What comes after ‘mother of all bombs’?
The U.S. bombing last week in Afghanistan, using the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal, signals a shift in U.S. foreign policy.
It was the second Thursday night in a row — after the justified airstrikes in Syria — that the United States used military force in a big show of might in a foreign conflict.
This time, the U.S. used the biggest weapon ever employed in combat.
If this was just about stamping out Islamic State soldiers hidden in caves and tunnels, we would laud the move unconditionally. Officials say the bomb took out 36 of the 800 Islamic State fighters thought to be hiding in the mountains and destroyed tunnels and weapons.
We worry, however, that this is about more than that.
What’s President Donald Trump’s end game?
Is there a comprehensive strategy behind these moves?
Tensions are escalating around the globe.
Trump says the Afghanistan strike wasn’t meant as a message to North Korea. He also said it doesn’t make any difference if it was or not: “North Korea is a problem, the problem will be taken care of.”
Such ambiguity is troubling.
North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, intensified his war of words against the United States and could be planning a nuclear test. U.S. military troops are conducting exercises near the North Korean border.
The president says he’s given his military leaders “total authority” to make moves they see fit. (He authorized the Syrian attack; it’s unclear whether he gave the green light for Afghanistan.) That sounds like he’s given them free rein.
At what point is that an abdication?
This country has a civilian leadership form of government for good reason.
The strikes on Syria were the right thing to do. That barbarous chemical attack they came in response to left 86 civilians dead, including children who burned up from the inside after breathing savage sarin gas.
The strategy behind the Afghanistan bomb is less clear.
And where is Congress?
If Trump’s predecessor did anything like this without congressional input, its leaders would have been apoplectic. Are they urging Trump to exercise any measure of restraint now?
Americans need more information.
The president must make clear he has a strategy with a realistic chance of defeating the Islamic State without launching us headfirst into another war.
— The Dallas Morning News
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.