Presidential dilemma: how to proceed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Drone used by US forces, Afghanistan, Iraq
Originally uploaded by trudeau

President Obama, Congress and the American people face a disturbing choice in 2 battles: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your teacher's analysis:

In Iraq we have landed far from the mark envisioned by President Bush when he proposed the invasion. In the beginning we attacked the oil-rich nation because the Iraqis were believed to have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's). Having admitted that our intelligence gathering was mistaken about the WMD's, we have stayed in Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the nation.

US forces invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban had sheltered the terrorists known as al Qaeda. Today the once-vanquished Taliban - arch-conservative Muslims - have returned to viability as opponents to the US.

The high tech US soldier has not proven to be a terminator when facing the $1.98 warfare thrown at him by forces in these 2 nations. The Shia rebels have effectively used cheap IED's - Improvised Explosive Devices - to maim and disrupt our corps in Iraq. The Taliban have been effective against us by hiding in and striking from mountain caves.

While he might want to withdraw from both wars as quickly as possible, the president sees the dangers associated with disengagement. In Iraq, a pull-out may well leave the nation in a state of civil war. In Afghanistan, the Taliban would re-assert control and perhaps help al Qaeda regenerate.

The Four Problematic Nations Map:
* Iraq
* Iran (a nation threatening the US via development of an atomic bomb)
* Afghanistan
* Pakistan (a nation which has aided the Taliban and Osama bin Laden)

Is there an alternative to continued wars? Building multi-nation coalitions which buffer nations from violent struggle is a strategy which has not been exhausted.