By JAMES BROWN
On Sept. 11, 2001, three planes were crashed into U.S. landmarks. A fourth went down in a field in Pennsylvania — the result of brave people fighting against terrorist hijackers. Everyone knows the stories by heart. That day is as much a part of American lore as Pearl Harbor. (The resulting military operations have already lasted twice as long as U.S. fighting during the Second World War.)
The masterminds behind the plot to crash planes into the World Trade Center twin towers, the Pentagon and some other landmark, are presumed to be still alive and free in the badlands along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Those people are criminals wanted by the U.S. government so that they can be made to pay for their crimes against U.S. citizens.
Any troop build up in Afghanistan, as explained by President Barack Obama during a recent speech, should be seen as a police action as much as a military action. Yes, we would like to see a stabilized country so that the safe haven for Muslim extremist terrorists is permanently dismantled. But, more to the point, we should want to see the mission finished that was grown from the collapsing towers eight years ago.
It’s been fascinating to see liberals in the Democratic party turn red faced over Obama’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They apparently thought he was only trying to get elected when he said while campaigning that he supported sending more troops to the country. He always said he saw the invasion as a mission of necessity.
He’s not alone in that view. I support it because the mission in Afghanistan is not complete and will not be complete until the 9/11 masterminds are dealt with effectively. If part of that mission includes nation building in a country that has not demonstrated nation building will take, then so be it. That aspect should not dominate what is considered to be a successfully completed mission.
On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans begrudgingly agreed with Obama’s plan for Afghanistan, as far as troop increases is concerned. They balked at the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. soldiers. Again, no military operation should be open ended and in the past — prior to the Korean Conflict — wars were ended when the enemy surrendered. Of course, those were often wars waged against other “civilized” nations, not against shadowy organizations without politically defined borders.
A new type of military action requires a different way to define victory.
In Afghanistan, the only way we can effectively determine success is by capturing or killing the masterminds behind 9/11.
James Brown is editor of the Daily Times. He can be reached by e-mail at jbrown@glasgowdailytimes.com.
