War Versus Healthcare

[PassedOut]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

yes.

I don't see how that can be so easily done, Winston.

 

For one thing, lots of folks living there have assisted the US, counting on assurances they've received. They will not all be allowed to emigrate to the US, so withdrawing will put those people at risk (to say the least). This is always a heart-rending story, and all too familiar.

 

That's one reason (of many) for our leaders to think long and hard before setting out to occupy a country (and ultimately rejecting the idea). I strongly believe that the US should have finished the job quickly in Afghanstan and brought the troops home without ever getting sidetracked into Iraq.

 

But that's all water under the dam now. I just don't see how we can go into a country, wreak a good deal of havoc for years and years, convince folks to help us, and then leave them holding the bag. We've got to do better than that.

[Winstonm]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

yes.

I don't see how that can be so easily done, Winston.

 

For one thing, lots of folks living there have assisted the US, counting on assurances they've received. They will not all be allowed to emigrate to the US, so withdrawing will put those people at risk (to say the least). This is always a heart-rending story, and all too familiar.

 

That's one reason (of many) for our leaders to think long and hard before setting out to occupy a country (and ultimately rejecting the idea). I strongly believe that the US should have finished the job quickly in Afghanstan and brought the troops home without ever getting sidetracked into Iraq.

 

But that's all water under the dam now. I just don't see how we can go into a country, wreak a good deal of havoc for years and years, convince folks to help us, and then leave them holding the bag. We've got to do better than that.

No one ever said it would be easy, clean or neat. Consider that the alternative to withdrawing is perpetual low-level warfare that drains the national treasure and provides security for no one.

 

From The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/hayden

 

Military intellectuals envision a prolonged cold war against Al Qaeda, with hot wars along the way. It happens that the Long War is over Muslim lands rich with oil, natural gas and planned pipelines. The Pentagon identifies them as hostile terrain where Al Qaeda and its affiliates are hidden.

 

Among the top experts responsible for this fifty-year war plan, concocted in 2005 in windowless offices in the Pentagon, is Dr. David Kilcullen, a former Australian soldier, an anthropologist, former top adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and current aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

 

If we do not withdraw, we are supporting the Long War whether we agree with it or not.

[PassedOut]

No one ever said it would be easy, clean or neat. Consider that the alternative to withdrawing is perpetual low-level warfare that drains the national treasure and provides security for no one.

 

From The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/hayden

 

Military intellectuals envision a prolonged cold war against Al Qaeda, with hot wars along the way. It happens that the Long War is over Muslim lands rich with oil, natural gas and planned pipelines. The Pentagon identifies them as hostile terrain where Al Qaeda and its affiliates are hidden.

 

Among the top experts responsible for this fifty-year war plan, concocted in 2005 in windowless offices in the Pentagon, is Dr. David Kilcullen, a former Australian soldier, an anthropologist, former top adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and current aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

 

If we do not withdraw, we are supporting the Long War whether we agree with it or not.

I understand what you are saying, Winston, but it's far from obvious to me that those are the only two alternatives.

[Winstonm]

The world counterterrorism community that is planning the Long War, Kilcullen has said, is "small and tightly knit." This is precisely Bacevich's complaint. In the preface to his book he writes, "National security policy has long been the province of a small, self-perpetuating, self-anointed group of specialists...

 

The question in my mind is: who really is in charge of policy decisions?

 

I understand what you are saying, Winston, but it's far from obvious to me that those are the only two alternatives.

 

Again...this really depends on who advises the President. If he listens to the small cadre of self-appointed "experts" his choices will be described as either committing to the Long War or suffering a calamitous failure.

 

The only bright spot is that this President seems to be aware of this conundrum and is asking for more options.

[kenberg]

E. J. Dionne has a column in the Post today that reflects a lot of the views expressed here, including quoting from Andrew Bacevich. He puts the Obama thinking in, I think, as good a light as is possible and I want to comment a bit on what he says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9112201238.html

 

"No one would choose to start from where we are now in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have put this war on the back burner for so long, and we should have dealt much earlier with the debilitating deficiencies of President Hamid Karzai's government. But Obama can change none of this. And unlike enthusiasts for an all-out counterinsurgency strategy, Obama knows he has to make a decision that's sustainable over the long run, which means taking into account domestic economic and political realities."

 

I entirely agree. I would say, and have said, more. During the election campaign I thought that Obama overstated the need for quickly getting our troops out of Iraq and oversimplified, by a great deal, the situation in Afghanistan. I would have preferred that we make it clear we are winding down our presence in Iraq but without specifying exactly a timetable (I think this is what we actually have come to, contrary to Obama's earlier statements) and that we needed to think through what was possible and what was not in Afghanistan and that this thinking through would begin in great earnest the day after the election.

