A Choice...Why Isn't It Being Made?

[Guest]

If my recollection of the numbers is correct--I think it is--it is costing us as much each year to be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the healthcare reforms being considered right now would add to the federal budget in ten years.

That seems to be a pretty easy choice to me, yet our government isn't even discussing it. If anything, what is being considered is a massive ramp up of the troops in Afghanistan. They're talking about sending as many troops to Afghanistan as we had in Kuwait just before we invaded Iraq. The number of our kids being killed in Afghanistan is growing rapidly. I think a new record--44--were killed last month.

So, if the money--OUR money--could be better spent for the healthcare of American citizens or defending middle eastern countries and re-building them, why is that such a tough decision?

Mrs. Kahuna asked me this morning, "why are we in Afghanistan?" For the life of me, I couldn't answer. The only thing I could think of is that Afghanistan sits between Pakistan and India, mortal enemies who both have nuclear weapons. Are we just playing referee? At the expense of killing some of the best of our younger generation and not being able to afford to take care of our own here at home?

Seems to me that it's a pretty simple choice. Why aren't we making it?

[Guest]

If my recollection of the numbers is correct--I think it is--it is costing us as much each year to be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the healthcare reforms being considered right now would add to the federal budget in ten years.

That seems to be a pretty easy choice to me, yet our government isn't even discussing it. If anything, what is being considered is a massive ramp up of the troops in Afghanistan. They're talking about sending as many troops to Afghanistan as we had in Kuwait just before we invaded Iraq. The number of our kids being killed in Afghanistan is growing rapidly. I think a new record--44--were killed last month.

So, if the money--OUR money--could be better spent for the healthcare of American citizens or defending middle eastern countries and re-building them, why is that such a tough decision?

Mrs. Kahuna asked me this morning, "why are we in Afghanistan?" For the life of me, I couldn't answer. The only thing I could think of is that Afghanistan sits between Pakistan and India, mortal enemies who both have nuclear weapons. Are we just playing referee? At the expense of killing some of the best of our younger generation and not being able to afford to take care of our own here at home?

Seems to me that it's a pretty simple choice. Why aren't we making it?
Strangely enough, Wikipedia provides a succinct history of US/Coalition reasons and actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

[Guest]

I don't know what figures you're looking at Kahuna.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-healthcare-bill-exceeds-1-trillion-2009-06-15.html

[Guest]

I don't know what figures you're looking at Kahuna.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-healthcare-bill-exceeds-1-trillion-2009-06-15.htmlThe content of the reform proposals must be all over the map. The CBO "scored" what was being considered at $600 billion a week or so ago. I think this latest report is the cost of the bill proposed by Teddy Kennedy before he died. Much of what he had in his bill has already been negotiated away. Either of those numbers is for a ten-year period.

Regardless, even if it is a trillion, the trade-off of the cost of middle eastern wars would pay off even that amount with less than two years of "war savings". A pretty good trade-off if we really don't have compelling reasons to be waging war in that part of the world.

Now I'm off to learn some more about our reasons for being there from the Wikipedia link that Steve provided.

[Guest]

Strangely enough, Wikipedia provides a succinct history of US/Coalition reasons and actions. ...Steve, I read the Wikipedia summary and didn't come away with a compelling feeling that we should be there, spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year for an Afghanistan war, particularly when we do have other compelling needs here at home (healthcare, education, and many other domestic needs).

We committed troops to Afghanistan to quell Taliban control because they were reportedly harboring al Quaeda after the 9-11 attack. While we have been inconsistent in the deployment of troops to this theatre, we have had some success in killing some al Quaeda leaders. We have had little success in controlling the Taliban, who now control at least half the coiuntry and are even threatening Kabul, the capital city. al Quaeda has effectively sought refuge on the Pakistan side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and our "ally", Pakistan, has done little to eliminate them. Other than using missle equipped-drones, we have opted not to deploy troops on the ground in Pakistan, who has objected to any such idea.

We're facing the same frustrating situation that many occupiers before us have faced in Afghanistan. All who have preceded us have failed and withdrawn, the latest being the Russians in 1988 after an unsuccessful ten-year war which has become know as "Russia's Viet Nam".

