www.yh2888.com:The real questions we should be asking about Niger

Lawmakers demand answers in Niger ambush
Lawmakers demand answers in Niger ambush

    JUST WATCHED

    Lawmakers demand answers in Niger ambush

MUST WATCH

Lawmakers demand answers in Niger ambush 03:27

Story highlights

  • Mudd & Liepman: In the wake of the deaths of four US servicemen in Niger, Americans are embroiled in a pointless political squabble
  • But we need to be focused on developing a greater understanding of the risks and benefits of US counterterrorism operations abroad, they write

Philip Mudd comments on counterterrorism and security policy for CNN. He was the deputy director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and the senior intelligence adviser at the FBI. Andrew Liepman is a senior analyst at the RAND corporation and served for 30 years at the CIA, retiring as the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. The views expressed in this commentary are their own.

(CNN)If you ask the wrong questions, you'll never get the answers you're looking for. In the wake of the deaths of four US servicemen in Niger, the caustic political climate in Washington has sparked questions ranging from why President Trump failed to acknowledge the tragedy for more than a week to whether this is a Benghazi entanglement for the President's team.

But Americans need answers to a different set of questions. We need a public and civilized discourse about why US troops are involved in counterterrorism operations around the world, including in Niger. We need to have a better understanding of the risks these operations entail and the security benefits that we might expect from them.
The sooner we get back to asking the right questions, the sooner we'll get the answers we deserve.

    Why are we involved? Why is this still America's fight?

    Over the past year, America has lost soldiers in battlefields as diverse Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and now Niger. Many Americans might struggle to articulate why Americans need to remain in places like Iraq and Afghanistan or be fighting in places like Niger and Yemen.
    Are these operations designed to eliminate imminent threats to America, or have they morphed into efforts to aid governments fighting al Qaeda or ISIS adversaries that are far more focused on attacking local militaries than sponsoring attacks in New York or Washington?

    Who are we still fighting? And do these overseas operations make us safer here at home?

    It was clear after 9/11 who the enemy was and why we needed to fight. US intelligence and military elements moved quickly into Afghanistan, but that intervention grew quickly into a full-fledged war, complete with massive bases and tens of thousands of US military personnel. In Iraq, the war featured overwhelming US air power, followed by a decisive American ground presence, against an identified enemy. We used both weapons and tactics our military knows well.
    In the most recent deployments in places like Libya, Niger, Somalia and Yemen, American forces are not in the lead. Rather, we are serving in support roles. We're advising, assisting and sometimes accompanying friendly forces in military operations they lead. And deaths over the past year -- in Syria, northern Iraq, Yemen, Niger -- often involve US forces deployed either as part of small special operations raids (sometimes dedicated to intelligence gathering) or supporting teams working behind or with local troops who are spearheading the fight.
    The key question behind these deployments centers on when the American military should deploy. Must the trigger be an imminent threat to the US, or reacting to an attack on America (Afghanistan in 2001)? Should Americans broaden the definition of threat to include the concentrations of terrorists overseas who threaten our allies and who are affiliated with our sworn enemies (Somalia); or where known terrorists who have attempted attacks on the homeland are known to be hiding (Yemen)? Or do we expand even further when we get involved in places where extremists threaten stability but are more focused on local or regional targets (Niger in 2017)? If the latter criteria meets our threshold of deploying forces, then the menu of possible staging areas expands exponentially.
    These local and regional groups are adopting the ISIS message -- and branding themselves as ISIS -- and they may morph to develop more potent cells directed against cities in Europe and North America. Meanwhile, some of these operations are killing terrorists who will never think more than locally. They are more insurgents vying for local turf than they are terrorists thinking about international targets.
    Expanding when and where we deploy of course raises the thorny issue of whether the current authorizations are sufficient to justify wide-ranging use of American military force. The legal underpinning of our deployments to Niger and Yemen is the same that authorized our conventional wars against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    On its surface, that makes little sense. The enemy has changed dramatically since 2001 and 2002 when the original authorizations for the use of military force were approved by Congress to fight Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda. It seems high time to revisit, debate and update these crucial authorizations.

    Is whatever gain the US is seeking to accomplish worth the costs?

    The hardest question, and one to which no one has a good answer, is whether the cost, particularly the incalculable cost in human life, is worth the effort. To the family who loses a loved one, that's a personal and impossible question to answer. But to the nation at large, can we say that making Niger safe from the Islamic State, preventing al-Shabaab from taking over Somalia or pushing al Qaeda forces back in Yemen, are worth losing more American servicemen? Even one more?
    Follow CNN Opinion

