Thomas Ziebarth
POS2001
9 A.M. M-F
Friday, May 08, 2009
Afghan Civilians are killed by U.S. Bombing Raids
According to an article published in the New York Times, the U.S. has taken responsibility for the over 100 Afghan civilians who were killed on monday night when American bomb raids, intending to quell a Taliban insurgency, struck two villages in the Farah province. These are not the first civilian casualties since the U.S. has deployed troops in Afghanistan. According to The Times, 2000 civilians have been killed in the past year due to fighting, claiming that most of the deaths are a result of U.S. bombing raids. It is such chilling statistics as these, that have left me wondering if the "Change" that President Obama has promised, is not just polite political euphemism. As a Democrat, it pains me to bear this cynicism, but I can't help but be disturbed when I hear the media referring to the war in Afghanistan as "Obama's War." While I am not as naive as to assume that Obama would adopt the "tree-hugging, peace-loving, bleeding heart- liberal" politics of say, Nancy Pelosi, I did have optimism that his policy on international conflicts would less "bloody" than the last 8 years. But then again, maybe I am naive enough to hope for a day when when citizens of all countries will stand beside one another in peace and brotherhood. This is change that I can see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
1. Did Obama promise to change every single thing 100%? If not, it makes little sense to hold him accountable for that.
2. Is American policy in Afghanistan the only policy that is important? Is it not possible to change other areas?
3. Did Obama promise to decrease activity or death in Afghanistan? No, he always promised to increase American troop presence in Afghanistan.
4. Nancy Pelosi has always supported the war in Afghanistan and she isn't drastically more liberal than Obama. Their voting records differ by only about 5%. Both are mainstream liberals.
While I applaud the individual who wrote this comment, It is clear that they have zeal and feels passionatly about the issue, but they are not being objective and is simple attacking(ad hominem) the ideology. True to life there will always be unintented consequences to most situations in politics and in war. Especially in a conflict where the Taliban use civilians as human shields. Except, according to the article sited there has been a "change" in civiian casulities. There has been a decrease of 40 percent from the previous year-however interpreted it is still a decrease which is progress. Conflicts in Bosinia, the Congo, Haiti,and Chechnya has claimed untold civilian causlities. This is simple the cost of war. Many policies fail to resolve an issue against prevailing and changing conditions. Concurrent with the situation in Afganistan where is concerned with American foreign policy, I believe we should allow the adminstration to prosecute this conflict in the direction they have advocated.(troop levels)
Okino Leiba
POS2001
12 P.M. M-F
While I do not share your ideology, I must agree with your post. I have been asking many of my more liberal friends who worked on the Obama campaign trail, where is the change? I am not saying the man should single handedly change everything at the federal level but the war in particular. As someone who served two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom (2006 and 2008) I can attest to the good that we have brought to a broken country. The president said we would leave Iraq. Now the number is going to be reduced to around 10,000 troops by next August. He did say that Afghanistan would receieve more US troops and I agree.
William Derrick
POS2001 12:00
On the war, Obama's campaign promise was to end it within 16 months, a timetable that is on schedule as of right now.
Post a Comment