As conveyed by the President of the Centre of a New American security, John Nagl. He stated that, America has fundamental national security interests in Afghanistan that makes fighting there crucial. The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a shelter for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the medium for a larger regional security meltdown. Afghanistan also a known foundation that United States uses to attack al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader operation against Afghanistan’s terrorist organization one that we evidently must win (Stephanopolous, 2009).
The United States policymakers have to; assess all actions in opposition to Americas global concerns and the probable prospective costs. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, economical strategies don’t have a positive record of achievements.
The drone attacks are affecting the sentiments of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and are also greatly undermining the popularity of America. Hence, the relation of Pakistan and America is at stake.
As Kristol stated in his article; referring to the Op-ed’s columnist George F. Will’s article in which he discussed about the Afghanistan and Afghanistan’s casualties he was not happy about the length of America’s long shot there the dismissive of the involvement of America’s NATO allies, disdainful of the Afghan central government, and struck by the country’s diffident.
Kristol share many of these opinions. However they are just views. It would be better to find a major change in America’s nationalized security strategy on disputes--especially if they are advocating an amendment from a policy that’s been sustained for eight years by a bipartisan accord, and that engages the area that was the platform for Sept. 11 (Kristol, 2009).
An additional 17%