Memorandum: Changing Strategy in Afghanistan

To: President Barack Obama

CC: Vice President Joe Biden

From: Rachel Sousa, Secretary of State

Date: November 30, 2009

Subject: Changing Strategy in Afghanistan

Context:

            Since September 1, 2001, The United States has been battling Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan for such a traumatic attack on our own soil. Since then, we have roughly 36,000 troops in Afghanistan. In 2008 we witnessed the most violent year in extremist attacks since 2001. As of October 2009, 58 American soldiers have been killed in battle; making it the most violent month since the start of this war.

Task:

            Due to the lack of progression in Afghanistan, the U.S. should not continue with the same method. It is evident that increasing military presence has not improved our chances to end the reign of Al-Qaeda. Sending troops into Afghanistan have increased over the past eight years and yet the United States has not improved its situation. What is essential is to change the strategy to keep the Taliban from gaining more momentum. Currently there is no sign of the Taliban reversing the Afghanistan government but the U.S. needs to take action now so the chances of this are even lower. If an increase of troops in Afghanistan occurs, it could increase dependency of Afghanistan on the United States. The U.S. does not want to occupy Afghanistan.

Solution:

            American forces are needed in Afghanistan but not in the same manner as previously. The Taliban is unlikely to overthrow the Afghanistan government soon and that may be due to the presence of American military force, however, increasing military presence is increasing the death toll of American soldiers. It is crucial that America shifts its focus to the borders of Afghanistan since safe-havens are used Al-Qaeda in these regions. The United States should work with the soldiers already in Afghanistan as they are the most familiar with the country and America should avoid sending more troops into a blood-bath. In addition, Pakistan is outside of Afghan borders and is likely to be infiltrated by Al-Qaeda and that would be extremely detrimental. The suggestion is to relocate troops to the borders but keeping a military presence within the Afghanistan government so their government remains secure and safe from corruption.

Evidence:

            There is evidence of Al-Qaeda safe-houses along the Afghan border. By distributing troops along the outskirts of Afghanistan, it is more likely that the U.S. can permeate the terrorist group. Having a presence along the border not only would protect Pakistan from possible Al-Qaeda influences, but also could strengthen a relationship with that country to encourage communication over terrorist activity.

Failed Solutions:

            During the Vietnam War, the United States witnessed failed attempts at implementing liberty and only causing  civilian hatred in South Vietnam. What needs to be avoided is the hatred by the Afghan people just as the country saw in Vietnam. If military presence is increased by hundreds of thousands, the country would be feeding into aura of violence. Obviously, the U.S. is beyond avoiding violence but increasing it would be a huge mistake. Violence could encourage more Afghan civilians to sympathize with Al-Qaeda. American troops look like the enemy because they are invading their land.

Implementation:

            American troops should be averted from central bases to the borders and in governmental buildings. The chance of locating Al-Qaeda safe-havens are more likely if soldiers are on the borders. It is also important that America keeps a temporary watchful eye on Afghan activity in governmental facilities so the idea of corruption is less likely.

Summary:

            After nearly eight years of violent battles in Afghanistan and continuous implementation of American soldiers, little to no progress has been made in destroying Al-Qaeda. It is necessary now to change the focus from increasing military violence, to changing of strategy. The United States should work with current American soldiers in Afghanistan and avert their duties to new tasks. Increasing military occupancy in Afghanistan would only increase the death toll. By changing the strategy, the U.S. may avoid repeating history in Vietnam, may improve a relationship with Pakistan, and ending American presence in Afghanistan once and for all.

Works Cited:

“Obama Afghanistan Strategy: More Troops in Quickly, Drawdown in 2011.” CNN, Cable News 

     Network, 1 Dec. 2009, www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/index.html.

CBS/AP. “The War in Afghanistan: A Timeline.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 1 Dec. 2009, 

     www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-in-afghanistan-a-timeline/.

