Obama Feeds the Military-Industrial Complex
Posted by Jason Douglas on 12.04.2009
Would we invade Afghanistan today if we weren't already there?
I would like to state up front that this article will be an opinion piece. The theme is primarily reading President Barack Obama's mind on Afghanistan, and of course that can't be done by compiling data. My colleague Joe Rivett wrote an interesting article on the left's expectations, which you should read if you haven't already. The issue I take when comparing Obama's decision on Afghanistan to his campaign promises has nothing to do with Afghanistan. He made it very clear during the campaign that Iraq is the wrong war, reminded us he voted against it, and said repeatedly he would end it in 18 months after taking office (remember that time frame). He and his campaign staff repeatedly used the term "redeployment" of troops when speaking of focusing on Afghanistan. They made it crystal clear that the Iraq war would be ended and doing so would facilitate a more aggressive campaign in Afghanistan. Instead, Bush's timetable on Iraq remains in place AND the war in Afghanistan is being escalated. Obama is saying the escalation will only last... wait for it... 18 months. This of course comes with the qualifier "depending on conditions on the ground" because he has no intention of leaving during his first term in office. In the same speech that he expressed worry about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands, he assured us of exactly when we will leave the area??? Only the most diehard of his followers can swallow this tripe.
Since I'm not using facts and figures this time around, I'd like to carry out a logical exercise. What if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan 8 years ago? For the purpose of this exercise, we are going to assume that Bush/Cheney actually had it right that Iraq posed the primary threat to our security and was our sole military focus up to now. Would Obama and his generals, with no commitment of troops and resources yet made, assess Afghanistan as "urgent to our national security"? Would our Commander-in-Chief, of his own volition, start this war himself? This is a critical question because the specter looms that his current path is based on politics rather than sound policy. If he appears weak on national defense and something goes wrong, he can kiss his second term goodbye. But if we weren't already in Afghanistan, he would face very little scrutiny in deciding not to invade compared to deciding to pull out today. We are generally on good terms with Pakistan. Shouldn't President Hope And Change speak with the Pakistani government and put a plan in place to ensure its stability should a full scale overthrow be attempted? What happened to rebuilding alliances with our international partners rather than waging preemptive war? Remember, those responsible for 9/11 have already scattered elsewhere. The entire premise of this surge is to prevent future attacks. Obama suggested that we need to be in proximity to Pakistan via Afghanistan, despite Pakistan being far more geographically accessible than Afghanistan. If nukes were at stake, the Indian Ocean provides direct access to Pakistan, and there's a good chance neighboring India would cooperate as well. Occupying Afghanistan for a brief stated period for the purpose of a possible invasion of Pakistan makes no logistical sense whatsoever. And if we do need to invade Pakistan, stretching our troops by giving them further tours in Afghanistan now can only hurt our effectiveness. The buzz term "AfPak" has been coined to train us that these two countries are inextricably linked. They're not, and no one should accept that premise. It's as bogus as the claim of Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11.
There is an elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring. There is a tremendous amount of profit to be made by our two wars continuing as aggressively as possible and for as long as possible. From Halliburton and Blackwater to numerous other defense and even infrastructure related contracts, the stakes are high. Such entities have shown no conscience as they engage in profiteering and even murder. They have the backing of conservative Congressmen when their employees commit gang rape (http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/14183236). Obama took months to choose this troop escalation. Just a week ago, a major security gaff let two unauthorized people get within arm's length of him. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe a harmless yet glaring lapse by the President's security detail was meant to show him how easily he could be harmed should he anger the wrong people. JFK reportedly wanted to end our involvement in Vietnam, and we all know what happened to him. Those charged with protecting President Obama would need only look the other way while some lone screwball went into action. Nothing would make me happier than for my concern here to be a crazy conspiracy theory, but I'm not so certain. Many, including myself, have been outraged by how closely Obama's military policy decisions have mirrored those of Bush. That would make perfect sense if someone behind the scenes is really calling the shots.
What do you think? Is there any way this escalation makes sense? What goal can possibly be achieved in 18 months? How long will we really be in Afghanistan? Is the President doing what he thinks is right, what he thinks is politically safe, or is he watching his own back?
See, my biggest problem with this whole 18 months deal is that the enemy doesn't have to fight us to win; they have to avoid us long enough for us to just stop caring about them. If he committed troops without a time table then the enemy would actually have to go upfront instead of disappearing long enough to make an impact and resurfacing after we're gone.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 01:12 AM
Afghanistan is called the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason as that backwards Islamic country brought the Soviet, British and Mongolian Empires to their knees.
