide rather than leaving it to the war in Afghanistan. Even though the presidents rating has fallen due to the chaotic withdrawal of troops, Biden argues that criticism is appropriate after the end of the operation, and now it is necessary to focus on the work.

Operation «Anaconda» in Afghanistan

Introduction

The first year after the fall of the Taliban regime passed quietly in Afghanistan. The only notable military event was the battle in the Shahi-Kot Valley (Gardez district), where the Taliban forces retreated from Kabul and Tora Bora. In March 2002, the troops of the international coalition conducted Operation Anaconda in the valley. The Taliban resistance turned out to be much stronger than expected, and the operation became the largest battle since the beginning of the war. Thus, the Kugler case tells about the memoirs of the American soldier Tommy Franks. During Operation Anaconda, the soldiers followed the 7 principles of mission command.

Discussion

Operation Anaconda was conducted from March 2 to March 18, 2002. Soldiers must constantly develop competence through institutional education, as this is the first principle of a command mission. Due to sufficient competence in their field, American soldiers decided to use the hammer and anvil plan. (Caruso, 2019).

Serious miscalculations were made at the planning stage of the operation. Lacking adequate intelligence, the American command in Afghanistan considered that the enemy would not offer serious resistance, and the operation would be completed easily and quickly. Competence does not matter without mutual trust and shared understanding between soldiers and the commander. So, for example, when the plan was undermined during the battle, the American military had to improvise and take urgent action – this would be impossible without trusting the commander. The clear commander’s intent allows the soldiers to be inspired and follow him unconditionally.

Already on the first day of the operation, when intelligence miscalculations became apparent, the number of troops had to be increased by attracting additional units. Several hundred soldiers and officers were additionally transferred by helicopters. Consequently, the principle of the mission orders worked successfully (Kugler, 2018). Only the next day, in the northern part of the valley, where the fire was not so strong, the second wave of the landing force of 200 people was able to land. In addition to small arms, they had several 81 and 120 mm mortars (Caruso, 2019). The fighters who survived the helicopter crash and gained a foothold at the top had a critical situation. The enemy made more and more attempts to kill or capture the Americans. Consequently, the commanders took risks – which is the principle of risk acceptance and disciplined initiative. Regardless of the losses, the fanatically minded Taliban repeatedly rose up in attacks. It was possible to repel them only thanks to air support.

It is safe to say that the united forces of the “anti-terrorist coalition” have not been able to achieve any other success, apart from ousting the militants from the Shahi-Kot valley. To consider this a victory is only a stretch, especially since this “victory” came at a very high price (Greentree, 2021). Many leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda movement, who were hiding in caves in the vicinity of Shahi-Kot, managed to escape. This was confirmed by the interception of a convoy consisting of three cross-country vehicles.

Conclusion

After the completion of Operation Anaconda, the American military leadership drew the appropriate conclusions. Much attention was paid to improving the coordination of joint actions between different branches of the armed forces and communication between them. Despite some errors, Operation Anaconda was completed successfully. This operation was a test of compliance with all seven principles of command. Consequently, all the principles were followed and used.

References

Greentree, T. (2021). What Went Wrong in Afghanistan? The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 51(4), 7-22. Web.

Caruso, D. (2019). Operation Anaconda. The Oral History Review, 39(2), 334-336. Web.

Kugler, R. L. (2018). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: a case study of adaptation in battle. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV WASHINGTON DC CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

Why U.S. Troops Should Stay in Afghanistan

Since the bombing of the U.S embassies in Kenya, Tanzania and the terror attacks on the U.S in 1999, Al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden are names that rekindle the bitter memories. Consequently, the U.S, Britain, and NATO combined forces to dismantle and eliminate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which is the base of terror groups.

Fortunately, in May 2011 the U.S intelligence service was able to gun down the leader and financier of Al Qaeda. Therefore, although Osama bin Laden is dead, his roots and doctrines on holy war still live especially in his followers. Due to the temptation of revenge from his followers, the U.S should keep its troops in Afghanistan.

Due to expulsion from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Pakistan, Osama bin Laden landed in Afghanistan where he financed and spread his expertise on terrorism. Furthermore, he assisted the growth of Taliban in Afghanistan. Sadly, his attacks on the U.S disrupted the world peace branding him the ‘most wanted man’.

In 2001, forces from both the Britain and the U.S decided to fight and dismantle his Al Qaeda group. Due to technology and wits, they were not able to nail him down. At the same time, he was fighting back by bombing passenger trains in the West and the U.S embassies in other African states.

Luckily, early May 2011 was the turning point for the U.S after their intelligence service was able to gun him down. Consequently, Osama’s death led to celebration allover the world especially in the West. Although Osama is a fallen leader, his legacy still lives among his followers.

The living legacy of Osama should send fears in the nerves of the U.S government. Due to the death of Osama, the Islamic groups in the south Asia especially the Al Qaeda groups will strive to hit back at the U.S. and incase the Al Qaeda group revenge Osama’s death many Americans are yet to lose their lives.

To stop the revenge, America should watch closely the movement of the Al Qaeda groups. They should strive to dismantle and jail the members of the group, who are widespread in Asia. Therefore, to secure the lives of Americans, the peace keeping forces in Afghanistan should stay there for sometime and fight the other terrorists.