I've got to do more research on why we think we need to be waging war in Afghanistan and spending boatloads of money to re-build the country. It's not as if we don't have other issues here at home that could be substantially resolved with the money we're spending in Afghanistan.

[Guest]

Steve, I read the Wikipedia summary and didn't come away with a compelling feeling that we should be there, spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year for an Afghanistan war, particularly when we do have other compelling needs here at home (healthcare, education, and many other domestic needs).

We committed troops to Afghanistan to quell Taliban control because they were reportedly harboring al Quaeda after the 9-11 attack. While we have been inconsistent in the deployment of troops to this theatre, we have had some success in killing some al Quaeda leaders. We have had little success in controlling the Taliban, who now control at least half the coiuntry and are even threatening Kabul, the capital city. al Quaeda has effectively sought refuge on the Pakistan side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and our "ally", Pakistan, has done little to eliminate them. Other than using missle equipped-drones, we have opted not to deploy troops on the ground in Pakistan, who has objected to any such idea.

We're facing the same frustrating situation that many occupiers before us have faced in Afghanistan. All who have preceded us have failed and withdrawn, the latest being the Russians in 1988 after an unsuccessful ten-year war which has become know as "Russia's Viet Nam".

I've got to do more research on why we think we need to be waging war in Afghanistan and spending boatloads of money to re-build the country. It's not as if we don't have other issues here at home that could be substantially resolved with the money we're spending in Afghanistan.

I have to agree that a conventional military solution to the Afghani situation is questionable. The interesting thing is the new coalition commander, General McChrystal. He's a career Special Operations officer, and his skill in SpecOPS may bring a more realistic way to stabilize the country.

As a terrorism center, Afghanistan is premier. The combination of an uneducated population, corruption, lousy infrastructure, very rugged terrain and reliance on poppy/opium production as a cash crop makes the potential of returning to "its wicked ways" very real.

The drug money to be made for terrorism funding is extreme. Until the farmers can make more money growing anything other than what they've been growing for the druggies, anarchy will continue there and be exploited by the bad guys.

I'm for giving General McChrystal and his staff a chance. SpecOPS guys think differently than conventional Army types, and SpecOPS has the best shot for success there. He's only had the job as boss there since May, and may make Secretary Gates and Pres. Obama look really smart for placing him there.

If Afghanistan can be resolved to not be an anarchistic terrorist home, it can save us a lot of future costs and pain and heartache later.

[Guest]

It is time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. Amen.

[Guest]

How about this just for a thought to ponder. The same enemy we are fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban, is the same enemy being fought, or at least they're attempting to contain, by the Pakistan government. The Taliban crosses the border with impunity and is only being contained, so far, in Pakistan with our covert assistance. Pakistan, as you know, has nuclear weapons, which the Taliban (read terrorists) want in order to terrorize the United States and our allies.

[Guest]

How about this just for a thought to ponder. The same enemy we are fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban, is the same enemy being fought, or at least they're attempting to contain, by the Pakistan government. The Taliban crosses the border with impunity and is only being contained, so far, in Pakistan with our covert assistance. Pakistan, as you know, has nuclear weapons, which the Taliban (read terrorists) want in order to terrorize the United States and our allies.

I have no problem helping our allies if they ask for it. But enough is enough. Using the above logic we need to help Israel take out the nuke program in Iran because they could use it to terrorize the world, and we need to help the South Koreans take out the nukes in North Korea for the same reason, and etc etc. It would never end.

If Pakistan asks us to come there and help, we help, but we dont try to occupy and stay for years and years. History proves that no occupation ever succeeds unless you are willing to commit genocide upon the population.
Mr. President: I did not vote for you. The one issue I agreed with you was the mistake of the war. You are now making the same mistake. Please reconsider.

[Guest]

...I'm for giving General McChrystal and his staff a chance. SpecOPS guys think differently than conventional Army types, and SpecOPS has the best shot for success there. He's only had the job as boss there since May, and may make Secretary Gates and Pres. Obama look really smart for placing him there.

If Afghanistan can be resolved to not be an anarchistic terrorist home, it can save us a lot of future costs and pain and heartache later.I won't argue vehemently against the new Special Ops commander in Afghanistan, or for immediate withdrawal of our troops in order to reduce what may be unaffordable costs, in order to reallocate expenditures to domestic purposes. Maybe it's a wee bit too early. But after reading the following article http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html my suspicions are at a pretty high level.