We have no business sending more combat troops over to occupy that incredibly f'd up country. If we truly wanted to kill bin Laden and take out all the al Qaeda members, we'd send our special forces into the Tora Bora mountain region in Afghanistan and Pakistan and let them do the job.
What's going on now has everything to do with what you write about Jason: war profiteering. And I fear it's going to bankrupt our country as our already maxed-out credit card continues to pile on record debt while burgeoning 17.5% real unemployment has gone largely unanswered by our government back home.
Obama is a capitulating corporate clown. But for those of us who are paying attention it doesn't come as a surprise. We didn't vote for him or the war-mongering sellout John McCain.
The American Empire is crumbling and on the verge of collapse just as every other empire that's overstepped its bounds throughout human history has.
With any luck, we can restore integrity and common good to our government amidst the ashes once the rich man's empire has finally burnt to the ground.
Posted By: onephatdude (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 01:46 AM
Where did the Spook go?
Posted By: John (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 01:48 AM
Couple of things I want to point out.
First of all, a hypothetical situation in which we have not yet invaded Afghanistan is irrelevant. The state of the region changes immensely if we had not invaded Afghanistan, so any comparison in which we haven't doesn't really work. The fact of the matter is that we DID invade Afghanistan, and subsequently started ignoring it in 2003 when we got involved in the Iraq debacle. That allowed the problems that we didn't solve in Afghanistan to fester until we are left with the situation that we're in today. We made the mess, and we have an obligation to the Afghani people to clean it up.
Secondly, if we ignore Afghanistan for Pakistan, what do you think will happen? Just like when Al-Qaeda fled to Pakistan when we invaded Afghanistan, they'll just go right back if we put too many resources into Pakistan without stabilizing Afghanistan.
Thirdly, I see no problem with including the qualifier "depending on conditions on the ground". Whether or not Obama thinks that we'll be out of Afghanistan in 18 months is not the point. The point is, is that he has indicated that he's willing to extend our stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to stabilize the country.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 02:14 AM
It is my opinion that yes, there are ways in which this escalation makes sense.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of religious zealots is an unpleasant notion. The government of Afghanistan is corrupt, the government of Pakistan is unstable, with the military existing as its own political entity.
As for the 18 month deadline, absolute idiocy which I assume can be based only on political calculations.
What we need here is a vast army of predator drones. That'll teach em!
Posted By: Guest#9320 (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 02:21 AM
Not to be a 'negative Norman' or anything, but the entire premise of your thought experiment is wrong, because it completely ignores the timeline of how the United States ended up with almost 300,000 troops in the Middle East. The "Twin Towers' attack did happen.
If there was no 9/11, logic says that there wouldn't have been a 'war on terror', there would've been no invasion of Afghanistan, and there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq, assumptions of the world holding true. No Patriot Act, no warrant-less wiretaps, etc.
Yes, Al Quaeda, and the activities of the organization, would've stayed on the radar of our CIA and others in the community; the attacks in 1996 as well as more recent acts already did that job. Still, the premises for the thought experiment would completely change.
First and foremost, if 9/11 doesn't happen, what changes in Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, that would warrant us invading either country?
I would imagine that our government had a decent level of an understanding of what the Taliban and their regime in Afghanistan were doing. I would imagine that our government had a decent level of an understanding of what Saddam and his regime were doing in Iraq.
If 9/11 didn't happen, I don't see the rationale or the series of events, that would lead into the U.S. invading those countries, at all.
Pakistan was still Pakistan, with it's FATA region and it's feud with India, before 9/11.
Iran was still Iran, with its clerics ruling the 'democratically elected' country.
The Middle East was still the Middle East, with a worldview that the 'West' still can't understand.
Trying to spin this whole thing into some kind of 'Obama is only in Afghanistan because the defense companies would assassinate him' nonsense is beyond irresponsible, and you should be embarrassed.
In regards to the wars, President Obama has been beyond clear in his thinking, in my opinion. He ran his campaign, in terms of the war, on the premise that 9/11 was an awful event, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was the wrong place to fight, and Afghanistan, where Al Quaeda launched, needed to be the focus of any military move. He promised to properly resource Afghanistan, and began that process with the initial troop increase. He asked his general in the theater, Gen. McCrystal, to assess what things looked like on the ground and provide a recommendation.
After getting that recommendation the POTUS brought in all players in his administration, who had authority on the matter, and discussed what the proper course to take should be.
And, after the exhaustive discussion, weighing all pro, cons, counter-pros, counter-con, etc, the President made his decision.