In addition, the army forces in the West especially America should remain alert because the Al Qaeda group might hit at anytime soon. Thus, the withdrawal of the U.S army from Afghanistan will lead to a disastrous end but if they stay, they might instill fear in the Al Qaeda troupes and hinder them from attacking the west. Finally, I state categorically that the U.S armies should continue keeping surveillance on the Al Qaeda group in Afghanistan.

In summary, Afghanistan is the home of Al Qaeda terrorist group with Osama bin Laden as their leader until last month when he was gunned down by the US forces. With the help of Osama, the group has killed so many people especially the Americans. Therefore, America opted to fight the group, which has led to the recent killing of Osama.

Although the death of Osama seems like a breakthrough in America, his doctrines are alive and his followers might plan to revenge the death of their leader. Finally, the U.S army troops should stay in Afghanistan and not only monitor the group but also ensure the security of American citizens.

What the U.S. Should Do in Afghanistan

Introduction

Terrorism is certainly one of the greatest threats to international security, peace, and stability. It is one of the main challenges facing the international community since the end of Cold War, which threatened to plunge countries back to devastating warfare like First and Second World Wars. Consequently, the international community, led by the world’s dominant power, the USA, and its allies has staged a serious war against terrorism (Bergen and Gelb Para. 4).

The menace of terrorism has forced the U.S, and its allies, to step up the fight against terrorism by sending military expeditions and intelligence personnel to countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. These countries are believed to be the operational bases from where terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Taliban plan and execute their heinous acts.

There has been an important and at the same time, an interesting debate, on what the U.S should do in Afghanistan after ten years of military action against Taliban and other terrorist outfits. While the US government appears to be convinced that appropriate time to leave Afghanistan has not come, some commentators, foreign policy experts, a considerable section of the media, and a considerable number of scholars propose that the U.S should leave Afghanistan now.

Nevertheless, the US should continue with its mission in Afghanistan until such a time when it will be convinced that terrorist groups are not in control of Afghanistan and do not have chances of re-seizing power from civilians and a legitimate Afghan government in the future.

What the U.S should do in Afghanistan

The U.S and its allies are the main target of the madness of hatred perpetrated by terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Taliban. Unfortunately, more innocent and poor people have lost their lives and thousands have been wounded severely as terrorists attack with an aim of killing Americans and citizens from its allied countries, especially the Britain.

For example, during the 1998, Al Qaeda bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar el Salaam, Tanzania, at the American embassies in those two countries, hundreds of non-American Kenyan and Tanzanian citizens died and thousands incurred life-threatening injuries (Daily Nation Para.6). From a foreign policy point of view, as well as the need to maintain international peace and security, there are sound reasons that back the continued stay of the US and its allies’ military troops in Afghanistan.

First, the Taliban insurgency, which is, essentially, a misogynist group of ignorant, chauvinistic, and intolerant gangsters if left unrestrained, will provide a safe ground from which al-Qaeda will plan to execute their wicked deeds against innocent, unarmed civilians especially the Americans (Bergen and Gelb Para.4).

Therefore, the Afghan War is a war that is worth fighting and important to protection of not only Americans and their properties, but also other people within the international community who easily get hurt by terrorists’ unjustified violent acts directed towards the US and its allies. Second, an unrestrained Taliban can now easily take over control of Afghanistan’s eastern and southern regions and possibly the entire country in the absence of the U.S and the international military forces.

This line of argument is anchored on the fact that, the Afghan government and its ninety thousands-men army are very weak to withstand a serious rebellious challenge from Taliban’s fighters, a reality that is also acknowledged by some Afghan senior government officials. It is hard to win the fight against terrorism overnight. The Taliban outfit in Afghanistan, with the material support from anti-American elements in Pakistan, is strong and calls for plausible strategy to tackle.

The ability of an enemy to fight back harder is not necessarily an indication that the important war against the menace of terrorism and anarchy in Afghanistan is unwinnable. In fact, it is safe to argue that, the U.S military forces and allies continued stay in the south East Asian region coupled with intensified intelligence has started to bear fruits in the war against terrorism.

Following the victorious killing of al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, in one of the most magnificent manhunt story in contemporary history of humanity testifies of the fruits of the war against terrorism (Klein Para. 12). Thirdly, the available evidence shows that, Afghans, especially the unarmed peace-loving ones, favor the U.S military presence in their country.

For example, an opinion poll conducted by the BBC in 2009 showed that, over sixty-three percent of Afghans favored the U.S military presence in Afghanistan. Therefore, the U.S should continue intensifying the fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda while at the same time assisting the Afghan government and its army to strengthen itself in preparation for unavoidable future governance challenges.

Afghanistan is in a turbulent transition period, which is accompanied by many socio-economic and political challenges that can be a serious impediment to peace in not only Afghanistan, but also in the whole of South East Asia and to a successful fight against terrorism.

Abrupt departure of the US and international military forces would open up Afghanistan to the reappearance of renewed Taliban military campaigns. Most probably, the al-Qaeda would like to revenge by killing more Americans because of the premature death of their leader, Osama bin Laden, in early May this year.

The dialogue method is crucial in persuading the Taliban to end military campaigns and accept the constitution; nevertheless, the role of a competent and reliable third party in sealing of any possible peace deal, now and in future, cannot be underestimated.

Right now, it is dangerous to give in to Taliban promises that an exit of the Western troops will make them end their unjustified military campaigns. Furthermore, entertaining the thought of sharing power with an illegal armed band that can hardly uphold any single article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is tantamount to throwing basic human rights of the poor innocent Afghans to dogs (Foley and Oates Para.16).

