The Neverending War: Get Your War On, 30K Times More
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:00AM 
President Obama Tuesday night announced that he would be sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for an 18 month troop surge in an attempt to stabilize one of the most ungovernorable regions on Earth. Can't say I'm surprised. Obama repeatedly said on the campaign trail that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the war worth fighting for. So a lot of the shock and awe coming from the Liberal and Progressive end of the blogosphere rings a touch hollow. We knew this was coming. And even though neighboring Pakistan is likely harboring some al Qaeda, as well a wing of the Taliban that is causing problems in their own country and nuclear weapons, we're still going to focus all our money and manpower in the land of rocks and poppies.
I'm not suggesting that we bumrush the show in Pakistan. Good Lord no. But the point is, al Qaeda is a multinational terrorist network with tentacles extending from Yemen to parts of Western Europe and no one is suggesting that we re-invade Germany. It seems wasteful and short-sighted to continue the war in light of the facts.
It's unwinable.
According to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, the cost of sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan will be roughly $30 billion per year, or $1 million per U.S. soldier. That would be in addition to the $130 billion budgeted in FY 2010 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his letter of resignation to the State Department, former Afghanistan diplomat Matthew Hoh questioned the purpose of the war, arguing that it fueled the insurgency by propping up a corrupt leader in Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a man who is advised by drug lords and war criminals.
Calling the mission “Sisyphean,” Hoh wrote: “We are mortgaging our Nation’s economy on a war, which even with increased commitment will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will not be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory.”
Retired General Karl W. Eikenberry expressed a similar sentiment in November, telling the Obama Administration “additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government.”
Adding to the futility is the fact that the President’s own advisers have stated there is only an estimated 100 al Qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. Hoh argues that by using the logic that calls for us to stay in Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda, we should, in essence, have a military presence anywhere al Qaeda exists, from Saudi Arabia to Somalia.
Nevermind the fact that most Americans have long tired of the war, don't understand why we're still at war and there is a huge disconnect between the civilians at home and our troops, who are facing fifth and sixth tours of duty abroad.
Add to that how this situation is untenable. If we leave, it's likely that the Taliban will return to power (they do live there after all and are pretty much waiting us out). And whatever freedoms that have been enjoyed by women of this country will pretty much become non-existent. But ... if we stay, we're propping up a regime in President Hamid Karzai that steals elections and isn't respected by his own people. And we've had such great luck propping up figure heads. (See the Shah of Iran, a pre-Kuwait invasion Saddam Hussein, pick-a-dictator any dictator from Haiti, desposed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista, etc.) Not to mention our troops will continue to man distant outposts where they will be engaged in a deadly game of whack-a-mole with insurgents who attack and retreat and attack and retreat without end.
Considering that a terrorist attack could come from anyone anywhere (including American citizens), it makes little since to me to focus so much money, blood and energy in Afghanistan -- the place where Empires go to die. From Alexander the Great to the former U.S.S.R., nothing good will come of this and if we "win" what exactly will we have "won?"
You know? Besides about 30 million unhappy Afghans, the rocks and the poppy fields.
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
I'm really disappointed in the Presidents decision.
Sorry, your snobbery, I didn't bet on Obama doing this. There are ways he could have handled the Afghanistan situation without committing more boots to the ground. What I wanted him to do was use counter intelligence measures, drone planes and targeted aerial attacks (we can fire bunches of cruise missiles from our carriers in the region). You see, there are more ways to skin a cat. We don't need 30,000 of our boys over there fighting a useless and futile war.
i'm not surprised. i doubt it'll be by 2011. hell i strongly doubt we'll "win." russia couldn't beat these guys when they could have handled our asses easily.
Even if we are able to win this war-- what are we winning? and will it out weigh the cost of so much death and destruction? There are much better things to do with our time and money on the home front... love and Blessings to those in uniform and their families..
people need to understand why we went over in the first place. the taliban was harboring al queda (you know, the people responsible for killing 3000 americans?) and bin laden (the master mind behind that event) was in the tora bora mountains. did we really have better things to do when first went over?
I'm not surprised by his decision because like you said, he was pretty clear on the campaign trail and in the debates that he planned to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I don't think it's a bright move though and hardly worth it. As for the lives of 2800 people being worth it, I completely disagree. Almost twice that many teenagers die in drunk driving accidents each year and we're not spending $30B a year trying to combat that.