Simple as that.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 02:46 AM
If you check out The New Yorker, Newsweek, and National Geographic, you'd see that Obama has had many people working tirelessly on Pakistani relations; however, neither side is trusting one another. We don't trust the Pakistani's to be able to handle things, and they think that we are too aligned with India and are really interested in disarming them. Tough situation.
As for your general point on Afghanistan: no, I don't think the war gets started on Obama's watch. However, I do think that the right decision is to try and restabilize the region. We started this mess by pulling out as soon as we could in the 80s. We can't make that mistake again.
One of the more interesting points made in the New Yorker article is that Pakistan has had a lot of success in getting the Taliban to lay down weapons in exchange for money. "They can be rented." Essentially, if a proper entrepreneurial endeavor can be established, the Taliban have been the first to jump at it. Money solves a lot of things.
We're going to need Pakistan's help in order to get everything figured out, along with money (which we didn't do last time.) Think that if America shows a commitment to a Muslim state in general, it would help greatly in our relations. Right now we are viewed as the aggressor; we need to change our view to that of the solution.
Posted By: Maine Law (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 08:07 AM
The deployment is to give us cover as we leave Afghanistan. I am not sure if we meet all of our objectives by the 18 month, yet at the end of WW II, we lost most of Europe to the Soviets and we still call that a victory. I am just glad there is a date or at least a plan to leave that area. The real problem is we won this war eight years ago and Bush lost it on his vendetta against Sadam. As long as we are out of Iraqi and Afghanistan by 2011, then I consider it a success. Both countries will have to suffer through growing pains to finally figure out what type of country they want to be. At some point in time these countries need to learn to stand on their own and at least there is a clock which if McCain was elected there wouldn't have been one. He would keep fighting a stalement for four years then lose his damn mind. McCain really should kept their mouths shut since they are the reason we are stuck in this mess to begin with. If you have no exit strategy when you are in a war or even before a war then you will never get out of it.
Posted By: AFan (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 09:02 AM
I fully agree with scipio2009's point. You cannot place the War on Afghanistan without any sort of context and then derive faulty assumptions about that war without.
Remember, the Taliban had been in Afghanistan for several years. People in the know and even the media had covered the horrendous things that went on under this regime, including the violations of women's rights, as well as the rigid application of Islam. However, there was certainly not much of an appetite among the American public, let alone its leaders to do anything about them. Furthermore, if the Taliban had expelled Al Queda and/or turned over the leaders to the US government, we probably would have let them be. Let's face it, the US has no problem with tyrants as long as the tyrants are willing to work with us instead of against us.
Even if the Bush administration did think that the Taliban was worth toppling absent the 9/11 motivation, they certainly would not have had the support of the public. And of course, they certainly wouldn't have had anywhere near enough support to go into Iraq, no matter how many WMD's they falsely claimed Iraq had.
With that being said, Afghanistan was the war we should have won, and the one that we needed to win. Bin Laden should have been in the ground in 2001, let alone 8 years later. If we had deployed all the troops that went to Iraq in Afghanistan, we might have found him--or at the very least, we wouldn't have felt that the entire exercise was a point in futility.
Americans have a notoriously short memory, which is why many are urging us to get out of Afghanistan now. Many have forgotten that that was the country where Al Queda planned the 9/11 attacks and where the leaders hid (and many are still hiding). It will take a certain degree of committment that the Bush administration didn't have (and it doesn't look as if the Obama administration has either) to accomplish our main goal of bringing the war to the true enemy.
I'm certainly no neoconservative, but if the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting--what war is? Let's hope it doesn't take another terrorist attack on US soil to get Americans behind this action.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Regarding my assumption about a stand-alone war in Iraq: Let's remember that President Bush spoke of yellow cake and WMD's to sell this war. The fear 9/11 generated undoubtedly made it an easier sell, but I'm not convinced we wouldn't be there without 9/11. By many accounts he was hell bent on going there, and given what a rubber stamp Congress was for 8 solid years, it's entirely plausible he could have gotten his way.
scipio2009: I think it's irresponsible to avoid even considering something because it's so unpalatable. Ten years ago, if we were told we would have secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, and use torture while calling it something else, no one would have believed it. I said from the start I was looking into Obama's thinking. If you were in his position, knowing the especially high threat levels he has already received, wouldn't you be a bit paranoid? Even if my conspiracy suggestion has no merit, wouldn't it at least cross your mind when your security committed a major blunder? If I've learned anything from this decade, it's that we can never be too cynical. Just as that security breach put a spotlight on a problem before tragedy strikes, I'd rather put a nutty theory out there now and take it off the table than end up saying "I knew this might happen" later. It's harder to execute a conspiracy if a million people are watching for it.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 04, 2009 at 02:59 PM
"I'm certainly no neoconservative, but if the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting--what war is?"
