President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.
"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."
First of all, I highly suggest reading the article in its entirety. Second of all. . . .
If they're not being sent to win, then don't send them in. When is victory not the goal? Aside from when it pertains to Afghanistan, of course. Why should we be worried about using the word "victory?" "Victory" is simply a word, some organized characters, until they're given meaning. Until we emerge from this war victorious. Regardless of what our government decides, I believe that our troops will emerge victorious. The politicians may lose this war, but our military will not.
Amen. What's the point of going if victory is not one of the objectives? The men and women serving surely, most likely don't want to be there in the first place and if you are going to separate from the one thing that is justifying them being there then spare them and their families and keep them home. DX
ReplyDelete