 

 

 

Another quote:

"A senior administration official, emphasizing that final choices have not been made, described the policy Obama is likely to announce in early December this way: "It will not be open-ended, it will be limited in time, and the focus will be on strategy, not the number of troops." It's likely that the number of troops he'll send will be below the 40,000 proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. "

 

And later:

"Yet in the wake of Sept. 11, he [Obama] sees the United States as having vital interests in Afghanistan that it did not have in Vietnam: the need to defeat terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to be mindful of the impact of our choices on the future of Pakistan."

 

 

I see the reconciliation of these two quotes as the fundamental problem. What does it mean to speak of vital interests that will be met by a limited response? There is an old British comedy, "I'm All Right Jack" that has an MP describing how the government will deal with a labor problem. Roughly it went "You can be sure that we will take prompt and effective action and you may rest assured that we will not interfere".

 

Dionne calls his column "Plan C for Afghanistan". We can all hope that there is one, and that it will be effective. We cannot let ourselves be dragged into a state of perpetual war. I don't think I know anyone who disagrees with that. How that general agreement gets translated into a plan is not clear to me.

[PassedOut]

Good article, thanks for the link. I also agree with Ken's comments. I'm hoping that there actually is a semi-palatable solution to this and that Obama and the military - working together - can come up with it and carry it out.

 

It's not going to be perfect. And it will probably take all of Obama's considerable political skills to sell the plan and keep it going until the goal is reached. Right now I don't foresee Winston helping Obama with this.

 

I do like the idea of a surtax to pay for the war. (I thought that should have started with Iraq.)

[Winstonm]

"Yet in the wake of Sept. 11, he [Obama] sees the United States as having vital interests in Afghanistan that it did not have in Vietnam: the need to defeat terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to be mindful of the impact of our choices on the future of Pakistan."

 

This is the heart of the problem IMO. The last statistics I saw we were killing about 19 civilians for every 1 terrorist killed, and we were creating 2 new terrorists for every terrorist taken down.

 

At this rate we will have to eliminate everybody but you and me (and I'm not so sure about you) until we have perfect security.

 

You do not "defeat" terrorists with military action. But it is a good way to waste billions in war goods and support the profits of the military-industrial complex by chasing our tails.

 

Jeff Huber spells it out for us:

 

Our “enemies” are nothing. They don’t have an air force, they don’t have a navy, and they can hardly be said to have an army. We spend more on defense that the rest of the world combined. Our opponents in Afghanistan don’t have a defense budget.

 

Yet we have to commit 40K more troops to defeat these guys?

 

I do like the idea of a surtax to pay for the war. (I thought that should have started with Iraq.)

 

I would like to see a mandatory gasoline tax that paid the war bill in full annually, and I would like to see compulsory military service for all 18-year-old males with no deferments possible. We would then find out who really does and does not support this war.

[blackshoe]

and we were creating 2 new terrorists for every terrorist taken down.

Who took that poll? Al-Qaeda?

[Winstonm]

and we were creating 2 new terrorists for every terrorist taken down.

Who took that poll? Al-Qaeda?

According to our own estimates, there are fewer than 100 al-Qaeda left in all of Afghanistan - not enough for a valid poll.

 

From our favorite source, WaPo:

 

there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 

The official estimated that there are 300 al-Qaeda members in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the group is based

 

A grand total of 400 terrorists who have no standing Army, no Navy, no Air Force, tax base, or Military-Industrial-Complex, no Pentagon, no missile-defense-shield, no Defense Department, and ZERO defense budget and we need HOW many more American soldiers to beat these guys?

 

And it will take HOW many more years?

[blackshoe]

So there were fewer than 200 Al-Qaeda when we started all this "war on terror" stuff? Interesting.

 

How many Al-Qaeda (or members of other groups with similar sympathies) are there world wide? Are they no threat to the US?

 

I'll grant you that 40,000+ soldiers to catch or kill 400 terrorists seems a bit much - but then catching terrorists isn't the only goal of the US military in the region.

[PassedOut]

Here we go: Obama Plans Afghan Address Next Week

 

President Obama has conducted a final meeting on his military review for Afghanistan, administration officials said, and he is planning to explain his decision in an address to the nation next Tuesday.

 

“After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday morning.

 

For two hours on Monday evening, Mr. Obama held his ninth meeting in the Situation Room with his war council. The session began at 8:13 p.m., aides said, and ended at 10:10 p.m.

 

The president’s military and national security advisers came back to the president with answers he had requested during previous meetings, most of which focusing on these questions: Where are the off-ramps for the military? And what is the exit strategy?

Questions we all want answered. Hope the answers make sense.