No war is worth fighting. These last two certainly weren't. If the US govt had really wanted to take out Bin Laden they would have sent in a COINTEL or Special Ops force, tracked him down and executed him.
However, as both Bush and Obama have stated, targeting Bin Laden is not a priority. In my opinion, it never has been (read into that what you will).
Posted By: Hunter (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 03:46 PM
To give the U.S. president a little benefit here, Obama being pressurized and having undisclosed conflicts and issues with the military may just be part of the job.
Also, it may have some precedent. Concerning Obama and this 'major security gaff' being alluded to,...recall another curious incident occurred early in his term when the 'Airforce One lowfly' occurred over New York city. That same flight was authorised by military men and was unknown to Obama and at the time frightened many New Yorkers.
It may not be entirely absurd to speculate that the incident used one of Obamas own planes to perhaps issue an overt message to the president himself on the dangers of withdrawal.
To tie this in with the Article here, the lowfly may not be entirely 100%
unrelated to possible reprecussions from his meeting with top generals from which he issued that deadline for the Iraq exit.
Its all speculation but I had trouble with the official explanation and circumstances of the flyby.
Posted By: intimidation 101 ??? (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 04:58 PM
"I'm certainly no neoconservative, but if the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting--what war is?"
In my opinion, the huge flaw in this war is one I alluded to: most of the al Qaida operatives who were in Afghanistan have scattered elsewhere. How does controlling a collection of sand and mountains in one area of the region stop them from doing the same plotting in a neighboring country? At most we are inconveniencing them for the sake of saying to the public we're doing something.
If we would just get the hell out of the region we wouldn't draw their ire. Like I have said before, nobody ever gets mad at Canada. They only share a single undefended border with us. We have the same with them, plus military lightweight Mexico. The fact that we still find reasons to wage more international wars than any other developed nation on earth is galling. But a lot of tough guys don't want to seem like America is backing down from a fight, so instead thousands of people die. As a famous man once said: "It doesn't matter who's wrong or right, just beat it."
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 04, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Regarding my assumption about a stand-alone war in Iraq: Let's remember that President Bush spoke of yellow cake and WMD's to sell this war. The fear 9/11 generated undoubtedly made it an easier sell, but I'm not convinced we wouldn't be there without 9/11. By many accounts he was hell bent on going there, and given what a rubber stamp Congress was for 8 solid years, it's entirely plausible he could have gotten his way.
scipio2009: I think it's irresponsible to avoid even considering something because it's so unpalatable. Ten years ago, if we were told we would have secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, and use torture while calling it something else, no one would have believed it. I said from the start I was looking into Obama's thinking. If you were in his position, knowing the especially high threat levels he has already received, wouldn't you be a bit paranoid? Even if my conspiracy suggestion has no merit, wouldn't it at least cross your mind when your security committed a major blunder? If I've learned anything from this decade, it's that we can never be too cynical. Just as that security breach put a spotlight on a problem before tragedy strikes, I'd rather put a nutty theory out there now and take it off the table than end up saying "I knew this might happen" later. It's harder to execute a conspiracy if a million people are watching for it.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 04, 2009 at 02:59 PM
And, if ten years ago, someone had told you that a terrorist organization, based around radical fundamentalist Islam would be able to deliver an attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of people with commuter aircrafts that were carrying hundreds more, no one would believe it either.
Now, in my opinion, you can continue to push this notion that somehow every President since Kennedy has been a puppet for defense spending all you want; just realize that the logic doesn't 'hold water', especially in regards to the thought experiment that you attempted to put forth.
The world does not, and has never, existed in a vacuum. The invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the haphazard Invasion of Iraq, was based on the fact that Al Quaeda, in one day, killed near 5,000 Americans on American soil.
You take away that one element and the rest doesn't happen, for the simple fact that the reason, rationale, and support for such a move would've been non-existent.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 06:09 PM
And, if ten years ago, someone had told you that a terrorist organization, based around radical fundamentalist Islam would be able to deliver an attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of people with commuter aircrafts that were carrying hundreds more, no one would believe it either.
Actually alot of people knew it would happen, military intelligence types.
Posted By: L I A M (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 06:50 AM
scipio2009: Your assertion is that without 9/11 neither of our current wars would be happening "for the simple fact that the reason, rationale, and support for such a move would've been non-existent." Let's take a closer look at this premise.
