Afghanistan: I don’t believe in miracles
Unlike my fellow blogger Matt Rojansky I do not support sending more troops to Afghanistan. Doing so is the geopolitical equivalent of Newton’s third law of motion, i.e., “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Sending more troops only strengthens the Taliban, and non-Taliban Afghans, especially the Pashtuns, who just don’t want foreigners in their lands.
Yet despite all the attempts to pretend that there is some huge debate in the White House about whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan there has never been any serious question that the Obama administration will not do so. The only question is how many.
After all, can you remember the last time a newly elected president decided to withdraw troops from a war he inherited? Neither can I. In fact, right now the insider wisdom seems to be that Obama is settling on around 32- to 35,000 more troops, which is over 80 percent of what Gen. McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, asked for in his strategy report.
That said let’s hope someone in the Obama administration is thinking about other issues. For example, putting aside the future ultimate sacrifices measured in lives lost and physically and mentally wounded, the financial costs will start mounting up.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama’s budget experts size it up at twice that much. These costs will be more notable since, unlike the Bush administration, Obama promised in his campaign not to tuck war costs away, off federal budget books.
There is a certain double standard at work among commentators on this issue. E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote in the Washington Post that:
Advocates of a big counterinsurgency strategy are offended by anyone who raises the financial costs of our commitments. Typically, those most angered by talk of the immense expense of these wars are the very conservatives who bemoan America’s fiscal condition and the dangers of long-term deficits — yet had no qualms over starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time.
The costs are worrying Obama and getting under the skin of congressional Democrats tired of attacks on their fiscal credentials. In anticipation of the president’s decision, a group of House Democrats led by Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) introduced a bill last week requiring the president to set a surtax to pay for war costs in Afghanistan.
“As we’ve struggled to pass health care reform, we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill,” the Democrats said in a statement. “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.” The proposal may never become law, but it sends a clear message: Any troop increase Obama proposes will be wildly unpopular with a large share of those who have been his strongest backers — and most popular with those whom he cannot count on for support in any other area.
Yet, one can’t do counterinsurgency on the cheap. Anyone who seeks to economize will only get soldiers and Marines killed. Just read this Newsweek article where the fathers of two soldiers killed in Afghanistan weigh in on how theirs sons were tasked to do more with less.
Finding the balance is just one of many difficult choices the Obama administration must make on Afghanistan. Making the right choice every time will be nothing short of miraculous. Personally, I don’t believe in miracles.
No related posts.
Mr. Isenberg, unfortunately is correct, it is unprecedented for an American president to deescalate or end a war begun in a previous administration (examples include Truman in WWII, Nixon taking over for LBJ in Indochina, etc). However, isn’t it time to start a new trend with Barack Obama the man who promised CHANGE and more transparency and many other promises that we really haven’t seen much of 11 months into his presidency (running the gamut from seriously addressing climate change to giving us health insurance reform with what Obama is quoted in 2003 as saying was a necessity—a strong public option). Obey and other progressives and yes, even conservatives and libertarians are almost on the same page—what is the end game for the GWOT? Specifically for Afghanistan and oh yeah don’t forget the nation where over 4,000 Americans died—Iraq! We’re into Year Eight of the GWOT and what have ALL our sacrifices of blood and treasure purchased us (besides huge deficits that continue to accelerate higher and higher)? What’s the point to deploying hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, overextending our national guard and reserves? C’mon don’t give me that horse manure about “if we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here.” That was the flawed justification for the Cold War and many other dubious conflicts in global history. Yes, we’re funding DHS at the tune of several tens of billions a year. Let’s up the ante there and truly “defend” the nation and our allies from terrorism. Okay, and yes, that does include surgical strikes against individual or groups of terrorist leaders (by the way, what ever happened to a bad guy named Osama bin Laden—what’s the scorecard on finding or killing him, Mr. Obama). Let’s get leaner and meaner. Using the broad brush is bankrupting America. But more importantly, we’re destroying a generation of fine young men and women—for what? Where is the war headed—long-term? What exactly are our goals and MOST importantly where is the exit strategy? How can NATO, the U.N. and the international community and hundreds of millions of peaceful, reasonable Muslims aid us in the quest to discredit, shame, and ultimately reduce and eliminate recruitment into the ranks of terrorism? We’re sure as heck not “winning the hearts and minds” of not only Muslims but the World Community in general. We need to ratchet down and ultimately end these wars while continuing counterterrorism, antipiracy, and counter-conflict strategies for the long-term. But the GWOT can NOT become a Hundred Years’ War. Ultimately no nation can win such wars yet obviously there are many vested interests (defense contractors, Congressional defense pork, Wall Street war industry investors, okay, even foreign investors and suppliers of our war materiel) for continuing “steady as she goes.” The sacrifices, without a military draft, remain stupefying unfair. Very few of the wealthy and leadership elite of our nation are making any of these sacrifices. What about National Service, Obama? AND with no exemptions for the rich and well-to-do or forget it! We historians can point to countless examples of American and global conflict case studies that ultimately prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the negatives of continuing GWOT far outweigh the positives, especially over the long-term. In fact, one of the major risks, is ironically the collapse of our republic (or empire if you’re so inclined to believe that is what America has morphed into). Obama promised a lot but again, whether Republican or Democrat, ultimately it all comes down to Presidents getting reelected and pleasing the mainstream media and officialdom at the expense of the average American who is always hypocritically called upon to make great sacrifices for little gain. All in the name of patriotism, nationalism, and love of country. Been there, done that—anyone remember the Sixties and Seventies?
Comment on November 24, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
The Athenian Arts…
…an interesting post over at . …..
Trackback on December 20, 2009 @ 3:53 am