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.

Originally Posted by gnu

...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?

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

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...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.