Therefore, the U.S should continue with its mission to Afghanistan and even consider approving the 2009 proposal by President Obama’s administration to increase military troops in Afghanistan (Bergen and Gelb Para.15).

In any case, Obama is concerned that he would be blamed in case of a terrorist attack following a quick withdrawal of the US military troops at this moment when all is clear that Al-Qaeda might revenge, the unceremonial death and burial of Osama, by killing more Americans (Bergen and Gelb Para.17).

The US and her allies should then continue to watch vigilantly for any possible terrorist attacks while in Afghanistan while at the same time create an environment that is conducive to meaningful negotiations that involve relevant global actors like the United Nations among others (Atal Para.19).

In short, the US and its allies should take more time to put in place any possible measures that can help Afghanistan people transit into a peaceful country capable of undertaking sustainable nation building processes without dangers of slipping back into anarchy through Taliban control.

Given that a considerable percentage of Afghans, as indicated by recent news opinion polls, favor the US military presence in their country, it is arguable that the majority will not ready to tolerate ‘Stone Age’ governance styles of the Taliban any more (Foley and Oates Para.6).

The benefits won so far from the U.S and allies’ intervention in Afghanistan especially with regard to safeguarding rights of women and girls, should be safeguarded to the bitter end, regardless of the cost in terms of financial resources. The benefits are an indication that the war against Taliban, and by extension terrorism, is winnable.

Currently, even though women and girls continue to languish in dehumanizing conditions, hundreds of thousands of women and girls are in school; therefore, there is hope for an even a brighter future for them. Their slow but sure emancipation from the largely patriarchal and unjust domination by men, under Taliban control, should be the beacon of hope that the fight against the Taliban is winnable in the near future (Foley and Oates Para.6).

The US should, therefore, complete the work of assisting Afghans repossess their country from Taliban, and spearhead the fight against terrorism by destabilizing terrorist hideouts and safe havens in South East Asian countries. The US must appreciate the fact that, they came to finish that fight irrespective of the unavoidable challenges that have come their way and will continue to emerge in the future.

Conclusion

In a recap, the US should continue with its mission of stumping out the Taliban from Afghanistan by putting in place measures that will minimize chances of Afghans slipping back to anarchy. The achievements realized so far, like assisting Afghans to elect a government and give the majority of women and girls their dignity and integrity, should be the beacon of the hope that the US and its allies will defeat Taliban and terrorism in the end.

Works Cited

Atal, Subodh. “At a Crossroads in Afghanistan: Should the United States Be Engaged in Nation Building?” CATO Institute, 2003. Web.

Bergen, Peter, and Gelb, Leslie. “Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan.” Time, 2009. Web.

Daily Nation. , 2011. Web.

Foley, Conor, and Oates, Lauryn. “The Guardian, 2008. Web.

Klein, Kent. “Obama Announces Death of Osama bin Laden.” Voice of America, 2011. Web.

The Use of Force Against Afghanistan by the U.S.

Introduction

The war in Afghanistan has been discussed for several years to determine whether the use of force was just according to the just war theory. The United Nations defined and set the standards for a just war at Nuremberg. The standards of a just war are remunerated and explained in articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations charter (Byers 2007).

According to the UN charter, the seven principles of a just war include a just cause, adherence to international law, success should be possible, the means of combat must be proportionate to the desired results, it should be the last resort after failure of other conflict resolution means, and the war must have been proclaimed by a lawful authority.

The use of force by the U.S. was just under the just war theory because it was executed for self-defense and elimination of a terrorist threat that was difficult to combat.

The just war theory

The main reason why the U.S waged war on Afghanistan in 2001 was because of the 9/11 attack that led to the demise of many Americans. The war had a just cause because the U.S government was protecting its citizens by combating acts of terrorism that were threatening to violate the human rights of Americans and destabilize their lives (Byers 2007).

The intention of waging the war was to eradicate the threat of international terrorism that Al-Qaeda posed through their attacks. It is illegal for a sovereign state to attack a non-state entity through combat as was the case with Al-Qaeda. However, the war was inevitable because the terror group had infiltrated the leadership of Taliban and posed great threats to American security (Duffy 2005).

In addition, the Afghan government had failed to stop the activities of the group. The U.S acted in self-defense. A state is considered to be involved in terrorism if a terrorist group comprises one of its organs, if the state tolerates terrorist activities, if the state supports the activities of the group or if the state is unable to address the problem of terrorism within its borders (Gazzini 2006).

The Afghan government was unable to stop the activities of Al-Qaeda and therefore the U.S. had to intervene (Duffy 2005). The United States used forced out of necessity because the local government had exhausted all means of combat and had not succeeded in stopping the group.

Another requirement of the just war theory is the use of force that is proportionate to the outcome desired. The use of massive force against Afghanistan was imperative because the terrorist groups were very strong to combat and were receiving support from the government (Gazzini 2006). Force was used in order to avoid the risks of further attacks that the terror group was planning to launch.

Moreover, excessive force was used from the perspective of self-defense because of the risk of potential future attacks against the U.S. The 9/11 attack and threats of further attacks necessitated the use of force in order to annihilate the activities of the group completely.

The use of excessive force can be supported by using the argument of self-defense that is allowed as a reason to wage war by the United Nations Security council (Tams 2009). Terrorism is hard to curb because its consequences are irreversible, instantaneous, unexpected, severe, and sophisticated. The uncertainty of attacks makes it difficult to counter terrorists when executing their plans.

