Over the last decade waging the war in Afghanistan, the meager results obtained in routing Al-Qaeda have clearly demonstrated that the desired-end is more difficult and further away than anticipated.
If you analyze the current situation, you will realize that all efforts made have been fruitless and the situation has hardly changed from what it wasbefore. In other words, Al-Qaeda’s members are still coexisting with the civilians and the control of the drugs incomings holds all their terrorist activities. For that reason, other ways to solve the problem are being deliberated by the Governments of the Coalition involved in this war.
It is important to remark how the media are playing a main role in this war. I’m strongly convinced thatpublic opinion could be manipulated by media. So that, Governments are trying to get a good press and they censor all the news related with loss of lives. Even so, it is wide-believed that every day the number of detractors asking for a retreat is raised and they are not taking into account that media is just another player in this war and, for that reason, it should be taken what they say with apitch of salt. In my opinion, we must to be very patient and rely on those who have been tasked to this demanding mission.
Furthermore, detractors must think about what it would happen if Governments were to have decided to pull their troops out. Since they are a rough state, Afghanistan would have been in a mess for a long period and Al-Qaeda would have killed all US Afghan-helpers that wouldhave been seen as traitors. Indeed, the mission would not been prolonged so far only if Al-Qaeda were routed and Afghan people were able to rebuilt their own country.
Nowadays, the situation in Afghanistan has barely changed since it was occupied and, while a new strategic is developed, a huge sacrifice is being making by our troops. Many factors are coming into play and media is to be used as auseful tool to be employed in our favor. Weighting out the pros and cons of a hypothetical retreat of the troops, it’s tough to say what is more desirable.
EU SECURITY ORGANIZATION
Over the last few decades trying to build and consolidate a European Security System, the meagre results obtained in balancing American supremacy have clearly demonstrated that the desired-end is more difficult toachieve and further away than anticipated.
If you analyse the current situation, you will realize that all efforts made have been fruitless and the situation has hardly changed from what it was before. In other words, European countries still need US support to guarantee their security. For that reason, I believe that from a political and military point of view, the disadvantages of creatingthis new EU defence organization should be carefully evaluated.
On one hand, I am strongly convinced that one of the main disadvantages is France excessive influence in the EU defence organization. It is quite possible that were the US not leading NATO, France would be less involved in the EU. Other points to consider are the French government’s attempts to get good press, its criticisms of NATO,and its limited participation. Furthermore, it is widely believed that the number of detractors in a future EU security organization is increasing day by day. Lastly, the costs of its development are so high that most EU governments are desisting from the endeavour.
On the other hand, making a new EU security organization might be valuable in making a stronger Europe. Its development not onlywould allow the enforcing of the EU’s cohesion, but also would give a better economic position to those EU countries which build and maintain military vehicles and ships. Moreover, since Europe is one of the United States’ main economic competitors, we must consider what would happen if European governments left Europe’s security in their own hands.
To sum up, the situation has not changed and...