Since WWII, we have had major wars in Korea, Vietnam, the fairly limited first war with Iraq, and of course our current two. There have been many minor military excursions in between, but those are not significant evidence for my war mongering theory. Let's build a time line:
WWII: 1941-1945
Korean War: 1950-1953
Vietnam War: 1959-1975
First Iraq War: 1990-1991
Afghanistan: 2001-present
Second Iraq War: 2003-present
Obviously, WWII was in no way, shape or form a war of choice, so let's begin our tally after it ended. When you count up all our major military conflicts over the last 60+ years, we have spent about half that time at war. Even if we remove Afghanistan from the equation since 9/11 was plotted there, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were all wars of choice. Then there is the legendary spending on defense by Reagan throughout the 80's. I say that not to question the validity of Cold War spending, just to point out that defense contractors were very happy with him at the helm. So even during peacetime the Military-Industrial Complex has enjoyed great prosperity.
There is a great deal of evidence for wars being waged and billions spent without a single shot being fired at us. If leadership can convince the nation we are in danger, military engagements can quickly gain public support. Numerous Presidents through these years have been quite eager to flex military muscle, some on ideology and some because being a war President can enable certain powers and actions not otherwise allowed. The Patriot Act and severe concentration of executive power wouldn't have occured in peacetime, and prolonging wars continues their justification.
I didn't mean to suggest that every President since JFK has had a gun to his head to favor war. But isn't it interesting that once in office they never seem eager to make peace? Would doing so be political suicide as we are always told? Must a war begin and go south before the majority of Americans are against it? Or could a hard stance of no more armed conflicts, justified in strengthening our military by not overreaching it, be popular?
We can't remove all the danger or stop all the suffering in the world. We have to choose carefully when to engage and when to show restraint. Right now I see no restraint, and eventually our military AND fiscal resources will be stretched until even necessary actions will have to be limited. The Afghan War in 2009 costs more than it's worth. Making the enemy relocate is not defeating them.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 10:51 AM
"There is an elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring. There is a tremendous amount of profit to be made by our two wars continuing as aggressively as possible and for as long as possible. From Halliburton and Blackwater to numerous other defense and even infrastructure related contracts, the stakes are high."
The real cash cow in afghanistan is that its location makes it an ideal location for oil pipelines. Compared to that, contracting is small potatoes.
The real problem in Afghanistan is that the Karzai government is considered by the people to be a puppet gov't, and we're holding the strings. Until the government in Afghanistan can be both a) seen as independent and autonomous and b) can somehow refrain from massive corruption, the people will always reject American presence.
Remember, we basically blew up their county and then left them to their own devices while we went and did the same in Iraq. Then we decided to rebuild Iraq, help them build democracy, built schools and infrastructure, and completely ignored the afghanis for 6 years. They don't like us or trust us.
The hearts and minds stuff is used primarily as a talking point, but if we can't change their fundamental viewpoint on us, then we'll leave and the taliban or the warlords or someone will take over and we'll be in the same situation we were in before.
Obama has said from the beginning that Afghanistan was a priority, and he is listening to his commanders who say that an Iraq-like surge is necessary. I don't really see how Obama's decision to send more troops is unexpected.
Posted By: black hole of charisma (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 01:09 PM
I love how the same people who said we should blindly follow Bush with HIS troop increases in Iraq, now want us to oppose troop increases in Afganistan.
Posted By: Triple B (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 02:16 PM
"No war is worth fighting"
Posted By: Hunter (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 03:46 PM
You serious about that?
Posted By: Guest#9133 (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 03:25 PM
"The real cash cow in afghanistan is that its location makes it an ideal location
for oil pipelines. Compared to that, contracting is small potatoes."
Posted By: black hole of charisma (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Pashtun resistance in Waziristan are declared opposed to the infamous
trans-Afghan pipeline project. Latest having heard, that pipeline is still a
feasible possibility under Asian development.
Anyway, the Pashtuns likely arent getting a cut if it actually happens. Nor will the Taliban (renting aside) who took power in Afghanistan in '96.
British reporter John Pilger said that soon after the Taliban took power Clinton was backing these pipelines. Remember also, to pinpoint the Taliban at the time were invited to Texas to discuss proposals for pipelines.
But at least one complication was the Taliban had their own pipeline deal with the Argentine Bridas corporation. Then from '96 Bridas were held up in Texas courts until sept 09 '03 when they won their settlement for interference in contract.
To challenge peoples views on policy forming, you may be fully aware that
the economic and strategic significance of all these energy dealings are either
just paralleled or underpinned in Zbigniew Brezinskis well known '97 study 'the Grand Chessboard'.
The book illustrates pipelines and explains a geostrategy for that region.