I guess it's pretty well-known that the U.S. CIA were the ones who funded and trained the Taliban in order for them to act as insurgents against the invading Russians back in the 1980's. In fact, our people used the Pakistani border villages that are now suspected as the headquarters for Osama bin Laden as our primary bases of operations to train the Afghan Taliban.

Now the Taliban have grown to a position of essentially being the government of Afghanistan, but they're a pretty brutal and repressive bunch. No different from when we funded and trained them, but now they're getting a bad rap because of their "human rights violations"--key words for the U.S. social firebrands. And because now they're shooting at us.

So I've been wondering--is that why we're willing to spend so many American lives and money? To quell human rights violations against the Afghan citizens? Our government is willing to spend as much as it would cost to reform our own healthcare system to assure that Afghan girls can go to school? So that women don't have to wear burkhas? To get water and electrical distribution built in the capital city? To stop the Taliban war lords from killing rural dirt farmers? We're willing to endure the deficit spending resultant from all those defense expenditures? That doesn't make sense.

Then I read in the article referred to earlier that it's about oil. There is no way to get the huge oil reserves from Turkmenistan to warm water ports so it can be shipped to the U.S. Building a pipeline across Iran to the big Iraqi oil facility at al Basrah on the Straits of Hormuz would be the best way. But we have no relations with Iran, so that ain't gonna happen. The only other alternative would be to build a much longer pipeline completely across the western border of Afghanistan, across Pakistan to a new port or Karachi on the Indian Ocean. The U.S. big oil companies want to build such a pipeline, so obviously they need a safe and secure route thru Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Did you ever wonder why we don't eradicate al the poppy fields in Afghanistan that provided so much of the heroin to the U.S.? I wondered about that too, until I looked at where they were. The big poppy production occurs in the western part of Afghanistan. Now we wouldn't want the residents in that part of the country to be unfriendly when we try to build a pipeline there, would we?

I'm quickly reaching the conclusion--regardless of whatever explanations our politicians provide for why sending 100,000 of our country's finest and trillions of dollars to Afghanistan makes sense--IT'S ABOUT THE OIL DUMMY!

And by the way, if we build a pipeline thru Afghanistan and Pakistan, who do you think will have to be there to protect it? The Taliban and the Pakistani army? A new Afghan defense force we might fund and train? That strategy isn't working too awfully well in Iraq and we've spent eight years and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to train those guys. No, once we get our troops there, they'll be staying--and we'll be paying--for a long, long time.

If we like this idea better than solving some of the domestic problems affecting Americans here at home--and if China will keep lending us the money do do it--this strategy will be a good deal. But we shouldn't forget...IT'S ABOUT THE OIL DUMMY!

[Guest]

I guess it's pretty well-known that the U.S. CIA were the ones who funded and trained the Taliban in order for them to act as insurgents against the invading Russians back in the 1980's. In fact, our people used the Pakistani border villages that are now suspected as the headquarters for Osama bin Laden as our primary bases of operations to train the Afghan Taliban.


Not exactly. The Taliban didn't even exist when the Russians were there. The Taliban didn't form until after the Russians left and anarchy had taken hold in Afghanistan. The warlords who had been semi-united against the Russians turned on each other and turned the country into a wild-west shoot out. The Taliban formed as a response to quell the violence brought on by the warlords. Of course, that's not to say that some of the current Taliban people weren't also part of the resistance against the Russians. And, of course, once the Taliban took control, they had their own form of violence under Sharia law.

[Guest]

I think the real reason for us to be there is Pakistan - not because we want to help Pakistan out but because we want to keep our cities from being nuked by a Pakistani bomb. The Taliban and al Qaeda have set their sights on more than just Afghanistan which has no strategic importance for us. However, should the Taliban be successful in toppling the Pakistani government and then allowing al Qaeda to have access to the nukes, the only question will be how many US cities are taken out. At that point not too many people will be worrying about free health care.

