-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
By Meredith Buel
Washington
21 October 2009
Now that Afghan election officials have agreed to a presidential runoff vote on November 7, attention will intensify1 on U.S. President Barack Obama's difficult decision about whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has been waiting for the election dispute to be resolved before announcing his new war strategy.
As the fighting continues to rage, U.S. officials stated repeatedly the election process had to be settled before President Barack Obama could make a reasoned decision about sending additional troops and resources to Afghanistan.
Administration officials say the United States needs to make sure it has a credible2 partner in the Afghan government before any change in strategy.
President Barack Obama (file photo)
Analysts3 say the runoff election will add credibility to the new government and Mr. Obama applauded the move.
"President Karzai, as well as the other candidates, I think, have shown that they have the interests of the Afghan people at heart, that this is a reflection of a commitment to rule of law and an insistence4 that the Afghan people's will should be done," said the president.
Election officials are scrambling5 to organize the new ballot6 as the fierce Afghan winter approaches and the country faces a growing threat from the Taliban.
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel has advised President Obama on Afghan policy. "We have got to make sure that this second round is not marred7 by fraud and corruption8 like the first round," he said.
Riedel says U.S. and NATO troops are facing a syndicate of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan consisting of different groups like the Taliban and al-Qaida.
"The status quo in Afghanistan right now is not sustainable. We are losing this war. It is not yet lost but we are losing this war," he said.
Many members of the U.S. Congress that have expressed concern about sending additional troops to Afghanistan are, like President Obama, Democrats9.
Some argue the widespread corruption in Afghanistan is undermining support in the United States for the war and the proposal to send more soldiers.
"At least the question that should be put to Congress is not about troop levels and I do not think Congress right now would be very receptive, the majority of Congress, to a request for more troops," said California Congresswoman Jane Harman. "The question that should be put to Congress is how we can partner with this administration to reduce the rampant10 levels of corruption in Afghanistan."
A US Marine11 (R) walks with an Afghan National Army local commander in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, 05 Oct 2009
The United States has nearly 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and there are about 40,000 from NATO and other allied12 countries.
The top NATO and American commander there, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned the United States could lose the conflict if additional military forces are not deployed13.
Analysts arguing against an increase say a larger troop presence would lead to a drop in support from the Afghan people.
CIA veteran Paul Pillar, who is now a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, says public opinion in Afghanistan is already eroding14.
"Why is this happening? I think it is number one, the perception that we have become occupiers, like the Soviets15 were, rather than liberators or protectors of Afghanistan. And number two because of the inevitable16 collateral17 damage that occurs from even the most carefully planned and skillfully executed military operations," he said.
The debate about strategy and troop strength is occurring as 30,000 Pakistani troops are launching a massive military operation in South Waziristan, along the border with Afghanistan.
The remote and rugged18 tribal19 region is a global hub for militants20, who are staging suicide attacks in Pakistan and frequently cross the border to fight NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Michael O'Hanlon specializes in U.S. national security policy at the Brookings Institution.
"For the first time ever we have the chance to put al-Qaida and related groups between a hammer and an anvil," he said. "We have a chance to go after them in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. I want to do that."
Administration officials say it has not been determined21 whether the president will decide on a new strategy before the Afghan runoff election. They say the strategy is to be determined in the coming weeks.
1 intensify | |
vt.加强;变强;加剧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 credible | |
adj.可信任的,可靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 analysts | |
分析家,化验员( analyst的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 insistence | |
n.坚持;强调;坚决主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 scrambling | |
v.快速爬行( scramble的现在分词 );攀登;争夺;(军事飞机)紧急起飞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 ballot | |
n.(不记名)投票,投票总数,投票权;vi.投票 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 marred | |
adj. 被损毁, 污损的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 corruption | |
n.腐败,堕落,贪污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 rampant | |
adj.(植物)蔓生的;狂暴的,无约束的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 marine | |
adj.海的;海生的;航海的;海事的;n.水兵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 allied | |
adj.协约国的;同盟国的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 deployed | |
(尤指军事行动)使展开( deploy的过去式和过去分词 ); 施展; 部署; 有效地利用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 eroding | |
侵蚀,腐蚀( erode的现在分词 ); 逐渐毁坏,削弱,损害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 soviets | |
苏维埃(Soviet的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 collateral | |
adj.平行的;旁系的;n.担保品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 rugged | |
adj.高低不平的,粗糙的,粗壮的,强健的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 tribal | |
adj.部族的,种族的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 militants | |
激进分子,好斗分子( militant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|