'96 also saw Bin Laden re-enter Afghanistan from Sudan and setup his Tarnak Farm operation. Bin Laden we are all told is ultimately the man who baited the U.S., Britain, Australia, NATO etc. into Afghanistan.
These wars may be costing taxpayers, particularly in the U.S., but its a
basic point that there are influential people in energy and weapons circles
making money. Not to mention that India, China, Pakistan govt,
Afghanistan govt etc. would all still like to benefit from U.S. technology
completing these ambitious and maybe impossible pipeline projects. On top of it all Iran have rival proposals to supply India and Pakistan.
I pity the civilian populations on all sides of this war and like this posted article said 'Such entities have shown no conscience'.
Posted By: Guest#8905 (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 09:03 PM
And, if ten years ago, someone had told you that a terrorist organization, based around radical fundamentalist Islam would be able to deliver an attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of people with commuter aircrafts that were carrying hundreds more, no one would believe it either.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Ten years ago? That would be after the USS-Cole and the 1st World Trade Center. I would have believed such a statement easily.
Posted By: Guest#9474 (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 09:58 PM
And, if ten years ago, someone had told you that a terrorist organization, based around radical fundamentalist Islam would be able to deliver an attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of people with commuter aircrafts that were carrying hundreds more, no one would believe it either.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Ten years ago? That would be after the USS-Cole and the 1st World Trade Center. I would have believed such a statement easily.
Posted By: Guest#9474 (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 09:58 PM
You forgot the embassy attacks at Kenya and Tanzania.
Posted By: John (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 11:05 PM
WWII: 1941-1945
Korean War: 1950-1953
Vietnam War: 1959-1975
First Iraq War: 1990-1991
Afghanistan: 2001-present
Second Iraq War: 2003-present
Obviously, WWII was in no way, shape or form a war of choice, so let's begin our tally after it ended. When you count up all our major military conflicts over the last 60+ years, we have spent about half that time at war. Even if we remove Afghanistan from the equation since 9/11 was plotted there, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were all wars of choice. Then there is the legendary spending on defense by Reagan throughout the 80's. I say that not to question the validity of Cold War spending, just to point out that defense contractors were very happy with him at the helm. So even during peacetime the Military-Industrial Complex has enjoyed great prosperity.
There is a great deal of evidence for wars being waged and billions spent without a single shot being fired at us. If leadership can convince the nation we are in danger, military engagements can quickly gain public support. Numerous Presidents through these years have been quite eager to flex military muscle, some on ideology and some because being a war President can enable certain powers and actions not otherwise allowed. The Patriot Act and severe concentration of executive power wouldn't have occured in peacetime, and prolonging wars continues their justification.
I didn't mean to suggest that every President since JFK has had a gun to his head to favor war. But isn't it interesting that once in office they never seem eager to make peace? Would doing so be political suicide as we are always told? Must a war begin and go south before the majority of Americans are against it? Or could a hard stance of no more armed conflicts, justified in strengthening our military by not overreaching it, be popular?
We can't remove all the danger or stop all the suffering in the world. We have to choose carefully when to engage and when to show restraint. Right now I see no restraint, and eventually our military AND fiscal resources will be stretched until even necessary actions will have to be limited. The Afghan War in 2009 costs more than it's worth. Making the enemy relocate is not defeating them.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on December 05, 2009 at 1
What rationale was there for the U.S. to attack Afghanistan? What rationale was there for the U.S. to attack Iraq?
Sans 9/11, there is no reason.
You can say whatever you want, but until you can bring forth something that would give the reason to enter into either country, your point is mute.
It's simple as that.
What made Afghanistan/Iraq different, pre- 9/11, from post 9/11? Answer that simple question.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 06:22 AM
"No war is worth fighting"
Posted By: Hunter (Guest)
You serious about that?
Posted By: Guest#9133 (Guest)
I'd say none for the U.S. since WWII. The Cuban Missile Crisis showed the USSR would only fight proxy wars with us, which we could have just as soon sidestepped. For all the villification nukes get, they work when not actually used. Of course that creates a whole new danger, as Pakistan demonstrates.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 01:32 PM
Without 9/11, the situation in the Middle East, in my opinion, does not change. Period.
Throughout your thought experiment or even any of our comments on this article, you have failed to demonstrate a single reason to justify invading Afghanistan or Iraq, as dumb as that decision was, without the effects of 9/11.
Saddam Hussein had an iron-grip on his control in Iraq, and he probably was still doing brutal things to his people.
Afghanistan was still one of the worst countries in the world, in terms of its treatment of women and human rights for girls.
Both situations, in their respective countries, had been the case before 9/11, and neither country was attacked for these things; Iraq was attacked during the Gulf War because of its' invasion of Kuwait, and that's about it.
