The military debate we need to have
The Sept. 14 editorial “An overdue debate” was right that we need a discussion on authorizing foreign military operations — but it should occur without the parameters the editorial imposed. We have been in a continuous war in Afghanistan for 16 years with no progress toward an agreement with the Taliban. In Iraq, we destroyed the Sunni military and government structure, resulting in their unemployment. We then subjected them to Shiite militia control, which provided the genesis for al-Qaeda in Iraq and now the Islamic State. In addition to an unstable Afghanistan and Iraq, we are involved in a Syrian civil war and in Somalia, Yemen and Libya.
In today’s world, there simply is no good evidence supporting the policy that direct military involvement does anything other than increase the size and expense of the military. With satellite, drone and other sophisticated surveillance, we’d at least be as safe and secure as we are now with a smaller budget deficit and fewer enemies abroad. Indeed, if the North had won the Korean War, we might be dealing peaceably with a unified Korea as we are with a unified Vietnam.
Ed Houry, Fairfax