Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
However, little concern is given to the Afghan people when their innocent is killed due to military action of developed nations. This too will only exacerbate the turmoil within the country. Revenge is a powerful emotion, especially when an individual has nothing a stake to achieve it. As such, due in parts to foreign operations in Afghanistan, many individuals have extreme animosity towards the developed world.
It is therefore much better to have some military presence in the Middle East simply to keep the peace rather than stake an all out assault. This middle ground approach will help to diminish animosity towards the developed world while also helping the Afghan people protect themselves. I believe this middle ground method will help stabilize the nation while allowing the people of Afghan to be accountable for any subsequent democratic changes within the nation.
Finally, the developed world can not afford to inhabit Afghanistan. The entire Euro zone is going through a cataclysmic event with default on the horizon. As such austerity measures are needed to simply balance the Euro zone budget (Farrer 2012). Likewise American is approaching insolvency as its debt burden approaches $14 trillion. To add an ongoing war to an already stressed budget would...
As such, it is not in the developed world's interests to stay in Afghan. The war alone cost America nearly $2 billion dollars a day. Currently, the war in Afghanistan has cost the United States $506,678,275,022 (Cost of War, 2012). The cost of funding is both impractical and irrational. A more prudent middle ground approach to this argument would be to withdraw troops in order to lower the cost of funding, while also using joint military force to help alleviate the cost burden. As mentioned earlier some presence in the Middle East is warranted. The extent to which this military force is used is the error. There is simply no need for American taxpayers to pay $506 Billion for a fruitless war. By lowering the amount of personnel in the area and allowing allies to help fund a larger portion of the war, this aspect can be properly solved. This middle ground approach allows Americans to save on future war expenditures while also bringing military personnel back home.
I am however, not naive. I do realize conflicts arise and should be dealt with in the interests of national security. Many individual want the United States and Europe to perish, that is without a doubt. If force must be used, I would instead elect to use sanctions. These
It is therefore much better to have some military presence in the Middle East simply to keep the peace rather than stake an all out assault. This middle ground approach will help to diminish animosity towards the developed world while also helping the Afghan people protect themselves. I believe this middle ground method will help stabilize the nation while allowing the people of Afghan to be accountable for any subsequent democratic changes within the nation.
Finally, the developed world can not afford to inhabit Afghanistan. The entire Euro zone is going through a cataclysmic event with default on the horizon. As such austerity measures are needed to simply balance the Euro zone budget (Farrer 2012). Likewise American is approaching insolvency as its debt burden approaches $14 trillion. To add an ongoing war to an already stressed budget would be a path to insolvency. As such, it is not in the developed world's interests to stay in Afghan. The war alone cost America nearly $2 billion dollars a day. Currently, the war in Afghanistan has cost the United States $506,678,275,022 (Cost of War, 2012). The cost of funding is both impractical and irrational. A more prudent middle ground approach to this argument would be to withdraw troops in order to lower the cost of funding, while also using joint military force to help alleviate the cost burden. As mentioned earlier some presence in the Middle East is warranted. The extent to which this military force is used is the error. There is simply no need for American taxpayers to pay $506 Billion for a fruitless war. By lowering the amount of personnel in the area and allowing allies to help fund a larger portion of the war, this aspect can be properly solved. This middle ground approach allows Americans to save on future war expenditures while also bringing military personnel back home.
I am however, not naive. I do realize conflicts arise and should be dealt with in the interests of national security. Many individual want the United States and Europe to perish, that is without a doubt. If force must be used, I would instead elect to use sanctions. These
Unfortunately, the availability of combat power encourages people to try to solve a problem by using it. Doctrinal training for soldiers emphasizes the aggressive, warrior image that is not normally compatible with peacekeeping. and, finally, the United States soldier is always regarded as primarily under control of Washington, even when supposedly under the command of another nation (the United States and Peacekeeping: Can it Work?). Also, a U.S. military presence especially
Form this point-of-view (Goodman) the war hawks are considered to this day the catalysts of the 1812 war, despite the circumstances and the eventual need for world consideration. Overall it can be concluded that the war hawks represent a rather controversial presence in the history of the United States. While some argue that they are in fact responsible for a painful war against Britain that could have been averted, other
This is not to suggest that either the United States or the Soviet Union were necessarily desiring this conflict, because "based on the scattered evidence now available from Soviet archives," Stalin was "wary and reluctant" in his support of the North, and only finally agreed to offer military equipment and advice when it became clear that China would intervene should the Soviet Union fail to offer support (Cumings 144).
The task of stabilizing a collapsed Pakistan may well be beyond the means of the United States and its allies. Rule-of-thumb estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size. Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces (Kagan
Fallout A section of commentators have taken issue with the manner in which the federal government denied suspected terrorist the due process of law as stipulated under the constitution. The government even commissioned the establishment of a torture chamber in Guantanamo Bay. This amounts to gross violation of human rights and civil liberties. There is another clause in the patriot act dubbed "enhanced surveillance procedures," which allows federal authorities to gather
S. forces were made to operate on ground and targeted operations were planned against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters. There were significant individually planned battles and skirmishes between the U.S. army and Taliban often resulting in heavy losses to both sides. A tactic that Taliban often used in such conditions was the suicide attacks and planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that left the soldier carrying vehicles destroyed. The U.S. utilized