The United States government’s strategy to stop terrorism involves identifying and stopping terrorists during the planning and preparation stages (The National Strategy of the United States of America 2002). The U.S. used excessive force to stop the plans and preparations of Al-Qaeda before they launched attacks. It would have been against the right of the U.S. to protect itself by ruling out the use of massive force during combat.

The government had identified Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group that was determined to launch attacks and destabilize its homeland security as well as the safety of its people.

The use of vigorous efforts is one of the strategies that the United States government vowed to sue to combat terrorism in 2002 (The National Strategy of the United States of America 2002). The proportionality of the force used was legitimate because it was aimed at eradicating a terrorist threat (Gardam 2004).

Conclusion

The use of force against Afghanistan by the United States in 20001 was just under the just war theory. The U.S was acting in self-defense and chose to use force after the Afghan government failed to stop Al-Qaeda. The use of force was inevitable because the right of a state to defend itself necessitates the use of any means possible to achieve the objective.

Al-Qaeda had infiltrated the leadership of Taliban and was a threat to the security of the United States. The use of force was inevitable because Al-Qaeda’s attacks are unpredictable, massive, and severe. It was necessary to use any means possible to stop them and destroy their network in Afghanistan.

References

Byers, M 2007, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict, Grove/Atlantic, Inc., New York.

Duffy, H 2005, The War on Terror and the Framework of International law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gardam, J 2004, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gazzini, T 2006, The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Tams, C. J, 2009, “The Use of Force against Terrorists”, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 359-397.

The National Strategy of the United States of America 2002, .

The US Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan

Proponents of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars argue that the military objectives underlying the US involvement in the wars were achieved despite some scholarly criticisms that claim otherwise (Sharp 3). President Georg W. Bush emphatically empowered his war chiefs along with the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair with the objectives to embark on war with Iraq to root out terrorism, remove Saddam Hussein from power, deliver humanitarian aid, and destroy the weapons of mass destruction as the underlying objectives in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the underlying objectives. Sharp argues that the objectives of the American war in Afghanistan were contextualized in the fight against terrorism and the promotion of democracy after the 9/11 events (8).

In the case of Iraq, critics fault the United States for its reliance on faulty evidence to conduct the war despite acting under the umbrella of the UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 that had been adopted in 2002 by the 15 member countries.

Cooley and Ron’s discourse of the results of the war demonstrate lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction, negating the reliability of the evidence that led to the drums of war (19). However, a significant number of objectives that underpinned the Iraq war were achieved, but the overall objective of making the world a safer place to live in after the toppling of the Baath party and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State terrorists attest to the contrary.

The United States and other countries including the UK learnt hard lessons of going to war on false evidence in Iraq (Scahill and Greenwald 11). It is evident that the ISiS stemmed from the desire to create a democratic regime in Iraq, which turned out to be false. Fleeing Iraq armies were the potential sources of weapons for the pseudo terrorist army of the Islamic State. That has also led to the radicalization of the people in Iraq and other Middle East nations. The CIA was discredited, the war divided the Americans, the war was misplaced, and the entire country was pervaded with the negative effects of the war.

Phillips focused their discussion on Afghanistan as a battle ground for the US vs. Al-Qaida for a long time (11). The military operations in the country have been conducted by NATO and other coalition partners under the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the stabilization strategies. The coalition partners and NATO with their overwhelming military force have managed to destroy al Qaeda.

The Americans’ learning points include the fact that war alone cannot be used as an instrument to win war, but additional factors need to be accounted for when waging war. It is evident that insurgents need to be integrated into the peace process, a matter that surfaced during the January 2010 London Conference. In most cases, surrendering insurgents need to be provided with jobs and other sources of income despite the poor indicators of democracy due to the deterioration of security and weak institutions.

Besides, the Americans need to learn the language and culture of the people in Afghanistan to solve intelligence problems to ensure the rule of law, security, and injustice. In conclusion, the war in Afghanistan has been rewarding in the context of destroying the powers of the terrorist groups despite insurgencies occurring quite often.

Works Cited

Cooley, Alexander, and James Ron. “The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action.” International Security 27.1 (2002): 5-39. Print.

Phillips, David L. Losing Iraq: Inside the postwar reconstruction fiasco. Basic Books, 2014. Print.

Scahill, Jeremy, and Glenn Greenwald. “The NSA’s secret role in the US assassination program.” The Intercept 10 (2014). Print.

Sharp, Jeremy M. Jordan: Background and US Relations. DIANE Publishing, 2014. Print.

Why the U.S. Should Withdraw From Afghanistan?

Attention

On April 14, 2021, US President Joe Biden announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. According to Biden, “with the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at the cost of billions each year makes little sense” (The United States Government, 2021). In addition, recent research has found that the 20-year long war in Afghanistan is not only the longest but one of the most expensive, with $2.26 trillion spent on military needs. The costs are enormous and impossible to ignore, whereas the actual results regarding terrorism prevention and safety provision are challenging to measure. In many cases, people even tend to believe that presence of US troops in Afghanistan destabilizes the fragile situation in the region instead of bringing positive change and safety.

The decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is extremely controversial as there are many who support it and there are those who strongly disagree. Significant military expenditures make the controversial issue even more complicated and ambiguous. Opposing sides bring strong arguments in favor and against troop withdrawal. I conducted my own research to evaluate advantages and disadvantages and to choose a side.