There was nothing special in either country, especially Afghanistan.
I'd even go as far as saying that without 9/11, neither move is made, ever. The CIA and other agencies would probably continue the covert assault against Al Quaeda and other groups; the general population, however, would've never heard of Osama bin Laden.
The human rights situation would be awful for women in Afghanistan and the US wouldn't raise a finger to change it.
A harsh truth, but a truth nonetheless.
End of story, in my opinion.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 03:10 PM
"The buzz term "AfPak" has been coined to train us that these two countries are inextricably linked. They're not, and no one should accept that premise."
I beg to differ. Af and Pak are linked and related. Pak is the classroom and Af is the lab for terrorism. Is US pulls its troops out, then the US will be made the testing centre. For the greater good, the terror threat should be annihilated. Nuke Pak and then Af.
Posted By: Y2SJ (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Throughout your thought experiment or even any of our comments on this article, you have failed to demonstrate a single reason to justify invading Afghanistan or Iraq, as dumb as that decision was, without the effects of 9/11.
"Let's remember that President Bush spoke of yellow cake and WMD's to sell this war."
I'm pretty sure those are two reasons. Valid reasons? No, but there never was a valid reason to go into Iraq. I never said we would be in Afghanistan without 9/11. 9/11 occured in 2001, a decade AFTER our first adventure with Iraq. So why is it so hard to believe an administration hell bent on a full invasion wouldn't find a way to make it happen? Remember, the general public thought the second Iraq war would be a two week cake walk. We were never prepared for what actually unfolded. Could anyone have foreseen it? Yes, but not the average American with no military knowledge. Our history of aggression is clear, and there's far more reason to presume the U.S. will choose war rather than peace.
Every time we go to war, we don't formally declare it, and are told the troops are "protecting American freedom". A handful of people exploited a glaring hole in airport security to perpetrate an awful incident, and we're acting like occupying a particular chunk of dirt on the far side of the earth will keep them from hatching another plot. It's nonsense, as is the belief that if we drop enough bombs none of the people whose neighborhoods we use to fight our oil wars will dare harm us again. War just necessitates more war, and our failure as a nation to realize that could be our undoing, whether through an attack or much more likely an economic collapse from our own rampant military spending.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 11:23 PM
i don't know the 1st Iraq war and Kosovo i think were worth it also Afghanistan. But what may e worth to some aint worth it to others.
Posted By: Guest#7581 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 02:11 AM
Throughout your thought experiment or even any of our comments on this article, you have failed to demonstrate a single reason to justify invading Afghanistan or Iraq, as dumb as that decision was, without the effects of 9/11.
"Let's remember that President Bush spoke of yellow cake and WMD's to sell this war."
I'm pretty sure those are two reasons. Valid reasons? No, but there never was a valid reason to go into Iraq. I never said we would be in Afghanistan without 9/11. 9/11 occured in 2001, a decade AFTER our first adventure with Iraq. So why is it so hard to believe an administration hell bent on a full invasion wouldn't find a way to make it happen? Remember, the general public thought the second Iraq war would be a two week cake walk. We were never prepared for what actually unfolded. Could anyone have foreseen it? Yes, but not the average American with no military knowledge. Our history of aggression is clear, and there's far more reason to presume the U.S. will choose war rather than peace.
Every time we go to war, we don't formally declare it, and are told the troops are "protecting American freedom". A handful of people exploited a glaring hole in airport security to perpetrate an awful incident, and we're acting like occupying a particular chunk of dirt on the far side of the earth will keep them from hatching another plot. It's nonsense, as is the belief that if we drop enough bombs none of the people whose neighborhoods we use to fight our oil wars will dare harm us again. War just necessitates more war, and our failure as a nation to realize that could be our undoing, whether through an attack or much more likely an economic collapse from our own rampant military spending.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 11:23 PM
So you believe that if 9/11 hadn't occurred, Bush's talk of "yellow cake and WMDs" would've been enough to rally the support for either invasion? Honestly?
lol
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 04:27 AM
There was another aspect to the war. A commercial one.
Obama mentioned the Taliban several times in his speech. The recent history of energy dealings are seldom mentioned. Afghanistan is an ideal location for pipelines.
As examples:
In 1997, Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as it CEO, secured a contract in Turkmenistan for exploration and drilling in the Caspian Sea Basin.
December 4, 1997 Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. (Unocal now part of Chevron)(Rice seated on Chevron board of directors)
On same day BBC reports that Unocal are in competition with Argentine Bridas corporation to construct the trans Afghan pipeline.
