Why Congress Should Approve the Afghan War Funding Despite Wikileaks

First thing we have to stop is getting emotionally charged on hearing about "leaks" because we elected the leaders and appointed the bureaucrats who caused or showed the errant behavior. That is the same emotion that started all this fiasco.

Then we should stop blind worship of Presidents who hoodwink us into believing that whatever they do abroad away from our eyes and behind our backs is in the national interest.

Don't suddenly jump to the conclusion that I am talking about Barack Obama.

No, I didn't vote for him. My first choice was Hillary Clinton. Next was McCain. Obama didn't enter my mind at that time not because he was African American but because his rise to the national scene was too quick that his track record was not so proven as others.

As a witness to our history for half a century and having worked with many nationalities and races in my workplaces here and abroad, I am not one who'll look at the skin of a person and judge him or her.

Yes, I voted for McCain but accepted Obama as my President because our founding fathers in their superior wisdom said that is how a democracy works. In fact it has become a way of life for me because I belong to that single category of Americans whose choices never got elected to be the Presidents.

Yes, that means I voted for Republicans or Democrats in Presidential elections and they never got elected. That means like the apolitical silent majority, I decided to vote for a candidate in the last few days only. Just because we signed up something in the motor vehicles office without much thought, we don't become Republicans or Democrats.

So there is no question of considering Obama as a Messiah who came to atone for the sins of his predecessors in White House.

Nor do I blame him for the Afghan intervention.

Armchair patriots are seething with anger after reading the leaks. Some even are using to portray this as Obama's Vietnam

But that is the ultimate form of cowardice. Where were their emotions when these wars were started?

Associated Content can claim the rare honor of being the very few websites that allowed writers the independence to object to the reasons for the current wars as peddled by the Presidents who started them. The only problem was the responses those writings created were emotionally and politically motivated and not about the contents of those articles.

And once an African American became the President it became very easy for some to vent their frustrations on him, now that the racial factor too kicked in.

If we didn't use our brains when those wars were started, then the only way it can be corrected is by accepting our mistakes rather than crucifying the current incumbent in the White House.

I too believed Bush implicitly until that fateful day on 9/11. And started writing against him after watching the video of his assistant informing him about the attack. He was among school children. His face neither showed the shock or alarm that should have been normal for a person hearing of such a tragedy and enemy attack.

What I hate most is the continuing saga of one President starting wars abroad and his successors being asked to bear the consequences. We have to stop this act of cowardice. We have to be bold enough to stop mischief as it occurs.

In fact this saga has been recurring right from Kennedy.

We entered the World War to end all wars and even gave the world one of the priciest real estate in Manhattan to build UN. But still, we are drawn into foreign wars.

And part of the blame should go to some immigrant groups in this country who surreptitiously force our leaders to treat the US army as their family butlers and fight their wars for them.

Such cowards who think that US army is their private army should settle their wars and internecine fights before immigrating to USA. This country was not founded to fight somebody else's wars.

This treachery started after World War. Until World War, USA had the unique position as the only country in the world without enemies. Our Presidents or their envoys were universally considered as impartial intermediaries in peace talks worldwide.

Even till Pearl Harbor, we successfully maintained that neutrality.

And if we want to prosper again, we have no choice but to return to that neutrality.

I know this will sound as blasphemy to those who give political donations and brainwash American leaders into ordering US troops into harm's way to fight their wars in their countries of origin while they sit comfortably in their homes.

Having found these wars as unnecessary and not of our making, why I want the Congress to fund the Afghan War?

Because, we didn't use our opportunities properly before when this war was started. Now having sent our warriors to fight wars of not our concern, we cannot ask them to stop at this critical juncture. We cannot put our forces in double jeopardy.

Yes, we made the mistake of sending them. Now let us not make it double by asking to come back without victory.

Because having put in a proven commander who established some balance and reduced the number of terrorist attacks that happened daily in Iraq, we cannot call him back now from his mission. General Petraeus won of the hostile Iraqis through helping them with building infrastructural facilities, not though bombs.

This is a new phase in Afghan War where non-military, civilian partnerships will be used.

Any business just left undone now will remain unfinished work and will come back searching for us in future. So let the army finish off this job of using non-military partnerships civilians, the "Money is a weapon of war" approach successfully tried and tested in Iraq.

No I am not talking about giving money to Pakistan who in turn will pass it on to Taliban.

I am talking about the direct approach method of General Petraeus, where an Afghan tribe or clan is encouraged to be economically strong, like he did in Iraq. These are not things usually a soldier or commander does but the scholarly streak and achievements of Petraeus has allowed him to try unconventional means to win wars with minimal use of firepower.

So having not used our responsibility for not sending our warriors in harm's way, we cannot make mistake a second time asking them to stop what they are doing midway and expose themselves to danger.

Coming from a writer who has attacked warmongers before here on Associated Content, this may sound hypocritical. But if realty at the frontline is different, no way for me but t accept that.

Congress should not be intimidated by just foreign website owner and a fugitive from law, who makes a living out of it, but act in the best interest of this great nation and of its fearless warriors - not that of armchair patriots.

President too should not recoil from responsibility to finish this business and plod on despite ignorant calls to stop this war mid-way.

Because a nation that willfully and thoughtlessly sends its warriors in harm's way, should not have the right to recall them while those warriors in the thick of harm.

And in future if any immigrant group tries to treat our army as their family butlers and bodyguards, have the courage to tell them on their faces

"These are not your janitors; they are our warriors to protect this land. If you have settle scores with somebody in the lands of your origin, go back, settle it yourselves, and then comeback."

Valor is valor but not for covering up somebody else's cowardice or intolerance.

Our warriors are not animals in a circus to jump through burning rings each time armchair patriots bid in gay abandon.

And

Thank you, Associated Content for allowing writers to publish articles that went contrary to majority thinking in this country, even before some resourceful people had delayed wisdom to publish "leaks".