Need

According to some studies from 2009, US troop presence in Afghanistan did not lead to an improvement of living standards in the area. It is stated that by 2009 Afghanistan was in the same state as it was in 2001. Afghanistan citizens were provided with low living standards, and corrupt governments were dysfunctional and not effective, while ordinary people were systematically oppressed. US presence for a decade may not have resulted in positive change by 2009. Another decade later and trillions of United States dollars spent, the region’s social, economic, and political situation did not improve (Ward, 2021). These criteria may not appear suitable for goals persuaded during the Afghanistan war. The military operation was conducted in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. However, if making a change is not the main purpose of war in Afghanistan, and there is no concrete, achievable goal, the operation may last forever.

As already mentioned, various studies assess military expenditure related to Afghanistan to exceed $2 trillion. Big military budgets were also devoted to other post-9/11 wars, including wars in Iraq and Syria. It may not seem to be important for an ordinary citizen, yet it represents a significant item of expenditure for all taxpayers. According to “Estimated Cost to Each Taxpayer for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” provided by the Department of Defence, such international conflicts cost a total of $7,623 per taxpayer (Crawford, 2019). Therefore, the war in Afghanistan does not only influence the economy of the United States but also has an impact on the financial health of every US citizen. Considering the fact that no visible results were achieved during the conflict, US military presence in the area becomes even more questionable.

Moreover, there are only 2500 troops in Afghanistan at the moment. It may be hard to determine if 2500 troops are able to prevent acts of terrorism and maintain stability in the region. Therefore, there are even less rational reasons to prolong their presence in the area. If the provided military force is not sufficient to make a change, it should be either reinforced or withdrawn. Finally, there already is an agreement between the US and Afghanistan concluded by Donald Trump. Violation of the agreement may lead to irreversible deterioration of relations with Afghanistan governments and particularly the Taliban.

Satisfaction

It may be necessary to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan in order to end the longest war in the history of America. The decision obviously contains significant risks related to various aspects. Nevertheless, these risks may be overestimated in some cases and inevitable regardless of the decision in others. The main threat is related to terrorist activity, which may increase after the withdrawal of troops, and with no presence in the area, it may be impossible for the US to prevent the harm. Nonetheless, realistically speaking, it is hard to believe that the US military force in Afghanistan is sufficient to prevent acts of terrorism at the moment. Why would it dramatically change after withdrawal? Furthermore, as technology developed and the world transformed during the last two decades, terrorism changed too. It may not be possible to fight terrorism with the same methods as before. Digital communications are becoming more relevant, and terrorist organizations are becoming more decentralized. Consequently, the primary purpose of US presence in Afghanistan becomes even less rational.

Another significant risk is associated with possible civil war. However, US troops may not represent a deterrent against such consequences. Overall, possible risks linked to the withdrawal of troops may not be as essential as they are presented by the media.

Visualization

Can you imagine the possible positive consequences of the end of the war? Troop withdrawal from Afghanistan may contribute to the reduction of unnecessary military costs. It may allow Afghanistan to pursue its own way and provide 38 million Afghans with an opportunity to choose their future freely. Unleashed financial and military resources may be utilized to resolve more relevant international and domestic issues.

As I mentioned, the world is changing at rapid rates. Unfortunately, transformation affects not only primary aspects of everyday life but also such complicated issues as terrorist threats. Withdrawal of troops may bring broader acknowledgment of a new digital paradigm of terrorist activity. It may also provide needed financial resources to reduce the danger. There are significant social and economic domestic problems in the US. Pandemic restrictions negatively affected our society on diverse levels. By bringing an end to twenty years of relatively unsuccessful war, the government may be able to obtain more time and resources to address these domestic problems.

The decision may also positively affect Afghanistan and its citizens. Even though the withdrawal of troops may lead to destabilization and activation of opposing political forces, it may be crucial to provide Afghans with autonomy and independence after twenty years of occupation. Finally, staying in Afghanistan and violating the agreement may provoke a larger military conflict. Continuing the war will give rise to military costs and result in even more devastation and misery towards Afghanistan citizens.

Action

Biden stated that he is “the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan” and he “will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth” (The United States Government, 2021). The issue served as a cause of dispute for decades, and it, indeed, needs to be solved. Even though everyone is entitled to their opinions, it may be crucial to consider and acknowledge the opposing perspective not to let the problem divide our society. By adequately evaluating the governmental decision, we may be able to make the best use of the situation.

References

Crawford, N. C. (2019). United States budgetary costs and obligations of post-9/11 wars through FY2020: $6.4 trillion. Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, 13.

The United States Government. (2021). The White House. Web.

Ward, A. (2021). Vox. Web.

Private Security Contractors in Iraq & Afghanistan

Introduction

In recent years, a prominent feature in most global conflicts has been the increasing role played by non-state actors alongside the conventional armed forces.

While available literature reveals that private actors have maintained high presence on battlefields throughout history, modern private military and security entities embody the corporate evolution of the profession of mercenaries, to the point where these multinational corporations are now offering services that are intricately linked to warfare (Perry, 2012, p. 41).

In 2010, for example, the US Department of Defence (DoD) had more private workforce operating in both Iraq and Afghanistan than the military personnel deployed (Taylor, 2011, p. 445). Overall, it can be argued that these private companies are today, more than ever, playing an increasingly significant role in executing all facets of American national security strategy in countries perceived to harbor threats to global peace and stability.

The debate on the merits and demerits of having private security contractors take over many of the roles and functions. These roles were traditionally reserved for the armed forces have been going on for a long time.