Jan 1998, Taliban sign pipeline deal with CentGas, a Unocal led corporation.
Oct 2 1998 Texas District court dismiss the Bridas interference lawsuit(Afghanistan and Turkmenistan)in favour of Unocal.
Sept 9 2003 Bridas win their ~500,000,000 dollar settlement in Court Of Appeals for interference of contract in Turkmenistan.
The Caspian Basin is potentially quoted as worth over 11 trillion to corporations. This figure doesn’t include the profits made by energy companies in Iraq. Contrast all of this with the taxpayer bill and Obamas speech when he said both wars cost approx one trillion to date.
Warlords and radical mercenaries aside, Afghanistan presented major commerial opportunities. Corporations were securing contracts in this region throughout the 90’s. The Taliban couldn’t provide the stability in Afghanistan to run the pipelines. An example of this is when Gazprom in June ‘98 pulled their 10% stake in the pipeline with various Afghan factions at war.
Khalilzad and Karzai, two Unocal men, were in key positions early after the invasion. Khalilzad had acted as special liaison between Unocal and the Taliban regime and while at the Rand corporation he conducted a risk analysis for Unocal for a proposed 1400Km 2 billion dollar Trans-Afghan pipeline project.
The region was beyond heavily invested in. Other corporations were there aswell. No corporation seemed happy with the Taliban. Sanctions had been snapped on during Clintons term. War literally handed Afghanistan over to the commercial aspirations of the corporations. War got rid of the Taliban from Kabul at least.
Whether or not the pipeline is possible today given the continuing regional instability is another issue. Especially troublesome now for any project pathway are the tribes along the border with Pakistan.
Posted By: Guest#1052 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 12:28 PM
^^^British based Australian reporter John Pilger to be exact.
Posted By: Guest#1605 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 12:28 PM
So you believe that if 9/11 hadn't occurred, Bush's talk of "yellow cake and WMDs" would've been enough to rally the support for either invasion? Honestly?
lol
Posted By: scipio2009
"9/11 occurred in 2001, a decade AFTER our first adventure with Iraq. So why is it so hard to believe an administration hell bent on a full invasion wouldn't find a way to make it happen?"
I don't know how you got from what I wrote to your conclusion.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on December 08, 2009 at 09:32 AM
So let me get this straight from the end of the "OPINION". JFK wanted to pull out of the war and this is why he got KILLED. Somethings are easily said than done which is why when you form an opinion make sure its one bit of fact in it SOMEWHERE. This war is in some many ways dumb and goes back way before BUSH AND OBAMA! It just got to the breaking point when they both went into office. I hate to put it this way but in terms America has been getting its "hoe card" pulled for many years until we got a president in office and officals in office that decided no more! Instead of blaiming Bush and now blaiming Obama for the acts that we see we need to blaim good ol'daddy BUSH and I hate to say Clinton! Whatever one president doesnt do or get done for the most part it always falls back onto the next one in line. Its not an easy job people. And I would like to see one of you so critical to the "t" people do the job and see how many things you go back on. and over 11 months see how many people you have for and against you. Especially seeing is that the highest branch of our government is NOT the executive branch it is the LEGISLATIVE branch for those that forgot what they learn in grammer school. No one wants the troops over there, they do not want to be over there, so lets just see what this plan that the president has then speak on it , because clearly the last plan put us over there.
Posted By: pmoore (Registered) on December 08, 2009 at 12:43 PM
obamas seems to simpley be trying to please both sides on Afghanistan and in reality will likely just end up pissing off both sides insted of just one and from a non political stand point dose not seem the best way to fight a war
Posted By: gsfdg (Guest) on December 12, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Escalation makes sense to those Miltitary Industrial Complexer foks. There are VAST resources in the Kasmir region that we 'need'. Lithium to make 'green' batteries for instance is just one, amungst having many, many other minerals/deposits. As actually documneted by the Soviets when they were there - it's our turn now to try to get at it by securely attempting to implement some sort of US gov't sponsered infrastructure to only extract what is there - 21st century capitalism.
We will be there as long as the gov't can make the People think it is OK to have US, imperialistic policies throughout the world - war everywhere! Only, today in the name of 9/11.
Obama is not a true leader, doing the things he needs to do only to garner as much bi-partisan support Obama thinks he needs... A true leader will do what is required regardless of the toe stepping, coalation building is done after 2yrs of Uncle Tom leadership. Mr. President: Do what is right for peoples of the World, lead us to peace not to the enrichment of multinational coporations.
Posted By: ruxbin@comcast.net (Guest) on January 09, 2011 at 03:59 PM
STAY CURRENT