America is now entering the tenth year of the war in Afghanistan. Yet a decade of fighting hardly gets the news coverage or interests the average Americans as we try to recover from the financial whole we have dug even though the war is a substantial drain on the US Treasury. The toll in American lives is relatively low, but we suffered the most casualties of the ten-year conflict in 2010.
With the number of US troops deployed to the region reaching 100,000+, it may be time to rethink the strategy for the entire operation. A commitment has been made to support the shaky government of Afghanistan until 2014. Of course, the overwhelming majority of the forces in the region are troops from the United States.
When the war began, small numbers of specialized troops were involved. The war that started in Iraq grabbed most of the headlines and required most of the assets. Iraq became a political football, not unlike Vietnam; but many of those opposing our presence in the Middle-East called Afghanistan the "good war."
According to a December 2010 Rasmussen Poll, 44% of likely voters follow the war closely, among those 65+ this percentage rises to 51%. Only 34% of likely voters have confidence we can win the war in Afghanistan, which falls to 24% with New Seniors. Asked if the war has been worth the cost, the total of all respondents saying, "yes" was 28% and just 18% with those 65+.
Then, why do we stay in Afghanistan when the war is costly and unpopular? Could it be the fact that nearly three out of four Americans, across all demographic groups, fear a terrorist attack more than a nuclear attack? Does this mean we prefer to keep the fight overseas as a way to protect us at home? If so, why are we pulling out of the country on a specific date rather than trying to win the war? Or, are voters so focused on the financial situation at home we are willing to let the government do what it deems best?
The country has come a long way from WWII. Or have we? Back then those on the frontlines were in sync with support troops along with the folks at home. Everyone had a family member, a friend or a neighbor in the service and we did our part through defense work, rationing and War Bonds. The country was truly united. And, after the victories in Europe and the Pacific, all Americans benefited by the nationwide peace dividend.
We didn't care much for the Vietnam War and took out this dissatisfaction on our troops when they returned home. The first Gulf War saw a shift in attitude in the way we reacted to our service men and women. We praised them if not the war. The same is true with Iraq and probably will continue throughout the Afghanistan War.
Most of us are too far removed from the all-volunteer military to feel as if we have a stake in the nation's longest running war. In the meantime, the government continues to print money to fund a war we probably cannot win.
With the number of US troops deployed to the region reaching 100,000+, it may be time to rethink the strategy for the entire operation. A commitment has been made to support the shaky government of Afghanistan until 2014. Of course, the overwhelming majority of the forces in the region are troops from the United States.
When the war began, small numbers of specialized troops were involved. The war that started in Iraq grabbed most of the headlines and required most of the assets. Iraq became a political football, not unlike Vietnam; but many of those opposing our presence in the Middle-East called Afghanistan the "good war."
According to a December 2010 Rasmussen Poll, 44% of likely voters follow the war closely, among those 65+ this percentage rises to 51%. Only 34% of likely voters have confidence we can win the war in Afghanistan, which falls to 24% with New Seniors. Asked if the war has been worth the cost, the total of all respondents saying, "yes" was 28% and just 18% with those 65+.
Then, why do we stay in Afghanistan when the war is costly and unpopular? Could it be the fact that nearly three out of four Americans, across all demographic groups, fear a terrorist attack more than a nuclear attack? Does this mean we prefer to keep the fight overseas as a way to protect us at home? If so, why are we pulling out of the country on a specific date rather than trying to win the war? Or, are voters so focused on the financial situation at home we are willing to let the government do what it deems best?
The country has come a long way from WWII. Or have we? Back then those on the frontlines were in sync with support troops along with the folks at home. Everyone had a family member, a friend or a neighbor in the service and we did our part through defense work, rationing and War Bonds. The country was truly united. And, after the victories in Europe and the Pacific, all Americans benefited by the nationwide peace dividend.
We didn't care much for the Vietnam War and took out this dissatisfaction on our troops when they returned home. The first Gulf War saw a shift in attitude in the way we reacted to our service men and women. We praised them if not the war. The same is true with Iraq and probably will continue throughout the Afghanistan War.
Most of us are too far removed from the all-volunteer military to feel as if we have a stake in the nation's longest running war. In the meantime, the government continues to print money to fund a war we probably cannot win.
Don Potter is a Philadelphia native and 50 year veteran of the advertising agency business. Now living in Los Angeles, he has written two novels in retirement and frquently writes and speaks on marketing issues. Potter is the founder and editor-in-chief of NewSeniors.com, the first online magazine dedicated to those 65+.
NewSeniors.com articles provide thoughts, comments and opinions designed to spark thinking, foster discussion and stimulate debate. The editorial content features general news and information as well as videos of interest to the burgeoning 65+ audience. A touch of nostalgia is also included. Learn more by logging on to http://www.NewSeniors.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Don_Potter NewSeniors.com articles provide thoughts, comments and opinions designed to spark thinking, foster discussion and stimulate debate. The editorial content features general news and information as well as videos of interest to the burgeoning 65+ audience. A touch of nostalgia is also included. Learn more by logging on to http://www.NewSeniors.com
No comments:
Post a Comment