Particularly in regards to the armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, this paper argues that it is desirable to use these contractors because first; It is through them that the efforts to achieve world peace and stability have become more realistic and valuable.

Secondly, counterterrorism is appropriate because these terrorist attacks may bring the countries down if such activities are not anticipated and any signs of attack well monitored; this is only possible when personnel in this role are increased.

Third, when the numbers of those in the defense are increased; defense becomes more effective and the cost is lower in comparison to the addition of more personnel from the Department of Defense only. Therefore, the use of private security contractors has been desirable because it has improved the welfare of people.

Brief Overview of the Origins of Private Security Contractors

It is reported in the literature that a global market for private security contractors blossomed in the 1990s (Avant & Sigelman, 2010, p. 232). It was triggered, primarily by what many war historians saw as an escalation of global insecurity and a corresponding disinterest by many state actors to send their military personnel to conflict hotspots in Iraq and beyond (Taylor, 2011, p. 448).

According to Avant & Sigelman (2010), it is at this juncture when “…private military and security companies registered in many different countries began providing services to an array of international actors, including states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and global corporations” (p. 232).

The scope and capacities of this evolving market of private security contractors have become copiously evident during the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (Avant & Sigelman, 2010, p 232).

In 2007, however, a Congressional Budget Office Report revealed that the number of private contractors working for the U.S. in Iraq had surged to one hundred ninety thousand, primarily due to the over stretching of U.S. military forces by the conflicts and anarchy that caused the outstaring of Saddam Hussein (Avant & Sigelman, 2010, p. 233).

Overall, the number of private security personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 soared to at least two hundred forty-five thousand, demonstrating that the profession of contemporary private security contracting had fully come to term (Perry, 2012, p. 401).

Insights into the Desirability of Private Security Contracting

Armed private contractors with the capacity to employ lethal force on an organized basis have attracted attention. The debate on their viability and functionality still remains divided along rational and irrational paradigms, and the public mood in affected countries appearing to gravitate towards a total dislike of these establishments.

However, the following arguments seek to reinforce the fact that the use of private security contractors is desirable in contemporary settings (Taylor, 2011, p. 446).

Private security contractors have contributed to improved world peace and stability

The private personnel were charged with the responsibility of protecting government installations and oil fields, providing security to foreign professionals working in Iraq, and bolstering staffing in military prisons. This share of activities was extended to the private contractors after the number of military personnel in US reduced the cold war.

The intervention was a crucial step towards the successful completion of this war as well as the introduction of long term measures towards conquering through the complete package that they provided (Taylor, 2011, p. 446).

Although stakeholders are becoming increasingly concerned about the transparency, accountability, behavior, and legal and symbolic challenges associated with private security contractors (Elsea, 2010, p. 11). It is now clear that these entities have a place in contemporary society as they have proven themselves as indispensable assistance not only in American military operations but also in the maintenance of global peace and stability (Ellington, 2011, p. 132)

Private Security Contractors are cost effective

Unlike the conventional military forces; which are primarily engaged in combat, private security contractors “…offer a wide range of services including operational support, military advice and training, and logistical support as well as site security (armed and unarmed), crime prevention, police training, interrogation, and intelligence gathering” (Avant & Sigelman, 2010, p. 232).

The capacity to roll out a multiplicity of roles to conflict hotbeds implies that these entities add value to service provision. They also are cost-effective by virtue of their capability to provide services to clients in a buddle format.

For example, a multinational oil corporation with interests in Iraq now needs to contract one private security company to provide security to its installations, staff and logistics – a task that could easily overstretch the resources designated to a conventional military unit.

DynCorp has demonstrated effectiveness in not only training the Iraqi police but also in constructing police and prison facilities, as well as building capacity for credible Iraq justice system (Avant & Sigelman, 2010, p. 235; Ellington, 2011, p. 134).

According to Perry (2012), outsourcing private security contractors; “…has also been driven to a significant extent by a functional argument that privatization has enabled the United States to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War security environment” (p. 43).

Although the U.S. armed forces experienced an approximately thirty percent reduction in troop strength following the end of the Cold War era, the rate at which troops are deployed abroad on expeditionary operations has significantly increased, providing a window of opportunity for nascent private security contractors to meet the ever-increasing demands with smaller forces. Such a gesture, in my view, not only enhances peace and stability in the world but also saves millions of dollars in tax payers’ money due to efficiencies in operations provided by private security contractors.

Private Security Contractors are a tactic to counterterrorism

In Counterterrorism efforts, it is becoming increasingly clear that some Western electorates are reluctant to give up their peace dividends for apparently distant terrorism threats.

This is availing an opportunity for private military contractors such as Blackwater (now Xe) to step in with the aim to provide governments in Europe and North America with a mechanism bolstering their armed forces without formally enhancing their size (Perry, 2012, p. 43; Bjork & Jones, 2005, p. 718).

Such an engagement will add value to the Obama Administration’s efforts to stop terrorists from attacking American interests. It will also prove the appropriateness of private entities to conduct covert operations aimed at eliminating threats to global peace and stability.

Conclusion

It is essential to conclude that the use of private security contractors has been desirable because it has improved the welfare of people. The benefits linked with the use of private security contractors outweigh the challenges; the cost on establishing them is worth the global security experienced.

However, stakeholders are becoming increasingly concerned about the transparency, accountability, behavior, and legal and symbolic challenges associated with private security contractors.