VOA. “Afghan War Draws Comparisons to Vietnam War.” VOA, VOA, 2 Nov. 2009, 

     www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-09-09-voa53-68709837/409488.html.

Memorandum on United States Leadership in the Post-Soviet Era

Memorandum on United States Leadership in the Post-Soviet Era

To: President William J. Clinton

CC: Albert A. Gore

From: Daniel J. Lavigne, Secretary of State

Date: February 11, 1993

Subject: The Strength of U.S. Engagement in Post-Soviet Era Europe

Context

In the past seven years the world has changed drastically. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 Communism in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia has retreated, and newly independent states are welcoming a new sense of freedom. With Russia a shell of its former glory, it no longer has superpower status on the world stage. This leaves the United States as the world’s last remaining superpower. This is dawn of unipolar world led by the U.S. This puts us in a unique position to spread liberal values and economic prosperity to the far reaches of the globe, while shaping our national interest.

Task

Given the United States has a great responsibility to reform the world in our interest we must work to engage with the global community and not to retreat, despite the fear of the United States declining stance in the world and talk of reducing the military budget by as much as fifty percent. The goal is to seek out institutions in which the U.S. and states in the post-Soviet world can mutually benefit from. This includes Russia, our former adversary.

Solution

The recommendation is that this Administration continue the same level of engagement as the before keeping up the momentum to reflect the change that we are seeing in the world. The New World Order consist of the United States engaging in limited warfare, a vast departure from the use of proxies throughout much of the Cold War. Expanding NATO will bring a wider sense of peace to Europe. Additionally, the use of soft power diplomacy is of high priority. Countries in Eastern Europe are still in economic transition. This provides an opportunity of the United States to extend a hand in the form of foreign aid and economic expertise from leading economist, such as Jeffrey Sachs.

Evidence

International institutions such as the United Nations have been used to give the United States permission for intervention. This was seen when the previous Administration invaded Iraq on behalf of Kuwait. Regional security agreements are also making advances, with former post-Soviet countries seeking to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the coming years. Not only is expansion of NATO is required, but also the need to bring Eastern European markets closer to the heart of Europe. Jeffrey Sachs has reformed many economies, not only in Latin America, but has started in Eastern Europe as well. He is currently aiding Russian President Boris Yeltsin bring down inflation and fully restructure the economy by other means as well. It is expected that he will have a similar degree of success like he had in Poland.

Failed Solutions

Two generations ago U.S. President Woodrow Wilson advocated for greater U.S. engagement with the international community in the wake of the First World War. He suggested that the United States join the League of Nations, which would act a forum to address concerns in hopes that would lead to lasting world peace. The failure of the U.S and this organization to coordinate market conditions in the late 1920’s and the decade of the 1930’s led to the German people feeling frustrated and without much hope. Adolf Hitler preyed upon this lack of hope leading to the Nazi party and the Second World War. Additionally, failure for the U.S. to engage may lead to ethnic conflicts in the wake of the collapse of the post-Soviet security and economic framework

Implementation

            The suggestion to reduce military spending should not be up for consideration. Despite this era where immediate threats seem to no longer exist, the United States must remain the dominant player. Old philosophical ideas are shaping foreign policy in the modern age. Democratic Peace theory is to be at the forefront of American political thought, as no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. By expanding democratic, economic, and security arrangements, this goal will be achieved.

Summary

The United States should continue with the previous Administration’s foreign policy by using international institutions to promote liberal values. In the post-Soviet era the United States is the sole superpower, which means it has vast amounts of responsibility for the international community. Institutions will help bring post-Soviet states “into the fold” so they may enjoy the same benefit to these institutions as well. Economic engineering by leading economist will allow for the integration of markets. The United States will also benefit from their democratic development based on the idea of democratic peace theory. 

Works Cited

Taber, G. M. (1992). Rx for Russia: Shock therapy. Time, 139(4), 37.

US Foreign Policy. (edited by Cox & Stokes) Chapter 5 - "America in the 1990s: searching for purpose."