Is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan necessary?

Answer 1

At the time, just after September 11, 2001, it certainly was. The US had to strike somewhere...the American public demanded it. That attack was fairly emotional for US citizens; especially citizens living back east (read New York).

At the time, US Intel ID'd Afghanistan as a probable AO (Area of Operation). It was a good guess; but US Special Operations (etc. etc. etc.) that are (or were) built to deal with those problems were not as experienced as they used to be during the cold war era. Relying too much on "whiz bang bells and whistles" hi-tech toys, and new politically motivated (and politically correct) military leaders who just wanted "JOB SECURITY" and not get the job done (kill the enemy and go home) has resulted in nothing...but being in Afghanistan (job security).

Bottom line; what started out as a noble cause, has turned into "just a steady pay-check" for the participants.

Answer 2

This will vary greatly depending upon who you ask. As a result there are a few different opinions.

Answer 1

I'll give you my answer, as well as some counter arguments against my opinion.

First, the war in Afghanistan is completely separate from the war in Iraq, so I will address each separately.

For the war in Iraq, I don't believe this conflict was necessary - there was no direct link to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and basically no military or economic reason to open a second armed conflict in the middle of a region that can be politely described as "unsettled" and "in dynamic flux". However, others feel Iraq was a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East and that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power for a variety of reasons.

For the war in Afghanistan, I think it was necessary to deal with a viable and defined terrorist threat. The central government was supportive of (and mostly controlled by) al-Qaeda, and this was where the attack on 9/11/01 was launched from. However, others feel the war in Afghanistan was not necessary and that the threat from al-Qaeda could have been dealt without going to war.

Answer 2

The question could also be read in the present tense. In such a case, the Iraq War no longer has United States involvement and therefore the argument over its continuing necessity to Americans is mostly moot. While the insurgency is still fighting with the Iraqi government, the Iraqi attempts to contain it would be seen as necessary since they would be promoting domestic security.

As concerns Afghanistan, there are no really strong reasons to continue fighting there. Al-Qaeda membership still in Afghanistan number less than 100 and there is no longer any of their infrastructure there. The Taliban will become a part of any future Afghan government, their resiliency to American arms and ability to overpower the national Afghan Army means that they will not be overpowered. Nation-building has been effectively squashed in most areas in order to prevent upsurges of violence against American troops from dissatisfied locals and from the Afghan government which is more interested in lining its pockets than creating a national infrastructure. And, lastly, American troops are continually dying.