[kenberg]

When I play bridge, even playing against very good, or very bad, players, I find it useful to expect that my opponents are neither geniuses nor idiots. Applying that view here, I conclude that the best approach in Afghanistan is not transparently simple. Obama has just spent something like four months reviewing the situation. So I expect that arguments showing it is all just really obvious to contain flaws. People can come up with such arguments far faster than they can be answered, but let us look a minute at the 100 Al Qaeda argument and juxtapose it with the argument that we produce 2 terrorists for every 1 that we kill. OK, one time it says terrorists, the other time it says Al Qaeda members, and they are not coextensive. But doesn't it strike you as at least a little difficult to simultaneously believe that we are creating two terrorists for every one that we kill and that there are only one hundred Al Qaeda members? Also, the quoted article asserts that there are only one hundred left. Now that sort of language, only one hundred left, suggests that the number is decreasing, not increasing. If you are playing poker, starting with fifty dollars and now have one hundred dollars, it would be linguistically strange to say that you now only have one hundred dollars left, would it not? The claim seems to imply that the numbers are going down, not up.

 

People say a lot of things. A couple of posts back I was discussing the idea that Obama regards our interests in Afghanistan as vital, and has decided on a limited response. I have trouble reconciling these two statements. Not completely incompatible I guess, but the ideas live together uneasily.

 

 

Back at the time of the first gulf war I listened a lot to WPFW Pacifica. Good jazz, very left wing commentary. They had any number of people explaining why American casualties would be enormous, ridiculing those who thought otherwise. Afterward, the line was that obviously American forces could overwhelm the poorly equipped Iraqis and certainly the result proved nothing about American competence. They had the Cuban Ambassador on to make all of this very clear.

 

Generally, people way overstate the extent to which their conclusions are inevitable. I forget from whom I first heard "All important decisions are made on the basis of insufficient information" but I find it very reliable.

[jdonn]

Ken I think you nailed it, making a point I already tried to make but doing it much better. It seems like so many people think the answer is just so obvious (of course they don't all agree with each other). But I would sooner believe that the fact that the extremely intelligent (whether you agree with anything he does or not) man who has been thoroughly considering the issue for months and has access to all high ranking diplomats and advisors took this long to reach a decision means it is far far far more complicated than many make it out to be.

 

Every question begs many more questions. For example, 2 terrorists created for every 1 killed. What does it even mean to "create" a terrorist? Is this a sample based on how many people we have killed so far and how many new terrorists were created in that time? But we still wouldn't know whether our actions slowed that growth or sped it up. Or maybe 'terrorists created' is based on number of attacks rather than their effectiveness so if we could kill twice as many terrorists in each attack we would break even. Or maybe they are independant variables. And all this still assumes that there is a clear dividing line between terrorist and not, when in fact even we can't agree what it truly means to be one.

 

You can't take a lame talking point or two and use it to decide this has any sort of obvious answer that somehow has escaped Obama for this long.

[Winstonm]

Our infallible leadership will make the correct decisions just like they did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our lowly duty as non-elitists is to roll over, play dead, and put another "I Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on the back of the pick-up truck.

 

Git Er Dun

 

.

[jdonn]

Our infallible leadership will make the correct decisions just like they did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our lowly duty as non-elitists is to roll over, play dead, and put another "I Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on the back of the pick-up truck.

 

Git Er Dun

 

.

Yes obviously you were told to agree with whatever leadership decides, and to not have your own opinion, and those were the only points made. Thank you for reading the other posts carefully to avoid looking silly when you replied.

[Winstonm]

No one claimed that withdrawing would be simple or easy. I have yet to see anyone make a strong case for staying in Afghanistan other than the President's very early and poor choice of claims that Afghanistan was some sort of war of necessity.

 

If this is a war of necessity, then it should be fought as one. We need to pay the full cost of this war with taxes, and we need to do it now. Every able-bodied male between 18-26 should be forced into military service and sent to the war zones.

 

We need the pictures of the charred, screaming children running naked down the road after the latest drone strike on national T.V. each night.

 

If it is war and necessary - don't sugarcoat it.

[helene_t]

Every able-bodied male between 18-26 should be forced into military service and sent to the war zones.

Don't be ridiculous. Draft is an anachronism. So is sexual discrimination.

[jdonn]

Winston I mean this in the nicest possible way.... You've officially gone bonkers!

[luke warm]

Every able-bodied male between 18-26 should be forced into military service and sent to the war zones.

Don't be ridiculous. Draft is an anachronism. So is sexual discrimination.

maybe so, but i believe his point is a good one - if the ones in power had no choice but see their sons (and daughters) fight, there'd either be fewer wars or they'd be fought differently

[PassedOut]

Every able-bodied male between 18-26 should be forced into military service and sent to the war zones.

