The Afghan Wig: What is the real reason for Escalations in the Region?

JakeHighwell
Aug 22, 2017 · 4 min read

Why are we sending more troops to Afghanistan?

You have to wonder how many households were asking that question last night when President Trump announced forces would be increased in the region.

The President was very vague on specifics.

This decision seems to fly in contrast to the rhetoric of the President during the election cycle and the years of the Obama administration. One of the platforms Trump ran on in 2016 was non-intervention. It seems like the President has decided to abandon that platform in favor of a more “hawkish” stance.

Here is what the President said yesterday.

“I share the American people’s frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money — and most importantly, lives — trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.

That is why shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia. My original instinct was to pull out. And historically, I like following my instincts.

But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, in other words, when you’re president of the United States.”

The reaction from the Trump base is tepid at best. There are some die-hard supporters who are supporting this move. Others are concerned that this decision signals a departure from the America First platform and a move towards a more interventionist tone.

Trump however seemed to quell those concerns.

America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.

During this speech the President also seemed to put added pressure on Pakistan to ramp up their assistance in combating terrorist cells.

I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense. Today, 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world.

For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. And that could happen.

The mention of Pakistan and India has alarmed some including Rand Paul who feel this will create more tension in the region. He thinks the troop increase is a “terrible idea”.

The question many in the Trump base including myself are asking is why the sudden change in rhetoric?

This was Trump speaking about the Afghanistan quagmire back in 2013 on Twitter.

The President acknowledged the long struggle in Afghanistan, 16 years, post the tragic events of 9/11. The question is will another 16 years in the region in active military conflict solve the problems plaguing the region? Will a constant presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan quell the growth of radical Islamic terror cells? Is there “another” reason why we are there besides rooting out terrorists?

For those who are unaware, Afghanistan is the worlds largest provider of Opium.

You know, the stuff that Heroin is made out of.

Having control over that stockpile would be a great benefit for a country — or certain governmental entities.

The same can be said about rare earth minerals, which is also found in abundance in the region. And of course, petroleum and natural gas, which can be found in the northern regions of the country.

To have a constant military presence in the region also provides an offset for China involvement. The Chinese have been very interested in Afghanistan and have several ongoing projects in both the petroleum and rare earth mineral sectors.

President Trump also echoed a call for improved cooperation between the United States and India. This partnership will be more economically based and will undoubtedly lead to trade deals between the two nations.

Will this new “surge” in Afghanistan provide a lasting solution to the problem of radical Islamic terror in the region?

I personally don’t think so.

We have been barking up the wrong tree for the last 16 years. The planners of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. The House of Saud has had a stranglehold on our political affairs for decades. The Saudi government needs to be held responsible for 9/11 and the growth of Sunni Whabbism.

As long as the United States continues the Saudi appeasement there will be no end to radical Islamic terror.

The increase in involvement in Afghanistan will bring about more pain for our troops and their families. It will not fix the opiod crisis gripping the United States. In actuality, it may make it worse.

So, you can send GI Joe or Jane over to Afghanistan — they can get blown up or injured — come back to Pittsburgh and become hooked on opiods.

Sure sounds like a great plan Mr. President.

)

Freelance journalist. Political pundit. Sports nut. Free speech advocate. #MAGA #NewRight

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade