Why is Afghanistan different from the rest?
October 29, 2009 by Afan Tarar · Leave a Comment
Use usual intelligence practices to win war, including bribery
The war in Afghanistan has turned sour, much to the displeasure of our Pakistani allies. Recently, the Taliban has extended the war into its already weak neighbor.
Pakistan has answered admirably. But now the country is in a state of a practical civil war. There have been bombings or attacks almost every day for the past couple of weeks.
How should the United States respond? Should we send the additional troops our commanders have requested?
Surprisingly, my answer to these problems is very simple: Start fighting the war on terror like it’s a war on terror and not like a war against some random tribes and warlords.
The answer is clear – this war needs to be fought using intelligence and bribes, like most others are. We cannot concentrate only on guns and soldiers.
This war needs to use more drones and strategic missile strikes, not just men. To fight this war, we need to understand the Afghan psyche: These are battle-hardened people and they are nomads.
They have allegiances only to their specific leaders and no one else. The leaders care only about their own people and themselves. They owe no allegiance to President Hamid Karzai, nor do they owe anything to the Taliban.
So why are they working for the Taliban? They side with them because that’s where they see the most advantage. The Taliban probably offers them deals, money and power that we do not. They are negotiating with these leaders, not trying to kill them.
We need to start using good old capitalistic theories to show these people that dealing with us is much better than dealing with the Taliban.
It costs the government hundreds of billions of dollars to keep up this war, but rather than putting all that money into fighting a war that our commanders claim we are losing, why not just bribe these people with some hundreds of thousands?
It seems like that would be much cheaper and allow us to have a good foothold in Afghanistan. Show the Afghan people that they will have a much easier life and the U.S. will preserve their autonomy.
Greed can be a powerful ally and we should use greed to bring about stability in that region. This idea is far from original, but it seems that our policy-makers are thinking along other lines. Afghanistan is a mess and now this mess has spilled into Pakistan.
But some Pakistanis are killing and capturing Taliban leaders – they have been much more successful. We must start recruiting these warlords and tribal leaders to our cause.
Money would jumpstart the Afghan economy and allegiances would move away from the Taliban.
One similar suggestion is to help Afghanis to start growing crops instead of poppy. This was Abdullah Abdullah’s, one of the Afghani presidential hopefuls. It is ingenious and could help not only the Afghans but the U.S. too.
Now that Pakistanis are helping the U.S., this is the perfect time to strike. Taliban’s leaders are relying on these tribes. But if we can get our agents to them and use our means to get them to help us instead, we will win this war.
This is not a time for more soldiers or for indecision – this is a time to sit down and let our agencies finish this war.
Where are we going with the war in Afghanistan?
October 15, 2009 by Eva Rodriguez-Saenz · Leave a Comment
Eight years later, there is still no concrete mission
It has been called an important war by many, but lately, it seems like it has become the forgotten war.
It has been more than eight years since our brave men and women launched an attack on Afghanistan after the devastating events of Sept. 11, 2001.
President Barack Obama has remained forceful yet cautious on the issue of this war. The Iraqi military strategy has been portrayed as an unnecessary distraction from the main issue at hand: Afghanistan.
As we mark the eighth anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, more Americans are beginning to wonder whether this is even a war that should continue to be fought.
A renegade militia’s recent tragic attack on our troops, which killed eight American soldiers, has prompted more attention to the debate on the pros and cons of adding more troops to the already heated conflict.
Obama appeared skeptical during his most recent media round-up, on morning talk shows, when he was asked if he supported an additional buildup of troops given the current political climate in the U.S.
“The job picture is not going to improve considerably and we’re probably not going to start seeing enough job creation to deal with a rising population until sometime next year.”
Obama is aware of the national discontent with the current state of affairs. But the bottom line is that we cannot choose to be internationally active when it appears convenient.
The Afghanistan conflict has several implications. A complete withdrawal at such a critical time would be disastrous for regional allies like Pakistan and India. The probable resurgence of the Taliban in the region, if we withdraw, can cause severe problems for our allies.
The economic debate will continue to be centerfold, as will the health care debacle, but the conflict in Afghanistan cannot be forgotten. It would be a costly decision by this administration.
It is already apparent that this administration has chosen to abandon, at least temporarily, campaign promises like immigration reform in exchange for other, loftier goals.
It has set itself up to very high standards.
The Obama administration will face an uphill battle, as it attempts to either bring the Afghanistan conflict to an end or disengage in a politically friendly manner.
Republicans like Senator John McCain, who can be considered the top GOP members on the Armed Services Committee, have affirmed the need to increase troops to retain control.
Obama commented that “the great danger now is not an American pullout. The great danger is a half-measure” that tries to “please all ends of the political spectrum.”
General Stanly McChrystal has expressed a desire to increase the number of troops or risk the possible failure of strategy.
But some leading U.S. legislators have suggested that the only rise in troops needs to come from within the country, meaning Afghanis need to increase their numbers to counter domestic terrorism.
For veterans across the U.S., this is beginning to seem more like the Vietnam conflict. Our brave men and women are being asked to serve multiple tours in Afghanistan, and until recently, in Iraq. Many are returning to a country where some feel that our presence is unneeded and that it detracts from the real problems.
The strategy debate is coming amidst allegations of fraud in the recent Afghani elections, which are currently being assessed by the United Nations.
The Obama Administration now has to decide on the future of military strategy in Afghanistan and how best to sway public opinion to favor an ongoing military intervention.
Perhaps the most daunting task is how to define victory. What does victory look like to the U.S.? It is a blind path until certain goals are set to define it. No, American military strategist or politician has been able to set a concrete definition of victory.
There is a difficult road ahead for our troops, but it seems that until American leadership can get their act together, our troops will continue to serve bravely toward an unidentified goal.
Don’t leave Afghanistan behind again
September 24, 2009 by Husna Najand · Leave a Comment
As in the past, withdrawing early will be a mistake Read more
Study finds PTSD, ADD linked
Symptoms of both disorders could appear long after combat
Returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder can remain stuck in a “constant combat” mentality even a year after being inactive from duty. This mentality comes from the disorder’s negative effects on a soldier’s attention, according to a Boston University School of Medicine study released September 8.
The Neurocognition Deployment Health Study found that PTSD causes both attention deficits and perpetually fast reaction times that hurt veterans’ well being and daily lives, lead researcher and BUSM Psychiatry professor Jennifer Vasterling said.
The study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry scientific journal last Tuesday, evaluated 268 regular active-duty soldiers from 2003 to 2006 by administering a number of psychological tests after their return from Iraq, Vasterling said.
BU’s Memory Disorders Research Center director, professor Mieke Verfaellie, said PTSD causes problems that can last a lifetime.
“There is considerable evidence that individuals with PTSD have attentional problems,” Verfaellie, a neuropsychology specialist, said in an email. “PTSD is a chronic condition that can persist even years after the stressful event.”
Verfaellie said a major finding in the study was the discovery that early after deployment, “attentional problems” weren’t linked to PTSD, but a year later PTSD predicted these problems.
“This is important because it suggests with time, the persistence of a stress reaction can lead to brain changes that directly impact cognitive performance,” he said.
Vasterling said she hopes to raise awareness for continual soldier health issues years after active duty.
“I hope the study draws attention to the importance of treating psychological symptoms as a result of war zone participation right off the bat . . . before they become long lasting,” Vasterling, chief of psychology at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, said.
Researchers collected data through field research at various military installations, VA medical centers and universities. The computerized tests measured the soldiers’ response times, attention and memory.
Though soldiers who experienced more direct combat had quicker reaction times initially, the neurotransmitter systems that causes this reaction is supposed to return to a steady state afterward. Continual over-activation of the brain is dangerous, Vasterling said.
“A person can’t stay hyped up for that long without doing a number on their body and immune system,” she said.
Soldiers who suffer from such long-term stress can acquire health conditions associated with high stress, such as cardiovascular disease. With the reduced ability to concentrate, simple activities become harder, Vasterling said.
Vasterling said her team plans to continue the study by seeing how veterans are coping with stress five to seven years after they initially met with them, in order to determine any psychological patterns. This may help pinpoint an effective method of treatment, she said.
The Iraq veterans said they appreciate the study because it shows concern for the effects of war on soldiers, Vasterling said.
“It’s like they were saying, ‘Wow, you actually care about how I’m doing?’” Vasterling said.
BU Metropolitan School junior Federico Trevino said he recently saw a documentary about brain damage in soldiers returning from Iraq.
“I am very interested in this type of material because it is happening right now,” Trevino said.
Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps cadet Scott Haviland said awareness has improved about medical issues in soldiers returning from war.’
“I know guys that have been over there and come back,” Haviland, a CAS junior, said. “They’ve done a much better job nowadays to deal with that.”
Presentation explores rise, effect of nuclear weapons technology in U.S.
June 1, 2009 by Sai P Mohan · Leave a Comment
Lecture series holds conference on nuclear technology Read more
Letters
May 18, 2009 by Letters · Leave a Comment
To the Editor,
Afghani law NOT Islamic law. Read more
Veteran president answers call of duty
April 23, 2009 by Haley Etchison · 3 Comments
After a year of progress on behalf of student veterans at UNLV, leader puts campus on national stage Read more
Afghani law further degrades rights
April 20, 2009 by Yamini Piplani · 1 Comment
There must be outrage over legalization of acts like marital rape Read more
Students reach out to deployed brother
March 16, 2009 by Haley Etchison · Leave a Comment
Fraternity and supporters collecting goods to help marine Read more
U.S. must recognize its role in drug violence
March 2, 2009 by Eva Rodriguez-Saenz · Leave a Comment
Demand for drugs must be addressed by government Read more