Irrespective of this, it has been revealed in this paper how private actors add value to their operations by undertaking multiple roles, and why they continue to remain relevant with regard to conducting efficient and cost-effective operations.

In the recent days, people prefer hiring private securities because they are sure of getting quality services. Consequently, it is safe to argue that the continued use of private security contractors in contemporary settings is desirable. The government should support private because they are performing very well. This will improve the level of security in the country.

Reference List

Avant, D., & Sigelman, L. (2010). Private security and democracy: Lessons from Iraq. Security Studies, 19(2), 230-265.

Bjork, K., & Jones, R. (2005). Overcoming dilemmas created by the 21st century mercenaries: Conceptualizing the use of private security companies in Iraq. Third World Quarterly, 26(4/5), 777-796.

Ellington, S. (2011). The rise of battlefield private contractors: An analysis of military policy. Public Integrity, 13(2), 131-148.

Elsea, J. (2010). . Congressional Research Service. Web.

Perry, D. (2012). Blackwater vs. bin Laden: The private sector’s role in American counterterrorism strategy. Comparative Strategy, 31(1), 41-55.

Taylor, T. (2011). Private security companies in Iraq and beyond. International Affairs, 87(2), 445-456.

US Interests in the Middle East and Afghanistan

Introduction

Since the United States launched a war on terrorism in Afghanistan, a lot of issues have emerged about the future of Afghanistan. One of the concerns that are raised long after the active war on terrorism in Afghanistan was stopped concerns the United States’ policy about the country and how it can use the country for fostering relations in the region. Researchers and commentators often differ in opinion when it comes to the issue. Some show positivity about using Afghanistan to advance the US interests in the region, while other researchers and political commentators are pessimistic about the issue. This paper presents a critique of the possibility of advancing the US interests in the Middle East by depending on Afghanistan.

The loss of social and economic stability of Afghanistan

It is argued that Afghanistan will take a relatively long time to regain a position in the region because the country has lost its identity out of the years of war and the impacts it has had on the internal organization. There are a lot of socio-economic and political divisions in the county, which are spearheaded by the divides of ethnicity, secularism, and religion. The question that ought to be asked is whether the United States can use a country that is yet to rediscover itself for pursuing its interests in the Middle East region. Having emerged from the war that was initiated and pursued by the United States in the region, the country has lost its order, and it has not managed to bridge the deep ethnic divisions in the region. According to Fields (2010), there have been a lot of efforts by the United States to enhance the reconstruction of the country after a lengthy period of war against terrorism in the region. The reconstruction entails the efforts of embracing nationhood by pacifying the prevailing ethnicities in the region. Several political commentators argue that the efforts of reconstruction of Afghanistan by the United States are not bearing fruits. It should be noted that reconstruction is a continuous process, considering the scale of destruction and disorientation that had been brought about by the war. A considerable amount of organization has already been attained in Afghanistan due to the reconstruction efforts. This is a positive pointer to the future of the country, which is bound to regain socio-economic unity out of the long-held reconstruction efforts (Fields, 2010).

International involvement in Afghanistan

According to Evans (2012), there is quite extensive involvement of international actors in the country. This has a lot of implications on the presence and the policies of the United States in Afghanistan. One of the countries that have intensive involvement in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The United States is forced to develop and foster positive relations with countries like Pakistan, which also has an interest in Afghanistan. The question that needs to be asked is whether Pakistan can be a real barrier to the pursuance of the United States’ interests in Afghanistan, and by extension, the Middle East region. Just like Afghanistan, Pakistan has been a subject of terror in the region. Taliban and Al-Qaeda remain to be a threat to both Pakistan and Afghanistan. This gives the United States an upper edge in as far as the control of Afghanistan is concerned. The United States remains to be the main force in as far as the stability of Afghanistan is concerned. It will be quite hard to attain economic stability in the country without the financial support of the United States to stabilize Afghanistan. Pakistan cannot, therefore, pursue their economic interests in Afghanistan when it is still underdeveloped. It is forced to let the United States enhance the economic stability of Afghanistan. The relationship between Pakistan and the United States might be enhanced by the presence and influence of the US in Afghanistan (Mian & Weiner, 2012).

Local opposition to the presence of the US in Afghanistan

The stabilization of Afghanistan is solidly dependent on the people of Afghanistan. However, there have been a lot of reports about the resentment of the presence of US forces in the country by the local Afghans. This implies that the Afghans are not receptive to the Americans, who are supposed to spearhead reconstruction and enhance social, political, and economic sustainability in the country. Opposition to the presence of the United States forces in Afghanistan is something that cannot be ruled out based on the cases of excessive use of force to combat different interest groups in the country, like the religious groups. It is argued that the mere presence of the United States in the country enhances instability (Iqbal, 2012). While such opposition is justifiable, it cannot rise to the scale of massive opposition to the United States. There are a substantial number of people who still feel the need for the United States to extend its stay in Afghanistan (Coll, 2009).

According to Armitage, Berger, Markey, and Council on Foreign Relations (2010), there are still millions of Afghans who feel insecure by the presence of terrorist groups in the country. The terrorist groups seek to advance a civil war to destabilize the Afghan government. It is hard to imagine the withdrawal of the United States peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan today. This can increase the rate of insecurity in the country as it will result in the resurgence of religious extremist groups, which will arise to battle for the control of the country. The presence of the United States in the country is still highly valid in as far as there is minor opposition in the country. Most of the opposition to the United States in Afghanistan is spearheaded by extremist groups that have interests in battling the Afghan government for control (Armitage, Berger, Markey & Council on Foreign Relations, 2010).

