December 8, 2009
President Obama recently announced that he is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan bringing the total number of U.S. troops to about 100,000. Although he stated that the U.S. would begin drawing down troops in July 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quick to remind us that this was not a hard and fast exit date. Thus, President Obama still has no Afghanistan exit strategy.
The U.S. installed a corrupt Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan, who has little support among the Afghani people. Now we are expected to believe that the Karzai government will suddenly or eventually become uncorrupt.
What is the cost of the Afghanistan war so far? As of December 2009, 932 Americans have died. In addition, the war has caused the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of Afghan civilians as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war. The dollar cost of the war in Afghanistan so far is $233 billion plus, and at the current rate of spending, could reach $1 trillion by the end of Obama’s first term. Can we afford this expenditure, especially with our faltering economy?
If there is one point of agreement between Republicans and Democrats, it is that the U.S. war in Afghanistan was a legitimate response to the September 11 attacks, mainly aimed at bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice. The U.S invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. What have we achieved after eight years of warfare? Not much. The Taliban have a pervasive influence in large swaths of the country; half of Afghanistan is either contested by the Taliban or under Taliban control.
In addition, neighboring Pakistan — our reluctant ally in fighting the Taliban — is suffering a meltdown under Asif Ali Zardari. It is not clear whether the Afghan Taliban and their allies plan to take over Pakistan. Would the Afghan nationalists settle just for a return to power in Afghanistan, or is Pakistan the real target of Islamist militants? And what is the U.S. going to do about it?
The bottom line is this: No matter what is said by the president or other public officials or military leaders, we are an army of occupation in Afghanistan (and in Iraq), and we have no intention of leaving. Maybe some combat troops will be withdrawn sometime in the future, but the U.S. has spent billions constructing a permanent base in Afghanistan, adding to the more than 800 we maintain around the globe.
Let’s face it, U.S. troops will be stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time into the future.
Before the U.S. sends more troops or spends more money in Afghanistan, I would urge Congress to have full and open hearings on the future of our war on terrorism. Congress cannot just continue to rubber stamp further expenditures of manpower and money as it did during the Bush administration.
The Hunger Site
December 10, 2009 at 7:45 am
Many people are talking about Obama in Afghanistan, but next to no one is telling the story of Obama in Africa, which began with a horrific realignment of force in Eastern D.R. Congo on Obama’s Inauguration Day. Right now AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command, MONUC, (UN “peacekeepers”), and Belgian paratroopers continue trying to crush a rebellion in Equateur Province, which the international press characterizes, as ever, as African tribal savagery.
Our strongest allies in Africa, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Rwanda’s Paul Kagame, are both promoting McCarthyite anti-gay legislation, including Uganda’s proposed gay death penalty.
And Barack Obama knows D.R. Congo. The only bill he got through Congress, as a Senator, on his own, was about D.R. Congo. It was a bad bill, based on the lie that Congo’s conflicts are tribal.