Bush is doing what must be done

Here's a too-brief rebuttal of James Prescott's arguments. (Fence Post, Feb. 5)

1. Prescott is mad we're sending 3,200 more Marines to Afghanistan. Wait, I thought our armchair generals agreed we didn't have enough troops in Afghanistan from the start and it was for this reason that the Taliban still exist. Isn't it their standard claim that the Iraq War drained vital manpower from Afghanistan?

2. The "coalition of the willing" Prescott speaks of was regarding our allies in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Regarding Afghanistan, it wasn't a "coalition of the willing" which liberated the country, but a NATO coalition. After the 9/11 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 of its charter, declaring that an attack against one member was an attack against the alliance.

3. The Russians couldn't subdue Afghanistan, not because of the mythic resistance abilities of illiterate Pashtun goat herders, but because their military was quite incompetent. The Afghans also had quite a bit of help from America, Britain, China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

4. The pre-liberation Afghanistan was anything but a "civil war." Save its northeastern tip, Afghanistan was completely ruled by the Taliban. Furthermore, the domestic conflicts in Afghanistan are more tribal and religious than "nationalist."

Prescott wrote that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result." For over two decades, Islamic terrorists slaughtered Americans and our leaders did nothing. Do you feel that had President Bush had done "the same thing" on 9/11 (i.e. nothing), that we should expect "a different result"?

Oh, FYI, the Iraq surge appears to be working.

Christopher Skeet

Palatine