Afghanistan: An Army Officer’s View from the Ground

U.S. soldiers on patrol in Zabul province, Afghanistan / DoD photo by Brian Ferguson
U.S. Army Spc. Daishon Newton, assigned to the Zabul Provincial Reconstruction Team security force, provides security as members of the team make their way to a canal project site in Zabul province, Afghanistan, on June 14, 2011. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson, U.S. Air Force. (Released)

Provocative piece written by a U.S. Army officer now serving in Afghanistan concludes:

…The fact that the U.S. has established the front line of its national security as the Hindu Kush Mountains of Central Asia is at its core imprudent. Is the future of Afghanistan really critical to the national security of the U.S.? There is an opportunity cost to the involvement in Afghanistan. What else could these resources accomplish? Are the thousands of lives and billions of dollars expended on the war in Afghanistan really the best use of national resources? Many have argued that the U.S. military is the only organization with the resources to take on the problems of Afghanistan, but why should the U.S. attempt such a task to begin with?

Well, given that the task was launched nearly a decade ago, Major William Taylor, it may be a little late for that question. But it’s fascinating that Taylor — an aviation officer who has taught history at West Point, and has a master’s in the subject from Stanford — feels free to share his views (“The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army or Defense Department”) in the pages of Armed Forces Journal. The article has triggered debate on Tom Ricks’ Best Defense website:

Many of us have criticized the unwillingness of general officers to speak truth to power during the Vietnam War. Well, here at least is one Major willing to do so and he knows what it means for his career. Truth over careerism? We need more like him. Again, tell me where is is wrong in his argument?

Related Topics: Afghanistan, Army, Foreign Policy, Military, National Security, Pentagon, Troops
  • Latest on Battleland

    MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages

    Only One Year of U.S.-Led Fighting Left

    President Obama’s goal at the NATO summit this week is looking increasingly clear: wrap up U.S. troops’ combat role over the coming year, and get the allies to pay more money to enable the Afghan military to fill the gap.

    Getty Images

    House Pushes for East Coast Missile Shield

    The House has approved a $643 billion defense-spending bill for 2013 that’s $3.7 billion more than the Obama Administration, and its Pentagon, is seeking. That’s just about the same amount the Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill’s push for an East Coast missile shield will cost over the next five years.

    Photo by Ron Sachs-Pool/Getty Images

    The Pentagon’s “Washington Monument Strategy”

    Whenever federal bureaucrats running the nation’s parks get antsy that their purse is likely to shrink, they roll out something long known as the “Washington Monument strategy.” That’s the tried-and-true technique of warning the public that if money isn’t forthcoming, one of the first budget cuts will force the shutting down of the popular obelisk to Washington, D.C., tourists.

blog comments powered by Disqus