Afghanistan: Truth and Consequences

Obama's Ominous Speech on Afghanistan

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:30:36 -0500

Sounding Like Bush, Or Blaming Him?

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:27:12 -0500

Dodging the Real Questions on Afghanistan

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:08:45 -0500

Imperial Blues

Robert Borosage — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:34:17 -0500

..."[O]ur troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own."

—President Obama

But Afghanistan comes first?

President Obama made the best possible case for dispatching more troops to Afghanistan last night. But his speech left me with a haunting foreboding. Surely this is the way that great imperial powers decline. Their soldiers police the ends of the earth. There is always another enemy, always a threat—sometimes imagined, often real—that must be faced. And meanwhile, the productive economy declines, the rich live increasingly off investments abroad, the poor depend on public sustenance, the middle declines. No battle is so costly that it cannot be afforded; no battle so unimportant that the nation must not be mobilized. The soldiers become professionals, "volunteers" in our terms. The institutions of the Republic—the Congress, the Senate—are scorned, often deservedly so. The executive decides the questions of war and peace. The secret state expands. The country finds itself constantly at war. New presidents inherit the wars of their predecessors. They are faced not with deciding to go to war, but whether to accept defeat in one already in progress.

And slowly, the great power declines from the inside out. The wars are costly, running up national debts. Vital investments are put off. Schools decline. Sewers leak. For a long time, circuses distract from the spreading ruin. Other societies become productive centers, capturing the new industries. Some begin providing better education and support for their citizens. Their taxes, not drained by the cost of wars past and present, can be devoted to what we used to call "domestic improvements."

The escalation in Afghanistan, so inevitable, so logical, so thoughtfully considered, surely is but a chapter in this saga. The president committed the country to spend about $250 billion in Afghanistan over the next 18 months. For a wealthy country, this isn't a lot. We can afford it. We will chase the devil in South Waziristan. Our soldiers will repel the Taliban, providing a "breathing space" for a corrupt government whose writ barely reaches the outskirts of the capital city.

On Thursday, the President will convene a jobs summit. Already, his aides have sent out the word that deficits will limit what can be done. Or as the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, Christine Roemer writes in The Wall Street Journal today, "Given the budget deficits this administration inherited, it is critical to leverage scarce public funds."

The collapse of revenues at the state and local level will force states to make cuts and layoffs that are projected to cost another 900,000 jobs over the next year. But more aid to the states and localities, unpopular in the polls, is apparently not on the president's agenda. Anyone traveling in America runs into the growing costs of our aging and outmoded infrastructure, from collapsing bridges to exploding sewer pipes, to slow trains on bad tracks, to schools in such disrepair that they pose dangers to the students. But a bold program of investment in our infrastructure is considered a bridge too far.

Far worse in many ways than the money squandered on wars abroad is the attention consumed, the values distorted. This president understands that Americans are focused on the economic troubles here at home. In his speech last night, he argued "as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last."

Note the order of priority. Our "strength here at home" is needed because it (1) is the foundation of our power; (2) pays for our military; (3) underwrites our diplomacy. It also taps the potential of our people and allows us to compete globally. Stunningly absent in that martial list is any sense of creating a society that has eradicated hunger and poverty, that has secured the American dream for its citizens.

This attention disorder undermines our security as well. Next week the president will travel to Copenhagen, where he will boldly call for setting standards on carbon emissions, in essence promising to deliver a Congress that is not nearly ready to make that commitment. This president, more than any other, has the vision and the capacity to rally this country to meet the real security challenge posed by catastrophic climate change and to grasp the vital economic opportunity of leading the impending green industrial revolution. The speech to the cadets of West Point might have dramatically made that national security case, begun a campaign to run up to the Copenhagen global summit and culminated in a Nobel Peace Prize address that framed the new challenge. Instead, the president had little choice but to focus his attention and his speech on Afghanistan, with critics already accusing him of dithering, daring to question the generals' "requirements."

This is a very rich country, despite the years of conservative misrule. But even wealthy countries must choose. We can afford to police the word—to sustain 800 bases across the globe, to station troops in Korea, in Japan, in Bosnia, in Europe, fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sustain fleets to police the seas.

In his speech, the president called us to that mission:

"The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan... unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.... We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaida and its allies attempt to establish a foothold—whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships."

South Waziristan, Yemen, Somalia, Kosovo, the Taiwan straits, the North Korean border, the seven seas—we can do this. But the result is that we are continually at war. And the wars cost—in money, in lives, in attention. Inevitably, domestic priorities, as well as emerging security threats that have no military answers, get ignored. A rich country, Adam Smith wrote, has a lot of ruin in it. We seem intent on testing the limits of that proposition.

Obama’s Afghan Speech: Wrong on the Details

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:30:41 -0500

Without a doubt President Obama can deliver a speech. However, beyond the eloquence of his troop surge announcement that was given on Tuesday night, his Afghanistan policy misses key details –this should worry progressives.

Obama: “I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.”

The president is right when he points to Pakistan as a grave concern for security of the region and the world, however Afghanistan should not be the focal point. Terrorism expert Marc Sageman recently testified before Congress and suggested, “the proposed counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan is at present irrelevant to the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, which is located in Pakistan. None of the plots in the West has any connection to any Afghan insurgent group, labeled under the umbrella name ‘Afghan Taliban.’”