    Join us on Twitter and Facebook

    There is no right answer to that last and most difficult question. But we should at least have the information about why we're fighting, who we're fighting and what we're accomplishing.
    Forget about the tactical questions, such as whether the Niger team had a perfect intelligence picture entering that tragic fight. Instead, step back and ask the real question: do their deaths offer us a chance to shine a light on whether America's fights all these years after 9/11 are the right fights?
    澳门赌场 澳门赌场玩法 澳门赌场攻略 澳门百家乐 网上百家乐 百家乐玩法 百家乐技巧 电子游戏 MG电子游戏 现金网 赌博网 赌博网址 捕鱼游戏 捕鱼达人 老虎机 bbin电子游戏 威尼斯人网址检测中心 威尼斯人网站 威尼斯人官网 棋牌游戏网站 棋牌游戏 骰宝玩法 骰宝技巧 二八杠玩法 二八杠技巧 捕鱼游戏玩法 捕鱼游戏技巧 龙虎斗技巧 龙虎斗玩法 百家乐规则 赌博技巧 网上赌博 澳门百家乐代理 澳门百家乐玩法 澳门百家乐破解 澳门百家乐平技巧 澳门百家乐官网 澳门百家乐策略 澳门百家乐规则 澳门百家乐技巧 澳门百家乐游戏 澳门百家乐软件 澳门百家乐导航 澳门百家乐怎么玩 澳门百家乐网页游戏 澳门百家乐必胜课 澳门百家乐网址 澳门百家乐平注常赢玩法 澳门百家乐网 澳门百家乐论坛 网页百家乐 澳门百家乐必胜 澳门百家乐群 澳门百家乐官方网站 澳门百家乐试玩 澳门百家乐现场 澳门百家乐包杀 澳门百家乐qq 免费百家乐 澳门百家乐作弊 百家乐代理 澳门百家乐破解方法 澳门百家乐必胜方法 总统澳门百家乐 网页澳门百家乐游戏 澳门百家乐怎么样 实战澳门百家乐 澳门百家乐网络 澳门百家乐详解 澳门百家乐平台 澳门百家乐博彩网站 海王星百家乐 澳门百家乐怎么开户 澳门百家乐代理加盟 澳门百家乐合作 澳门百家乐赢家 澳门百家乐大路小路 如何打澳门百家乐 澳门百家乐怎样赢 澳门百家乐信誉 网页澳门百家乐 免费澳门百家乐 百家乐破解方法 百家乐必胜方法 网页百家乐游戏 线上百家乐 百家乐平注常赢玩法 百家乐怎么玩 百家乐代理加盟 百家乐合作 百家乐赢家 百家乐大路小路 百家乐怎样赢 百家乐信誉 百家乐破解 百家乐平技巧 捕鱼达人电子游戏 pt老虎机 pt电子游戏 mg摆脱电子游戏 捕鱼达人官网 老虎机游戏 千炮捕鱼电子游戏 老虎机经验 单机斗地主 捕鱼游戏大全 真钱电子游戏 真钱捕鱼游戏 电子游戏攻略 电子游戏技巧 澳门赌场 澳门赌场玩法 澳门赌场攻略 澳门百家乐 网上百家乐 百家乐玩法 百家乐技巧 电子游戏 MG电子游戏 现金网 赌博网 赌博网址 捕鱼游戏 捕鱼达人 老虎机 bbin电子游戏 威尼斯人网址检测中心 威尼斯人网站 威尼斯人官网 棋牌游戏网站 棋牌游戏 骰宝玩法 骰宝技巧 二八杠玩法 二八杠技巧 捕鱼游戏玩法 捕鱼游戏技巧 龙虎斗技巧 龙虎斗玩法 百家乐规则 赌博技巧 网上赌博 澳门百家乐代理 澳门百家乐玩法 澳门百家乐破解 澳门百家乐平技巧 澳门百家乐官网 澳门百家乐策略 澳门百家乐规则 澳门百家乐技巧 澳门百家乐游戏 澳门百家乐软件 澳门百家乐导航 澳门百家乐怎么玩 澳门百家乐网页游戏 澳门百家乐必胜课 澳门百家乐网址 澳门百家乐平注常赢玩法 澳门百家乐网 澳门百家乐论坛 网页百家乐 澳门百家乐必胜 澳门百家乐群 澳门百家乐官方网站 澳门百家乐试玩 澳门百家乐现场 澳门百家乐包杀 澳门百家乐qq 免费百家乐 澳门百家乐作弊 百家乐代理 澳门百家乐破解方法 澳门百家乐必胜方法 总统澳门百家乐 网页澳门百家乐游戏 澳门百家乐怎么样 实战澳门百家乐 澳门百家乐网络 澳门百家乐详解 澳门百家乐平台 澳门百家乐博彩网站 海王星百家乐 澳门百家乐怎么开户 澳门百家乐代理加盟 澳门百家乐合作 澳门百家乐赢家 澳门百家乐大路小路 如何打澳门百家乐 澳门百家乐怎样赢 澳门百家乐信誉 网页澳门百家乐 免费澳门百家乐 百家乐破解方法 百家乐必胜方法 网页百家乐游戏 线上百家乐 百家乐平注常赢玩法 百家乐怎么玩 百家乐代理加盟 百家乐合作