war in Afghanistan
2009-Dec-05, Saturday 03:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mellowtiggerIt's taken a while for me to reach a decision. I wanted to do some reading first. I've finally concluded that I'm against the war plan in Afghanistan because I believe that the territory offers a problem that has no "ground troop" solution, and we have more pressing matters before our nation.
1: their government
Afghanistan is the world's tar pit. Reading even just the wikipedia entry about this country, there is a long list of military conflicts just in the 200 years that America has remained a single nation. It's not easy uniting this area under anyone's banner. Why are we thinking that our opponents could "control" this area more effectively than any other foreign power has done? The supposed democratic government that we're trying to assist had its recent presidential election, where basically the vote was stolen (after the runner-up withdrew because he believed the runoff election would be flawed too).
And now we plan to support a Middle Eastern despot (*airquotes* democratically elected *airquotes*) because for the moment we like him better than the alternative? Yeah, we've seen that plan already. Look at happy, smiling Saddam Hussein there on the right. Are we really going to try this routine again? I disapprove.
2: our army
If all we want to accomplish is the disruption of economic supply lines for Taliban and Al-Qaeda, then we really don't need ground troops for that effort. We helped the Afghans disrupt the Soviet machinery just by financing their resistance. We didn't have to become the resistance then, so why do we have to do it now?
We already outnumber our estimated foe by 1000 to 1. I just don't see how increasing the odds even higher in our favor is really going to help. It seems like the traditional military solution, and that familiar theme is to just add more guns. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
We're going to lose soldiers, and I just don't see a good justification for sacrificing their lives on our behalf. :( The proposed troop increase leaves me wanting more evidence. After 8 years of warfare there, I don't see how "more troops" is the solution.
3: their army
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we ignore the government figureheads. Suppose, instead, we focus upon the military that we will rely upon to hold whatever ground we gain for them. I see very bad signs there. Go ahead and look for yourself.
Yeah, their military not only has an abysmal AWOL rate, but those that remain are serving while doped up on opium and pot.
This story cannot end well.
4: the cost
We have our own problems at home, maybe you've noticed.
Jon Taplin points out that 1 in 8 Americans today has problems meeting their mortgage (or are already in default), are unemployed or underemployed (working fewer hours than they want), or are on a food stamp program. He points to this chart and comments:
Look at the chart at the top of this post and see where the growth is–everywhere but the U.S.. We can’t continue on this path spending our treasure policing the world. If the American Century is over, so be it. Let’s declare the end of our empire, bring the troops home and start rebuilding our country.
- http://jontaplin.com/2009/12/01/financial-disconnect/
I see parallels with the Roman Empire (British, Soviet, etc.), stretching too far around the globe trying to maintain control where it simply can't do so.
5: placating the electorate
When I'm feeling especially negative, I wonder if our new president has learned from the Republicans how to tame the religious minority. Those who still believe in America Blessed By God seem incapable of tolerating the rest of the world unless we are actively engaging in warfare someplace, anyplace. Doing God's Will, as they see their appointed task.
Maybe as long as we're fighting, even if it is a doomed effort, then they're content. "War Is Peace", as George Orwell so cleverly surmised. These are the same people who have heartily accepted, "Ignorance Is Strength". Score two points for George Orwell. I hope we can avoid the third prediction.
The Congressional report "Tora Bora Revisited: How we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today" (pdf file) is a lot to read. Page 31, "Lessons for the future" seems to dispute Obama's military plan too as it's just a bigger version of Bush's failed plan. Oh, that's right, but we're not there to win. We're there to "Win! Go, Team America!"
Summary: While I would like to see evidence of why a troop increase is supposed to actually help anything, there are too many other overriding concerns. I have three solid reasons for disliking this strategy for the war in Afghanistan (plus one "tinfoil hat" reason). I disapprove of this plan.
1: their government
Afghanistan is the world's tar pit. Reading even just the wikipedia entry about this country, there is a long list of military conflicts just in the 200 years that America has remained a single nation. It's not easy uniting this area under anyone's banner. Why are we thinking that our opponents could "control" this area more effectively than any other foreign power has done? The supposed democratic government that we're trying to assist had its recent presidential election, where basically the vote was stolen (after the runner-up withdrew because he believed the runoff election would be flawed too).
And now we plan to support a Middle Eastern despot (*airquotes* democratically elected *airquotes*) because for the moment we like him better than the alternative? Yeah, we've seen that plan already. Look at happy, smiling Saddam Hussein there on the right. Are we really going to try this routine again? I disapprove.2: our army
If all we want to accomplish is the disruption of economic supply lines for Taliban and Al-Qaeda, then we really don't need ground troops for that effort. We helped the Afghans disrupt the Soviet machinery just by financing their resistance. We didn't have to become the resistance then, so why do we have to do it now?
We already outnumber our estimated foe by 1000 to 1. I just don't see how increasing the odds even higher in our favor is really going to help. It seems like the traditional military solution, and that familiar theme is to just add more guns. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
We're going to lose soldiers, and I just don't see a good justification for sacrificing their lives on our behalf. :( The proposed troop increase leaves me wanting more evidence. After 8 years of warfare there, I don't see how "more troops" is the solution.
3: their army
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we ignore the government figureheads. Suppose, instead, we focus upon the military that we will rely upon to hold whatever ground we gain for them. I see very bad signs there. Go ahead and look for yourself.
Yeah, their military not only has an abysmal AWOL rate, but those that remain are serving while doped up on opium and pot.
This story cannot end well.
