General John R. Allen

Theoretically, it holds that the United States (US) invaded Afghanistan as a self-defense strategy following the 9/11 attacks. Practically, however, as US foreign policy is about conquest, self-protection and resource-extraction, it seeks strategic dominance of geographical space to sustain its global relevance. The rationality of the US suggests the need to continuously accumulate capital, resources and military proficiency to ensure autonomy. Therefore, a pragmatic reading into the motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan negates the self-defense theory. Rather, the shifting coordinates of power within central and southern Asia crafted the perfect criteria for US intervention. This work explores the motivations and systemic cover-ups designed by the Bush administration in ordering military troops into Afghanistan in 2001. It will hold that this invasion was not just a War on Terror, but rather a tactic to ensure US prevalence within the region, and henceforth, the rest of the world. Thus, why did the US invade Afghanistan?

The legacy leader I have chosen to write about is Brigadier General (BG) Richard T. Ellis (Deceased). BG Ellis was a true influential leader in the United States (U.S.) Army and intelligence community. This paper will discuss how BG Ellis showed leadership attributes and competencies covered in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22 and Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22. It will also discuss how he influenced leaders and changes in the intelligence community. Finally it will cover how his actions influenced me in my military career.

For over 2 centuries, Afghanistan has known virtually no time without war. Beginning around 326 B.C. with the conquests of Alexander the Great, to the Persians, British, Russians and most recently, America and our NATO allies, Afghanistan has been cultivated into the country that it is today through a trial by fire. Regardless of this relentless onslaught of foreign military power, the Afghan people have tirelessly defended their homeland with no outside power ever being able to subdue them completely. Following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989, the country fell into civil war, torn even further apart by fiercely dedicated tribal warlords. This power vacuum led to the rise of a group called the Taliban. Led by a one eyed man

1. In President Obama’s speech at West Point, he announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan. He made this decision because he said it was vital to the United States’ national interest. The vital national interest at risk in President Obama’s address is the security and safety of the American people as well as the “security of our allies and the common security of the world.” By involving the military and increasing the troop strength, President Obama can achieve the objectives of his strategy. His objectives are to keep the Taliban from becoming powerful, prevent them from government rule, improve Afghanistan security forces and government so they can manage their own country and prevent Al Qaeda from

Douglas Macarthur was a on U.S. army general, who fought in both Word War 1 and World War 2. He is best known for his command of forces during World War 2 in the Pacific Theater.

“What We Are Fighting For” written by Canadian veteran Rex Murphy challenges the reasons for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Murphy begins by advocating that Canada entered into the war on terror not only to back our American allies but also in retaliation to the Al-Queida attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. He states that we needed to do step in since in both of these attacks not only killed Canadians, but jeopardizes our sense of security. Murphy continues to discuss Canada's current role in Afghanistan. Firstly, he discusses how we need to displace the Taliban Government as a means of protection for the future, both for the Afghan people and Canadians. Secondly, Murphy believes that we play an important part providing the

General Armistead and General Hancock were really good friends long before the war started, however Armistead was a Confederate General, and Hancock was a Union General. Armistead worried that they would come face to face in battle one day. He wanted to see Hancock one more time before then. Armistead considers crossing enemy lines to pay Hancock a visit, and he even gets it approved by Longstreet. He ends up not going because he was unsure about it. Unfortunately, Armistead and Hancock meet in war. Armistead’s brigade aim at Hancock’s Corp who are defending the Union line. Armistead is distracted during the attack and is wounded by one of Hancock’s men. He requests to see Hancock who is also wounded.

Lieutenant General Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller is a name that every marine knows for his heroic actions and his legacy left upon the Corps. This man was and is still the most decorated Marine and is by far the greatest Marine to ever live, leading through countless engagements from the beaches of Peleliu Island to the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea. He also brought an indistinguishable honor upon the United States by showing the world what a fierce force the USMC (United States Marine Corps) can be through his numerous years fighting and bleeding for our great country.

Lieutenant General Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller is a name that every marine knows for his heroic actions and his legacy left upon the Corps. This man was and is still the most decorated Marine and is by far the greatest Marine to ever live, leading through countless engagements from the beaches of Peleliu Island to the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea. He also brought an indistinguishable honor upon the United States by showing the world what a fierce force the USMC (United States Marine Corps) can be through his numerous years fighting and bleeding for our great country.

It seems that War has found a home in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have

Horton also states that the public is misinformed about why America is involved in this conflict. Horton writes, “ [The Government] then exploits the population’s ignorance and fear to advance their own unrelated and counterproductive political agenda” (Horton 3). The article shows how the war in Afghanistan was not really about

Many people believe that the persistent armed conflict in Afghanistan is was beginning to resemble another famous war that the United States has been in: The Vietnam War. Some people have coined it “Americas Second Vietnam” There are many similarities between the two wars, the majority pertaining to Counter Insurgency (COIN) operations and campaigns.

Conventional warfare that is prolonged and resource intensive is not sustainable and eventually leads to descent into attrition type warfare. Irregular warfare operations, be it COIN or counter-terrorism, from the Western perspective consume time and resources. This consumption is predominantly fuelled by the asymmetry of Western and insurgent forces which results in significantly different tactics being used by the two forces. Western powers, in almost all cases, tend to have superior technology and a larger number of forces and rely heavily on these factors during conflicts, however this perceived imbalance of power is not necessarily advantageous for the Western power. Andrew Mack discusses this idea that military superiority does not always result in victory when facing an unconventional enemy, Mack states " In such asymmetric conflicts, insurgents may gain political victory from a situation of military stalemate or even defeat." Here Mack surfaces the idea of 'political capital' and argues that insurgents' ability to win wars stems from "...the progressive attrition of their opponents' political capability to wage war." This concept is solidified if we observe the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, after having a Western military presence in the nation for over ten years, public support has declined and it is no longer politically viable to continue operations in that theatre. Insurgents continue to function in this state and the threat of

Then, on October 7th, President Bush announced operations in Afghanistan were underway. In his address to the nation, President Bush enumerated the demands given to Taliban leadership as, “close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country.” It was clear “none of these demands were met,” as President Bush announced military strikes were underway in Afghanistan. This concludes the first element of contemporary evidence.

“The hearts and mind (HAM) theory is identified as winning the hearts and minds of the population which is a technique based on the implementation of the counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy of persuading the population to support the government and reject the insurgents.” The counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy as outlined by President Obama and General Petraeus’s most closely embrace is the heart and minds (HAM) theory. President Obama speech identified the United States strategic approach with Afghanistan in three elements. The three core elements addressed by President Obama during his speech on the strategy in Afghanistan are identified as: 1) utilize the military effort to create conditions for transition, 2) a civilian surge that