Don't be ridiculous. Draft is an anachronism. So is sexual discrimination.

maybe so, but i believe his point is a good one - if the ones in power had no choice but see their sons (and daughters) fight, there'd either be fewer wars or they'd be fought differently

Abolutely! And voters would have a different perspective if they had to pay for wars as they were fought. (Not only wars, of course.)

[phil_20686]

Ken I think you nailed it, making a point I already tried to make but doing it much better. It seems like so many people think the answer is just so obvious (of course they don't all agree with each other). But I would sooner believe that the fact that the extremely intelligent (whether you agree with anything he does or not) man who has been thoroughly considering the issue for months and has access to all high ranking diplomats and advisors took this long to reach a decision means it is far far far more complicated than many make it out to be.

As it says on winstonms profile

 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

 

I am feeling crushed under a ship load of irony.

[Winstonm]

Ken I think you nailed it, making a point I already tried to make but doing it much better. It seems like so many people think the answer is just so obvious (of course they don't all agree with each other). But I would sooner believe that the fact that the extremely intelligent (whether you agree with anything he does or not) man who has been thoroughly considering the issue for months and has access to all high ranking diplomats and advisors took this long to reach a decision means it is far far far more complicated than many make it out to be.

As it says on winstonms profile

 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

 

I am feeling crushed under a ship load of irony.

As I expected you have not been on these forums all that long and probably do not know how many times I've iterated my position that "I may be wrong and I admit it."

 

When I go into a more narrow stance it is simply to provide a counterweight to the arguments of others - for example, do you see any from the other side claiming that the basic concept of being at war in Afghanistan may actually be wrong?

 

I can be convinced by a good argument, but simply saying General McChrystal knows way more than we do so we need to follow his lead is not one of those. President Truman, IMO, faced much the same Pentagon pressure and sent old Doug packing instead of expanding the war as Doug said we should.

[Winstonm]

Winston I mean this in the nicest possible way.... You've officially gone bonkers!

What is bonkers about saying that if a war is a necessity it should be fought 100% by the country, meaning it must be paid for entirely and all able-bodied men should pick up a weapon and go fight.

 

Seems to me to be the normal thing to do if the entire country is threatened by an enemy so great as to create a "war of necessity".

 

Or maybe this "war" ISN'T such a necessity - unless it is to justify the Defense Department budget?

 

Could it possibly be - is it somewhere within the realm of reality - that powerful and influential people wield enough influence to sway the balance of power to continue a foreign policy based on military interventions not because it is so vital to national interests but because it is so incredibly profitable to some to do so?

 

Or do you think we are back in the days of Camelot? (On second thought let's not go there. It's a silly place.)

[jdonn]

Winston I mean this in the nicest possible way.... You've officially gone bonkers!

What is bonkers about saying that if a war is a necessity it should be fought 100% by the country, meaning it must be paid for entirely and all able-bodied men should pick up a weapon and go fight.

And healthcare is a necessity so all able-bodied men should go become doctors. And crime prevention is a necessity so all able-bodied men should become police officers. And education is a necessity so (since you seemed to miss helene mentioning how sexist your comment was aside from the absurdity) all able-bodied women should become teachers. And nurses because of the health care thing.

 

So I take it we must triple our men and double our women according to you, or something like that. Assuming there are no more necessities.

 

I can be convinced by a good argument, but simply saying General McChrystal knows way more than we do so we need to follow his lead is not one of those.

I agree. I don't believe anyone here has argued that though. So what argument are you applying a counterweight to?

[Winstonm]

Winston I mean this in the nicest possible way.... You've officially gone bonkers!

What is bonkers about saying that if a war is a necessity it should be fought 100% by the country, meaning it must be paid for entirely and all able-bodied men should pick up a weapon and go fight.

And healthcare is a necessity so all able-bodied men should go become doctors. And crime prevention is a necessity so all able-bodied men should become police officers. And education is a necessity so (since you seemed to miss helene mentioning how sexist your comment was aside from the absurdity) all able-bodied women should become teachers. And nurses because of the health care thing.

 

So I take it we must triple our men and double our women according to you. Assuming there are no more necessities.

 

I can be convinced by a good argument, but simply saying General McChrystal knows way more than we do so we need to follow his lead is not one of those.

I agree. I don't believe anyone here has argued that though. So what argument are you applying a counterweight to?

Josh,

 

With what do you compare a nation going to war? Do you trivialize it to be no more than a crime spree or poor healthcare?

 

The point about the draft - which I am quite sure you missed due to your smug self-appreciation - is that only with a draft can the responsibility for the choice of going to war be felt and paid by all. It has nothing to do with sexism or any other accusation based on sideshow trivialities.

 

You would at the very least rethink many times your own personal opinion poll about the need to invest more time and troops in Afghanistan if your little white card said Josh 1-A, and you received that joyous letter than begins, Greetings from the President of the United States....