Obama: “After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”

Unfortunately, Obama is quite vague on what defines success and hints that withdrawal will be based on ‘conditions on the ground.’ This is not assuring if you consider Bruce Riedel, former advisor on Afghanistan to Obama, comment earlier this year that “anyone who thinks that in 12 to 18 months we’re going to be anywhere near victory is living in a fantasyland.” Or even Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke’s sweeping statement that success in Afghanistan can be defined as, “we’ll know it when we see it.”

Obama: “Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan.”

Without a doubt the Taliban is a terribly repressive group and has no fans among progressives, however, the president is incorrect to view Taliban gains as a sign of mere extremist revival. In fact, in the absence of competent governance the past eight years, the Taliban have provided stability to parts of the region, despite harsh rule. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen stated just this, explaining how the “Taliban is getting pretty effective at [governance]. They’ve set up functional courts in some locations, assess and collect taxes, and even allow people to file formal complaints against local Talib leaders.”

Obama: “the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”

What Obama misses is that a U.S. presence in Afghanistan risks sparking widespread anti-American sentiment and violence against our troops. Long faced by occupation and intrusion, the ethnically fragmented region quickly has unified against a perceived enemy historically. Again, Marc Sageman describes, “Afghan fighters are parochial, have local goals and fight locally. They do not travel abroad and rarely within their own country. They are happy to kill Westerners in Afghanistan, but they are not a threat to Western homelands. Foreign presence is what has traditionally unified the usually fractious Afghan rivals against a common enemy.” The same statements have rung true in Iraq, as the National Intelligence Estimate concluded the American presence sparked greater violence and resistance.

GETTING IT RIGHT

Obama: “In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home.”

Obama hits the right notes when he concludes the importance of our strength at home, however he must back it up with actions –this is the pressure role us progressives must continue to play. We know we must make proper investments here at home to ensure our economic and national security, while promoting smart diplomacy, not a rush to arms abroad. Thankfully, we have progressive allies in Congress that champion such policies, so show your support to them and make your voices be heard!

See my post yesterday on the costs of Afghanistan here.

Afghanistan: Financial Folly

Armand Biroonak — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:04:38 -0500

President Obama’s expected announcement Tuesday night of a 34,000 troop surge in Afghanistan is indeed a worrisome as well as costly decision. Putting policy discussions aside on troop levels and what defines success of this eight-year-plus-long mission, a troop increase is certainly a budget-buster of misplaced priorities. We have domestic rebuilding needs right here in our country that unfortunately will remain deferred because of a misguided, wrong strategy in Afghanistan.

The cost of Afghanistan already stands at $300 billion through fiscal year 2010. Add in the Iraq War and the figure climbs to over $1 trillion. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes predict the total cost of both wars to tally up to $3 trillion if we consider veteran care and the other social and economic costs that are incurred during and decades after combat.

The price tag of this war is staggering. With Obama’s surge of nearly 35,000 troops, this brings the total number of American troops to about 100,000. It is estimated that to deploy each soldier to Afghanistan, it costs $1 million annually. That doesn't even include such war costs as weapons and equipment replacement or supply transport. For example, shipping just one gallon of gas to the mountainous region costs an astonishing $400, but this figure can balloon up to $1,000 per gallon in some cases. Keep in mind that the Marines in Afghanistan alone consume 800,000 gallons of gas a day.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., has gained a lot of attention this past week with his proposed war surcharge. Essentially his idea would place a tax upon middle- and high-income earners to help pay for operations abroad and to build a sense of shared sacrifice and burden upon Americans that largely has been absent the past eight years. Not surprisingly, Congress has little appetite to pass such a drastic proposal, but Obey’s idea makes a strong statement on its own: We just cannot afford large scale military operations without fiscal action.

Misplaced Priorities

It is time we take a hard look at our nation’s investment strategy. We simply cannot afford to do it all at home and abroad, without addressing the elephant in the room: defense spending. The Pentagon and its operations already consume more than half of total federal discretionary spending–far more than education, health and transportation combined. While our politicians bicker and conservative hawks screech over the costs of providing universal health care or rebuilding our transportation and infrastructure–real tangible benefits that will help America grow stronger–little ruckus is made by the nearly $700 billion in defense spending appropriated for this year alone.

Source: Office of Management and Budget

Rep. Obey said it best, stating,

“The Pentagon has only one job, and that's to talk about this war and this war only…But [Obama] has, and I have jobs that require us to look at everything else that's tied into it. “I have to look at the entire federal budget, as chairman of the committee, for instance. I have to see what $400 billion or $500 billion, $600 billion, $700 billion, over a decade, for this effort, will cost us on education, on our efforts to build the entire economy. And - and when you look at it that way, I come to a different conclusion than [Obama] does.”

We have gone too long signing a blank check over to the Pentagon, while avoiding needed investments here at home that bolster our national and economic security. The American Society of Civil Engineers places our infrastructure investment needs at $2.2 trillion over the next five years. The Obama administration and Congress did well by making down payments on education, transportation and energy in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “stimulus”), but it is only a drop in the bucket. Fortunately, there are progressive members in Congress who recognize that we must rebuild America, not risk financial folly that is Afghanistan —we should stand with them.

The Perils of Being Commander in Chief

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:30:53 -0500

An Open Letter to President Obama

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:26:22 -0500