[Guest]

I think the real reason for us to be there is Pakistan - not because we want to help Pakistan out but because we want to keep our cities from being nuked by a Pakistani bomb. The Taliban and al Qaeda have set their sights on more than just Afghanistan which has no strategic importance for us. However, should the Taliban be successful in toppling the Pakistani government and then allowing al Qaeda to have access to the nukes, the only question will be how many US cities are taken out. At that point not too many people will be worrying about free health care.

Driving over IEDs in Afghanistan will not solve the problem. There are thousands of extremists there that will fight for centuries. If we need to protect the Pakistan nukes, protect them. There is no way we will kill all of the extremists in the world.

[Guest]

Driving over IEDs in Afghanistan will not solve the problem. There are thousands of extremists there that will fight for centuries. If we need to protect the Pakistan nukes, protect them. There is no way we will kill all of the extremists in the world.
There's a lot of dominoes in that part of the world. I agree that being in Afghan is also influenced by Pakistan and what it will do. It's not so much about a Pakistani nuke against the US, but a Pakistani nuke against India - which would trigger a nuclear response.

In the end, Afghanistan is the training ground and staging area for all things bad. Any inciting of one-versus-another terrorism-wise or nuclear-wise, will come from associated extremist groups who hide in the Afghan badlands. Until the population there is turned from aiding the extremistts (and that's a main SpecOPS mission), the problem just persists and will rise its head again, teeth bared.

We had 9/11 because we backed off from dealing with the terrorism problem for several years by reducing intelligence and covert/overt response operations in exchange for social programs. It was a financial risk which backfired. Now, it costs even more to deal with an entrenched and organized network of associated extremists because they've had the time to get entrenched and organized, and we lost our ability to see within the groups due to "funds needed elsewhere." It will be worse if we take the same risk, which history has proved as deadly, only to pay a heck-of-a-lot more in another decade from now in lives and money.

Wishing it to go away will not make it happen.....

[Guest]

Driving over IEDs in Afghanistan will not solve the problem. There are thousands of extremists there that will fight for centuries. If we need to protect the Pakistan nukes, protect them. There is no way we will kill all of the extremists in the world.

How do you propose "protecting" Pakistan's nukes? Do we invade Pakistan and take charge of their nukes? Do we wait for Pakistan to be on the brink of collapse and then step in?

Your historical analogies are not relevant to today's environment. This is not like the British Empire or Russia trying to take control of Afghanistan where it is the entire Afghan people against an invading force. The Taliban are now just a minority rebel force against both the majority Afghan population as well as a coalition of forces that are there to help the Afghan people maintain their freedoms that they did not have while under Taliban control. The Taliban are a much smaller force, without the level of funding and support, than the mujahadeen that faced the Russians. Hence, to assume that they can not be defeated based on historical precedence is inaccurate.

I also disagree that the threat of a Pakistan bomb is only with a war with India. If Pakistan were to fall to the Taliban, there is no limit to the imagination as to what they might do with a nuke or allow al Qaeda to do with one.

[Guest]

IMHO we're in Afghanistan because we abandoned the Afghans completely when the Soviet Union pulled out, leaving a power vacuum for the Taliban to fill. What was depicted in "Wilson's War" ( I think that was the name of the movie) is probably true. When the Unites States trained and armed the Afghans and they won the war, the Afghans assumed we would help them build a nation and infrastructure to improve their lives. Instead we just washed our hands of the area, because we accomplished "our" goal of defeating the USSR in the area. Our money and support of the Afghans dried up immediately after the war and that left a political, social void that the Taliban jumped into.

Our goal now is to stop the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, improve education, build roads and schools and finish what we should have done for the Afghans years ago. They expected and probably we're promised these things and now we need to do them to discourage the people from accepting extremist Muslim domination, which is a threat to the rest of the middle east and the US.

[Guest]

...Our goal now is to stop the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, improve education, build roads and schools and finish what we should have done for the Afghans years ago. They expected and probably we're promised these things and now we need to do them to discourage the people from accepting extremist Muslim domination, which is a threat to the rest of the middle east and the US.Can we afford to do what's suggested? If we have a finite amount of money, should we choose to expel the Taliban, rebuild the country and educate it's children instead of spending the money domestically on things like improving American healthcare, education, the environment, etc.?

If we choose to do both, is the increase in the annual deficits and national debt that will result an OK result?

[Guest]

Using money as a reason for not protecting us from those who want to destroy us will destroy us.

