Should We Be Protecting Kandahar, Afghanistan Rather Than Gulf Coast, U.S.A.?

I admit that I do not know whether or not the troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq are trained to deal with disasters such as we are facing in the Gulf Coast following the oil spill. They may not have the expertise to stop the flow of oil, but they and the billions being spent certainly could be of vast assistance in stemming the oil tide and aiding the clean-up. Rather than having over a hundred thousand troops engaged in an unending and unwinnable war, would we not be better served by having them here saving our cities rather than saving (or possibly destroying) those in Afghanistan.

One of the reasons given for maintaining our forces in Afghanistan is our commitment to the government and our friends there (no matter how few they may be) to remain until peace is obtained and stabilized. But if we send our firefighters and fire equipment to a neighboring country to help extinguish a major fire, that country and its people should certainly understand if we need to return to our own country to battle a blaze there. Our troops are needed here to battle an enemy which can destroy wildlife, food supply, jobs, the environment and even some lives. At the same time, we will be saving their lives as well.

There is speculation that the removal of American troops from foreign soil would reduce the incidence of terrorism. I do not pretend to be an expert on this issue. But even if there is some detriment to bringing our troops home to deal with a crisis of this magnitude, it would seem that the benefits far outweigh any such detriment. What greater justification can there be to remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan than that their country needs them.