Discussion:
What Will Cost $1 Trillion in 2009 and Has Never Been Conquered?
(too old to reply)
B***@wald.not
2009-02-17 17:06:31 UTC
Permalink
What Will Cost $1 Trillion in 2009 and Has Never Been Conquered?

Posted by Bobby Greenwald, at 7:11 AM on February 16, 2009.

A call for Congressional oversight hearings for the war in
Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan is "going to be much tougher than Iraq,"
according to Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy.
Tougher than Iraq? Does that mean the Afghanistan war will last
another six years or more? Will the death toll be worse than 4,200
soldiers and over 100,000 civilians killed? And will Afghanistan cost
more than the $3 trillion our country will have spent on Iraq when all
is said and done?

The time has come to Rethink Afghanistan, and one of the best ways we
can is through Congressional oversight hearings. These deliberative
hearings are fundamental to raising critical questions, examining the
Pentagon's plans, and investigating military spending before this war
spirals out of control. Historically, oversight hearings have played a
major role in our system of checks and balances in wartime, except
during the Bush administration.

In the past, you helped Uncovered: The War on Iraq penetrate the
national consciousness, compelling people to examine the reasons for
war. Thousands of you screened and distributed Iraq for Sale: The War
Profiteers, which caused war profiteering to become a national
concern. Now we need your help demanding Congressional oversight
hearings to Rethink Afghanistan. Sign the petition and urge Senator
John Kerry and Representative Howard Berman to hold oversight hearings
immediately. Then, watch the introductory video and send it around,
alerting people to the urgency of this situation and the need for
hearings.

Congressional hearings, coupled with vigorous public debate, would
allow experts in the field to raise key questions that must be
answered. To that end, we are launching a series of online debates
featuring prominent thinkers and progressives.

Watch political activist Tom Hayden debate whether we need more troops
with Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. See bloggers David
Atkins of Daily Kos and The Seminal's Jason Rosenbaum debate whether
escalation would hurt President Obama's domestic agenda. And don't
miss Jon Rainwater from Peace Action West and Brookings' Jeremy
Shapiro as they weigh in on whether military action will reduce the
risk of terrorism in the United States.

The issues raised in these debates could serve as topics for
Congressional oversight hearings that re-examine our country's
approach toward Afghanistan. We look forward to more debates; to
producing several videos that look at troops, costs, and military
objectives; and to collaborating with the bloggers who have been
writing about these issues at Get Afghanistan Right. Let's work
together to inform the public and ask the pressing questions our
elected leaders must answer. Let's do everything possible to rethink
Afghanistan while there's still time.
g***@amusenet.com
2009-02-17 18:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@wald.not
What Will Cost $1 Trillion in 2009 and Has Never Been Conquered?
Posted by Bobby Greenwald, at 7:11 AM on February 16, 2009.
A call for Congressional oversight hearings for the war in
Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is "going to be much tougher than Iraq,"
according to Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy.
Tougher than Iraq?
He's quite correct, but that was always where the Actual Danger was,
rather than Iraq.
Post by B***@wald.not
Does that mean the Afghanistan war will last
another six years or more?
Depends on our objectives, and what we wish to define as Victory,
dunnit?

But we probably best ought not to get all caught up in that nonsense
about how we're going to change Afghanistan into a democracy in the
western mold. Those people don't care for it, don't understand it,
don't want to do it.

And their past history is one of being able to face down the world's
mightiest military forces and simply outlast them.

But perhaps now's the time to ask a core question about Afghanistan
that I have asked in the past about Iraq:

Which faction in Afghanistan is worth one more borrowed Murken dollar
or one more Murken life? Name it. For extra credit, explain why.

It's not clear that congresscritters can see the entire picture
clearly, given as they so oftimes are to a purely partisan stance
about Winning and Losing in some absolute terms. OTOH, they can't do
much more harm than has already been done.

It's not enough simply to have An Enemy. At some point, we've got to
discuss what we plan to Do when the enemy is reduced (though never
eliminated entirely) to a manageable entity.

What then?

How do we know the best way to displace a social tradition (not a
Nation as the term is generally used) where the basic loyalties are to
family, tribe and clan with something that transcends those
fundamentals?
lein
2009-02-18 06:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@amusenet.com
Post by B***@wald.not
What Will Cost $1 Trillion in 2009 and Has Never Been Conquered?
Posted by Bobby Greenwald, at 7:11 AM on February 16, 2009.
A call for Congressional oversight hearings for the war in
Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is "going to be much tougher than Iraq,"
according to Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy.
Tougher than Iraq?
He's quite correct, but that was always where the Actual Danger was,
rather than Iraq.
Especially with a D in the Whitehouse who when he's finished, will
have the Mullahs running Pakistan as did Carter with Iran.
g***@amusenet.com
2009-02-18 15:38:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:32:31 -0800 (PST), lein
Post by lein
Post by g***@amusenet.com
Post by B***@wald.not
What Will Cost $1 Trillion in 2009 and Has Never Been Conquered?
Posted by Bobby Greenwald, at 7:11 AM on February 16, 2009.
A call for Congressional oversight hearings for the war in
Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is "going to be much tougher than Iraq,"
according to Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy.
Tougher than Iraq?
He's quite correct, but that was always where the Actual Danger was,
rather than Iraq.
Especially with a D in the Whitehouse who when he's finished, will
have the Mullahs running Pakistan as did Carter with Iran.
As a predictor of future events, you don't have much of a track
record.

I figure we'll all just let this one play out.

Carter could have done nothing wrt Iran, given that he was always
going to support the Shah.

Loading...