It looks like France has decided NATO efforts in Afghanistan won't require any more French troops.
Oh, wait, France seems to have only contributed 2,780 troops to the effort, while our wonderful nation has assigned... over 29,000? Let's see here... Britain seems to have been able to send slightly over 8,000... Germany has sent 3,640... My god, even Canada has managed to send 2,830 troops to France. At this time, it seems Canada has a higher stake than France. Clearly, it must not be important to Mr. Sarkozy that this war be won, or that we even stay in Afghanistan. But then there's this:
I guess history does support the idea of cash being a cure-all. Hey, we don't we withdraw all 30,000 (and soon to be more) of our troops, and instead just send over 30,000 wads of cash? Sure! Once those wads of cash get there, it'll be nicer than Mr. Rodger's neighborhood. I'm sure that'll fix everything. I'll bet if I took that fresh recruit right out of boot camp, gave him the patrol route and a $5,000 bonus, he'd be fine in no time. I guess it's just instinct to know all about counter-terrorism (keep in mind, there are still massive amounts that we still do not know about fighting terrorism), and all they need is a bit more money and soon enough they'll be keeping terrorists at bay so well even John McClane would be impressed.
I'm sorry Mr. Sarkozy. You can't have it both ways. Yes, loss of life is tragic. Yes, taking parents away on deployment is tragic. However, I would think it would be far more tragic for us to leave behind all those sacrifices that got us where we are today.
Am I happy about being in Afghanistan? No, but I see it as a consequence of a choice made previously. As unhappy as I am about being overseas, I would be far more unhappy about being "half-hearted" overseas. One thousand, four hundred and sixty-two heroes have given everything for Afghanistan since 2001 (almost 900 of them American). Am I the only one who thinks it would be nothing less than utmost disrespect to repay their commitment with some half-hearted bribe? I certainly hope not. Despite one's feelings on the war, it is a process that has been started. I do not believe retreat is an option, nor would I ever dare disrespect an American hero by so callously abandoning a cause which was clearly held so dear to him. If not for the good of the Afghan people, let us keep the cause for the sake of those that have given all to reach these goals. Should I die in the course of defending my country, I can rest in peace knowing my cause will be won, as I sacrificed under the American flag, and not the French.
France will not send any more troops to Afghanistan, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview with a French newspaper on Thursday.Wow! What is this? Nicolas Sarkozy refuses to send another single troop to aid in Afghanistan? My god! How will we win now? Clearly, the French support we received to this point must have been the key to our current (albeit far from complete) successes so far, no? Such a blow to the effort... How shall we ever survive?
Oh, wait, France seems to have only contributed 2,780 troops to the effort, while our wonderful nation has assigned... over 29,000? Let's see here... Britain seems to have been able to send slightly over 8,000... Germany has sent 3,640... My god, even Canada has managed to send 2,830 troops to France. At this time, it seems Canada has a higher stake than France. Clearly, it must not be important to Mr. Sarkozy that this war be won, or that we even stay in Afghanistan. But then there's this:
"Is it necessary to stay in Afghanistan? I say 'yes'. And to stay to win ... But France will not send a single soldier more," Sarkozy told Le Figaro.Oh, wait, it is important to stay? Not only important mind you, but necessary. "Necessary" implies requirement. So, we now know it is required that we stay, and stay to win. But somehow Mr. Sarkozy believes that he will help accomplish both without sending more troops? I'm not sure I follow his logic. Perhaps they've perfected cloning, and just plan to copy the troops they already have over there? Perhaps they've made a friend in US professional sports, and got a hella rate on steroids and are just planning to "jack up" their thousand troops to increase their effectiveness. Clearly he must have some secret plan...
Sarkozy said he wants instead to see more home-grown Afghan troops fight the Taliban guerrillas.OK, well, that makes sense. I mean, we can't support them forever. At some point, they have to stand on their own two proverbial feet, right? Well, despite my original feeling, let's see what he has to say. Mr. Sarkozy, the floor is yours. Why do you feel that we need more "home-grown troops"?
"They will be the most effective in winning this war because it is their country."Agreed. However, without sending more troops over there to help recruit, train, and deploy these fledgling soldiers, how can we expect them to stand on their own? In the US military, boot camp is only the beginning. It would be ridiculous to take a recruit straight out of boot camp, give him a route, and expect him to perform flawlessly at his job. He would need training, guidance, and supervision. These soldiers have been introduced to a completely new way of life, and while some may be ready, there are still legions that are not. So how, then, do you suppose that we can provide these still-developing soldiers with the support and guidance they'll need without sending over more (essentially) support (in this case, soldiers)?
"...we need to pay them more..." said the French president.Oh? Pay them? Why yes! I've been so blind to the answer until just now! Clearly, these troops don't need us there, they just need money. Cash fixes everything, right? Banks failing, just throw some money at them, they'll be fine! Economy hurting and dollar falling? Hey, just a quick and easy loan of $787 billion and we'll be back to the superdollar in no time.
I guess history does support the idea of cash being a cure-all. Hey, we don't we withdraw all 30,000 (and soon to be more) of our troops, and instead just send over 30,000 wads of cash? Sure! Once those wads of cash get there, it'll be nicer than Mr. Rodger's neighborhood. I'm sure that'll fix everything. I'll bet if I took that fresh recruit right out of boot camp, gave him the patrol route and a $5,000 bonus, he'd be fine in no time. I guess it's just instinct to know all about counter-terrorism (keep in mind, there are still massive amounts that we still do not know about fighting terrorism), and all they need is a bit more money and soon enough they'll be keeping terrorists at bay so well even John McClane would be impressed.
I'm sorry Mr. Sarkozy. You can't have it both ways. Yes, loss of life is tragic. Yes, taking parents away on deployment is tragic. However, I would think it would be far more tragic for us to leave behind all those sacrifices that got us where we are today.
Am I happy about being in Afghanistan? No, but I see it as a consequence of a choice made previously. As unhappy as I am about being overseas, I would be far more unhappy about being "half-hearted" overseas. One thousand, four hundred and sixty-two heroes have given everything for Afghanistan since 2001 (almost 900 of them American). Am I the only one who thinks it would be nothing less than utmost disrespect to repay their commitment with some half-hearted bribe? I certainly hope not. Despite one's feelings on the war, it is a process that has been started. I do not believe retreat is an option, nor would I ever dare disrespect an American hero by so callously abandoning a cause which was clearly held so dear to him. If not for the good of the Afghan people, let us keep the cause for the sake of those that have given all to reach these goals. Should I die in the course of defending my country, I can rest in peace knowing my cause will be won, as I sacrificed under the American flag, and not the French.
Leave a comment