4: the cost
We have our own problems at home, maybe you've noticed.Jon Taplin points out that 1 in 8 Americans today has problems meeting their mortgage (or are already in default), are unemployed or underemployed (working fewer hours than they want), or are on a food stamp program. He points to this chart and comments:
Look at the chart at the top of this post and see where the growth is–everywhere but the U.S.. We can’t continue on this path spending our treasure policing the world. If the American Century is over, so be it. Let’s declare the end of our empire, bring the troops home and start rebuilding our country.
- http://jontaplin.com/2009/12/01/financial-disconnect/
I see parallels with the Roman Empire (British, Soviet, etc.), stretching too far around the globe trying to maintain control where it simply can't do so.
5: placating the electorate
When I'm feeling especially negative, I wonder if our new president has learned from the Republicans how to tame the religious minority. Those who still believe in America Blessed By God seem incapable of tolerating the rest of the world unless we are actively engaging in warfare someplace, anyplace. Doing God's Will, as they see their appointed task.
Maybe as long as we're fighting, even if it is a doomed effort, then they're content. "War Is Peace", as George Orwell so cleverly surmised. These are the same people who have heartily accepted, "Ignorance Is Strength". Score two points for George Orwell. I hope we can avoid the third prediction.
The Congressional report "Tora Bora Revisited: How we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today" (pdf file) is a lot to read. Page 31, "Lessons for the future" seems to dispute Obama's military plan too as it's just a bigger version of Bush's failed plan. Oh, that's right, but we're not there to win. We're there to "Win! Go, Team America!"
Summary: While I would like to see evidence of why a troop increase is supposed to actually help anything, there are too many other overriding concerns. I have three solid reasons for disliking this strategy for the war in Afghanistan (plus one "tinfoil hat" reason). I disapprove of this plan.
no subject
Date: 2009-Dec-06, Sunday 01:34 am (UTC)Part of getting pakistan to really do that is to make them feel they don't need the mountain mujahadeen as a back-up for the pending war with india. To do that they're going to have to actually come to peace over kashmir and for the first time the indians are really talking like that might happen.
no subject
Date: 2009-Dec-07, Monday 05:36 pm (UTC)If the long-term goal is to prevent radical muslims from accessing nuclear weapons, then again I see this move as a bad choice. We now have forces on both the east (Afhagnistan) and west (Iraq) borders of Iran. If I were them, I'd be working furiously to develop nuclear weapons. It seems to me that we're increasing the likelihood of a terrorists with nukes rather than decreasing it.
It still seems like politics and finances can do more to support our goals than troops can do.
no subject
Date: 2009-Dec-08, Tuesday 02:19 pm (UTC)http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08tue1.html?_r=1
The article opens with this:
"President Obama has articulated a reasonably comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan, but there is no chance of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda unless Pakistan’s leaders stop temporizing (and in some cases collaborating) and get fully into the fight."
And closes with this:
"Mr. Obama told a small group of journalists at a White House lunch last week that reducing tensions between the two nuclear rivals, though enormously difficult, is “as important as anything to the long-term stability of the region.” He is right."
no subject
Date: 2009-Dec-06, Sunday 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-Dec-07, Monday 05:36 pm (UTC)Who will pay
Date: 2009-Dec-06, Sunday 05:57 pm (UTC)1. Cut spending
2. Raise Taxes
If anyone knows of another way, please let me know
If a family is swimming in credit card debt…then dad need to
1. bring more money in by working two jobs, and
2. mom and the kids have to give up cell phones, cable tv, Christmas presents and family vacations.
Increase income. Reduce spending. Pay off credit cards.
After weeping and protesting about marching against the current administration's deficit spending, some of those same protestors now want to go out and finance the war in Afghanistan with more borrowed money.
"We can borrow from the stimulus fund…or from health care", they proclaim (as if those programs were not being financed with borrowed money).
This sort of "credit card" mentality is what has gotten us in so much trouble to begin with.
If you don't have the money, don't take on more debt.
Very simple.
What the US needs to do is slash government spending by 10% per year…across the board (healthcare, welfare, military…nothing is spared),
and then hike taxes to raise money EARMARKED TO PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT.
I've heard enough hogwash about neat economic theories like "spending our way to a healthy economy" or "cutting taxes to stimulate prosperity" to know that they don't worked.
We've had Republican Presidents who have cut taxes and Democratic Presidents who have raised taxes. Except for President Clinton, every President, regardless of party has spent more money than they took in and left the US and our children deeper in debt.
NO MORE DEFICIT SPENDING
HELLO, Tea Party Protesters…where are you?????????
Re: Who will pay
Date: 2009-Dec-08, Tuesday 04:11 am (UTC)Increase economic activity & employment, the tax rates stay the same, tax revenues increase
If a family is swimming in credit card debt…then dad need to
1. bring more money in by working two jobs, and
2. mom and the kids have to give up cell phones, cable tv, Christmas presents and family vacations.
Wow, patriarchal and facile, and I bet you didn't even have to really try.
If we were to put your analogy on a closer comparison to where we are today
1. There are no second jobs to be found and your primary one got cut to 3/4 time.
2. The family already cut the presents and vacation and is buying groceries with the credit card.
If you don't have the money, don't take on more debt.
Very simple.
I think the word you meant is "simplistic". By that logic no one would take out a mortgage to buy a house, business wouldn't take out loans to expand or buy new equipment, and generally things would suck a lot more.
Whatever debt scared you when you were a child has made you irrational, so all of this is probably moot, but a reasonable debt load is a mark of economic maturity. It allows for desperately needed flexibility when times are hard and acts as a hedge against inflation (which need to persist or we are all screwed permanently).