By: Ryan Jaroncyk, THL ContributorAccording to General Stanley McChrystal, even as many as 80,000 additional troops may not secure victory in Afghanistan due to rampant government corruption.
In fact, General McChrystal has submitted multiple options to President Obama, with requests ranging from 10,000 all the way up to the full 80,000 in additional troops.
The General cited a high risk of failure with each option, though he concluded a smaller troop deployment carries with it the highest risk of failure.
America has long known that President Karzai's administration is rife with corruption, and the recent, contested elections show all the signs of massive fraud. Voter coercion and ballot box stuffing may have saved the "President of Kabul."
Despite approximately 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops, seven years of assistance and international recognition, Karzai has proven to be an inept, ineffectual, and some would even say, corrupt leader of a broken, third world nation.
Despite approximately 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops, seven years of assistance and international recognition, Karzai has proven to be an inept, ineffectual, and some would even say, corrupt leader of a broken, third world nation.
In my view, the case for a much more limited, targeted, and cost-effective mission in Afghanistan just grew a whole lot stronger.
Endorsing battle strategies with dubious outcomes and openly supporting a corrupt, undemocratic government seem like recipes for failure.
Our men and women in uniform deserve better. And so does the American taxpayer.
Endorsing battle strategies with dubious outcomes and openly supporting a corrupt, undemocratic government seem like recipes for failure.
Our men and women in uniform deserve better. And so does the American taxpayer.
That's my take, what's yours?
