As things go from bad to worse and the odds grow grimmer, our leaders, like the worst of gamblers, wager ever more. Why is it that, in obscure lands under obscure circumstances, American administrations somehow become convinced that everything -- the fate of our country, if not the planet itself -- is at stake? In Vietnam, this was expressed in the absurd 'domino theory': if Vietnam fell, Thailand, Burma, India, and finally California would follow like so many toppling dominos. Now, Afghanistan has become the First Domino of our era, and the rest of
the falling dominos in the twenty-first century are, of course, the terrorist attacks to come, once an emboldened al-Qaeda has its 'safe haven' and its triumph in the backlands of that country. In other words, first Afghanistan,
then Pakistan, then a mushroom cloud over an American city. In both the Vietnam era and today, Washington has also been mesmerized by that supposedly key currency of international stature, 'credibility.' To employ a strategy of "less," to begin to cut our losses and pull out of Afghanistan would -- they know with a certainty that passeth belief -- simply embolden the terrorist (in the Vietnam era, communist) enemy. It would be a victory for al-Qaeda's future Islamic caliphate (as it once would have been for communist global domination).
This article assumes Obama will send more troops to Afghanistan.
Does the US have unlimited resources or will this war bankrupt us as it
did Russia? The article continues Let's think about what this means
for a moment: According to the U.S.
Congressional Research Service, the cost of keeping a single American
soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year. According to Greg
Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, it costs the Pentagon
about
$1 billion per year to station 1,000 U.S. troops in that country. It's
fair to
assume that this estimate doesn't include, among other things,
long-term care for
wounded soldiers or the cost of replacing destroyed or overused
equipment. Nor
do these figures include any civilian funds being spent on the war
effort via
the State Department, nor undoubtedly the funds being spent by the
Pentagon to
upgrade bases and facilities throughout the country. In other words,
just about
any decision by the president, including one simply focused on training
Afghan soldiers and police, will involve an outlay of further
multi-billions
of dollars. Whatever choice the president makes, the U.S. will bleed
money.
Is Afghanistan going to become our 51st state? Why would we want such a barren, mountain filled hell on earth?
The article concludes:
If the Afghan War is already too big to fail, what in the world will it be after the escalations to come? As with Vietnam, so now with Afghanistan, the thick layers of mythology and fervent prediction and projection that pass for realism in Washington make clear thinking on the war impossible. They prevent the serious consideration of any options labeled "less" or "none." They inflate projections of disaster based on withdrawal, even though similar lurid predictions during the Vietnam era proved hopelessly off-base. The United States lived through all the phases of escalation, withdrawal, and defeat in Vietnam without suffering great post-war losses of any sort. This time we may not be so lucky. The United States is itself no longer too big to fail -- and if we should do so, remind me: Who exactly will bail us out?
Now the GOP is proclaiming that Hasan perpetrate terrorism at Fort Hood. Bin laden is cognizant of that just as he comprehends that having the US puppet Karzai is helping to fuel the Muslim hatred of the US. The extremist Islamic groups know that the GOP thrives on fear mongering and understand that if Obama continues this war in Afghanistan it will be to appease the right-wing GOP, not their base, the liberals. Obama isn't going to attract one GOP vote no matter what he does in Afghanistan. If politics is part of his decision in Afghanistan and why wouldn't it be, then he'd do better to leave Afghanistan right now so that the progressives can think he is a peace lover. We are getting the idea that he has no ideological stances and it is not attractive for us to think that he is a leader who views all decisions by how it will gain him seats.
Who is going to pay for this? We are close to seeing our empire totter and fall as did Russia's because of what? What can we gain? What ending of this war is going to gain us anything more than the ending of Iraq did?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