The only only reason to be in that area is to prevent Al Qaeda or the Taliban from getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. However, I'd rather they use some CIA black ops stuff and other intelligence and diplomatic means than bombs. Using drones is imprecise and kills innocent civilians, which turns the population against the US, so you can't even effectively use that tactic to keep our hands clean. It's just a messed up situation and almost sure to fail. We can never be 100% safe. It's not possible in a free country. Just like with teen drunk driving, we do our best to prevent it, but we can't ban young people from driving and banning alcohol didn't work either.
I think the President will live to rue this decision. It won't buy him any friends on the right, even though they're war hawks and it just further alienates him from his already 'patient' base. I don't think he had any easy options and I do believe he made the best of a terrible situation, but they don't call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for nothing - especially an economically fragile one like ours.
they did and are using the CIA-SAD. them, Delta, and the SBS is how we got as close to bin laden as we did. it's a logical fallacy to equate a terrorist attack to drunk driving. it's laughable even. besides, why should we combat something that people bring upon themselves? last i checked, it wasn't americans who hijacked the planes. but it sure was a dumb ass teenager who got behind the wheel with a .2 blood-alcohol limit.
diplomacy is an easy word to use. it's a hard ideology to practice. diplomacy only works with those who you can reason with.
Personally, I'm against ANY military intervention. But if that's the route many people want to go, then I prefer counter intelligence, drone planes and cruise missiles to boots on the grounds. You're going to get Muslims mad at you whether using armed military convoys or drone plane attacks. Our presence is not wanted in an Islamic country. Drone plane attacks, for ill or good, is where war is heading. The technology is getting more precise all the time and don't think we'll stop its use because of collateral damage. War is hell and this is the consequence of seeking this path. Again, if I had my way, we wouldn't use any of this military stuff and rely upon diplomatic strategy only.
BTW, I don't know how Obama's plan can be "the best of a terrible situation" while at the same time the president "will live to rue his decision." Going out was the best. You know that committing more troops was an awful decision, dkan1.
I don't like it, I'm not a fan, and I think we should wash our hands of the whole business like Pontius Pilate. However, I do think there's something odd about people getting outraged and sad and disappointed over a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan when very few people blinked an eye or even noticed when we had a 160,000 troop surge in Iraq. Obama's surge is a mere (appx) 19 % of that.
If anything one wonders what good such a drop-in-the-bucket as 30K will do in a fairly large country like Afghanistan.
(And for more perspective, the number of private contractors in Afghanistan freaking dwarfs EVERYTHING else.)
That said, I want us out, like, a year ago. Two. Six. But then, I'm not in charge of anything, and I'm aware I'm not at all considering what circumstances, chaotic or otherwise, we would be leaving in our wake.
I think the reason we went to war was so that Bush/Cheney could hook up their money-sucking tentacles into all areas of government and suck all the money out of the economy via the CIA, NSA, military, etc. They're not done yet and they don't want to ever be done. Those tentacles have reached every single taxpayer. I can't stand writing checks to the IRS to pay my taxes because I know that my hard earned money will not be invested in our children's health and education, but instead will go to the likes of Haliburton, KBR, via no-bid contracts, predatory schools looking to make students into debt slaves, a financial sector that is running a huge ponzi scheme on us and also has every tentacle in every taxpayer pocket via bailouts, health insurance companies who commit massive Medicare fraud, etc. Bush/Cheney gave the fraudsters in this country free reign. After eight years, how do you turn that around? The last president who challenged the CIA was assassinated. I'm sure if anyone can figure it out, it's Obama.
Graveyard of the Empires.
(I keep trying to correct this and it keeps not showing up: I want to amend that to say "16K-odd troops," not "160,000 troop surge")
DANGIT. "160K-odd" !!!
We will not win over there! Those people have been fighting something or someone for centuries and the out come is still the same. I feel bad because we were placed in a situation that we can't just walk out of no matter how angry people get. If we stay we sink further into debt, if we leave we appear defeated. Right after 9/11 I heard something somewhere saying that the terrorist over there were not only targeting Americans themselves but our economy as a whole. If that is true, then this war seems to be doing just that. Tapping our resources! And killing our troops in the process. We all better pray to who ever it is we each pray to that some kind of devine intervention takes place.