Critics question need for big Afghan force

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- There are alternatives to fielding a large ground force to prevent al-Qaida from again using Afghanistan as a base for terrorism, critics say.

Analysts on both the U.S. left and right who claim it's time for the United States to withdraw a force that will number 68,000 by the end of this year say that if the goal is to prevent terrorists from establishing safe havens in Afghanistan to carry out Sept. 11, 2001-style attacks, that could be accomplished instead by utilizing intensive intelligence, drone and cruise missiles and raids by commandos, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

These methods have at least as much chance of preventing future 9/11s as does maintaining a massive ground presence in Afghanistan, Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University, told the Times, saying the large-scale counterinsurgency now planned by the U.S. government has a "slim likelihood of success."

But Georgetown University terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman, disagreed, telling the Times that the idea terrorism can be prevented by "remote control" is "immensely seductive" but completely wrong, saying, "We tried to contain the terrorism problem in Afghanistan from a distance before 9/11. Look how well that worked."