Local pressures and the sustenance of US-Afghan relations

One of the recent concerns about the presence of the relations of the sustainability of the relations between the United States and Afghanistan is the growing pressure within the United States. There have been a lot of negative sentiments and pressure from the civil society of the United States to compel the government to withdraw from financing the war on terror in other countries, according to Commentary (2011). The internal pressure in Afghanistan is also mounting as the United States continues to battle with the internal pressures. Will the United States manage to sustain its relations with Afghanistan? The United States’ interests in the Middle East region are quite broad. This is why the United States government has been persistent in terms of enhancing the support of the Afghanistan government to stabilize. Up to today, it can be said that there are a lot of positive prospects in the sustenance of relations between the United States and Afghanistan (Rid & Keaney, 2010).

References

Armitage, R. L., Berger, S. R., Markey, D. S., & Council on Foreign Relations. (2010). U.S. strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan: Independent task force report. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations.

Coll, S. (2009). U.S. interests and policy choices in Afghanistan. Web.

Commentary (2011). The benefits of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Web.

Evans, A. (2012). Tough talk is cheap: Washington’s real options in Islamabad. Foreign Affairs, 91(3), 166-170.

Fields. (2010). Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR): Quarterly Report to the United States Congress. United States. Web.

Iqbal, K. (2012). Afghanistan: Hope, fantasy and failure! Defence Journal, 16(4), 73-75.

Mian, Z., & Weiner, S. K. (2012). . Web.

Rid, T., & Keaney, T. (2010). Understanding counterinsurgency: Doctrine, operations, and challenges. New York, NY: Routlegde.

Afghanistan’s Security and US Presence

Introduction

Since its independence from British in 1919, Afghanistan has had a turbulence history characterized by foreign invasions, sectarian wars and poor governance. From the 1980s the Taliban, which began as a resistance group fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, has played a key role in the affairs of Afghanistan.

Following the US led invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban lost the almost absolute control it held in the country. This led to Afghanistan being classified as a failing state by the international community. After the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, there was need for state-building; a term which is defined as constructing a functional state.

The US has therefore been at the forefront of rebuilding Afghanistan with a huge military presence being established in the region. Even so, incidents of insecurity continue to be high in Afghanistan. This paper shall argue that Afghanistan’s security is best served by the withdrawal of America’s troops on Afghan soils.

A Case for Continued US Presence

Failing and failed states provide safe havens for terrorist organizations some of which operate internationally. Pauly (2010) specifically cautions that nations on the brink of failure are ideal bases for terrorist groups. Afghanistan served as the safe haven for Al-Qaida it was only after the invasion of the country by US led troops and the establishment of a functional government that the country stopped serving as a hub for terrorists.

Paris and Sisk (2009) assert that international efforts were essential for the state-building efforts in post-Taliban Afghanistan. The Afghan government was installed through efforts of the US and currently, the military security and national budget of Afghanistan depends heavily on foreign funding.

For a nation to function favorably, it has to have a functional justice system. This is because a nation’s justice system has a direct bearing on the perceived legitimacy of a government by its people. Hains (2008) states that the reason for this is that the nation’s citizens are more likely to cooperate with the security apparatus if they perceive that the justice system is effective and fair.

Afghanistan’s justice system is primarily aided by the US. Should the US move out of Afghanistan, it can be assumed that the justice system would collapse therefore throwing Afghanistan into further turmoil.

Failure of US Efforts

While US led efforts to stability Afghanistan and bring about peace have been massive, they have not worked. This has mostly been because of the huge foreign military presence in Afghanistan. The presence of US military installations in Afghanistan has resulted in the radicalization of sections of the population. The Taliban have in particular used the presence of foreign troops as recruitment tools with great success (Paris and Sisk, 2010).

As a result of the increased US presence in Afghanistan, the Afghan government has been forced to demonstrate its accountability to the US instead of its citizens. This visible political intrusion has been as a result of the huge financial aid that the US gives to Afghanistan. By being accountable to its donors rather than its own people, the Afghan government has lost legitimacy in the eyes of Afghans which has resulted in increased attacks on government installations.

While the 2001 Afghanistan invasion by the US let military force may have been largely welcomed by the general Afghan public, the ensuing breakdown of security and reemergence of sectarian war largely undermined the efforts of the new government and its international backers (Ayub, Kouvo & Wareham, 2009). A decade after the dramatic fall of the Taliban, the country is full of violence, drug-related crimes and other abusive behavior that have cast a dark cloud over Afghanistan.

Conclusion

This paper has argued that the presence of the US in Afghanistan is detrimental to the security of the region. It has been shown that some of the violence that is currently perpetrated in the region is in retaliation to US presence. This paper has demonstrated that US forces help strengthen Taliban and increase sectarian wars. It can therefore be proposed that Afghanistan’s security is better served by American withdrawal from the region.

Reference

Ayub, F., Kouvo, S. & Wareham, R. (2009). “.” International Center for Transitional Justice. Web.

Hains, C. M. et al. (2008). Breaking the Failed-State Cycle. RAND Corporation.

Paris, R. & Sisk, T.D. (2009). The Dilemmas of State Building: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations. Taylor & Francis.

Pauly, J. R. (2010). The Ashgate Research Companion to US Foreign Policy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.