[Guest]

Can we afford to do what's suggested? If we have a finite amount of money, should we choose to expel the Taliban, rebuild the country and educate it's children instead of spending the money domestically on things like improving American healthcare, education, the environment, etc.?

If we choose to do both, is the increase in the annual deficits and national debt that will result an OK result?
Afghanistan, and te evil going on inside its borders, is an international concern. To ignore it or "do it on the cheap" opens the door for another 9/11, as we ignored it before and the resulting cost has been brutal. To ignore it again could be catastrophic.

Health care and education are state issues, no matter how much the fed wants to stick its nose into it and blackmail the states by threatening to cut off money for unrelated items unless the state(s) bend to fed will. Of course, we can always amend the Constitution and rescind the 10t Amendment. Then we wouldn't even need state government at all.

I hate to say it again, but Pres. Clinton was right. It IS the economy! That's issue #1. When the economy rolls merrily along, there are ample funds for whatever is the cause du jour. There is no debt of consequence when the economy booms, so juggling the budget and begging foreigners to lend us money so we can give it away are not considerations.

When we have to trade national security for other issues, due to cost, that should be billboard-size notice unless the economy gets fixed, EVERYTHING is at risk.

[Guest]

Can we afford to do what's suggested? If we have a finite amount of money, should we choose to expel the Taliban, rebuild the country and educate it's children instead of spending the money domestically on things like improving American healthcare, education, the environment, etc.?

If we choose to do both, is the increase in the annual deficits and national debt that will result an OK result?

The reason that we're back there is because we didn't follow up on our commitment years ago. How much less would it have cost us do do it right the first time? We're not talking about building multimillion dollar buildings for schools like here in the US. Simple, local building style, built by the locals and supplied with the basics like a blackboard and inexpensive wooden desks, 1 cent crayons and pencils like those that are being offered this time of the year in the big box office stores. These will go a long way in changing the hearts and minds of the Afghans into accepting the US as an ally and not an enemy.

The US cannot be isolationist and be secure. It is in our best interest to Minimally support those people that are better off our friends than our enemy's. The spreading of peace in the world will be by the education of the populace around the world. Look how much China and India have improved economically and socially since the spread of education in their countries.

Yes, there is only so much money to go around and we waste a tremendous amount of it in ill conceived government programs. The waste is rampant, the programs outdated and too many people are feeding at the government trough. We could probably have free health care with all the monies saved by a zero based evaluation of the entire government. You know, if the program or spending doesn't pass the Quack test it doesn't go into the budget.

IMHO education is a major area in need to be revamped. The US has spent (thrown away) billions on improving education and test scores have declined for decades. Yet the rally cry of "we need more money" is heard all over the country. We need to change the thinking of education, starting at home with the parents expectations of their own children.

[Guest]

...I hate to say it again, but Pres. Clinton was right. It IS the economy! That's issue #1. When the economy rolls merrily along, there are ample funds for whatever is the cause du jour. There is no debt of consequence when the economy booms, so juggling the budget and begging foreigners to lend us money so we can give it away are not considerations.

When we have to trade national security for other issues, due to cost, that should be billboard-size notice unless the economy gets fixed, EVERYTHING is at risk.I couldn't agree more, Steve. But that's where we are now, facing some pretty tough decisions on what we can afford. Even though individual citizens hasn't really felt the effects of the pig-at-the-trough spending of our Congress over the last decade or so, the electorate is becoming increasingly upset over a continuation of that spending. The issue du jour is healthcare reform, but if we're lucky our collective upset will extend to other future spending bills and next year's federal budget. At this point, neither the buyers of our Treasury debt instruments or the money markets which could cause strangling inflation have pushed the country to the need to make those really hard decisions. But I project that those days are coming and they're not too far in our future.

When that happens we will be making national decisions regarding how much we're willing to spend on and in countries other than here at home. Taking only the Middle East as an example, I'm guessing that when we're finally pushed, we'll find another way to assure our national security other than re-building entire countries in an attempt to plant "our" system of government. And hopefully we'll become more effective in convincing the other industrialized countries in the world that they too should take their hands out of their pockets and begin to pick up the check for some of this stuff. We'll have to convince them that we're not as wealthy as they think we are.