Iraq and Afghanistan

The Register Guard of Eugene Oregon published an editorial, the type of which you can see in just about any newspaper. It caught my eye because it was brief, to the point and contained some basic stats which I found interesting.

For the first time since President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, an entire month has passed without a single U.S. soldier dying in a conflict that has claimed the lives of 4,474 American service members.

The U.S. military is preparing to pull the last troops out of Iraq by the end of the year in accordance with a 2008 security agreement between the two countries. But there is troubling talk in Washington and Baghdad of extending that deadline to have U.S. troops remain longer in Iraq.

While Iraq was becoming less lethal, 67 U.S. troops died last month in the Afghanistan war, making August the deadliest month for Americans in the longest-running war in U.S. history.

Obama should also continue — and expedite — the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, site of a nearly decade-long war in which this country has invested $1 trillion, 10 years of effort and the lives of 1,754 U.S. troops.

I'm tired of the BS from Washington about withdrawing troops which usually comes with the disclaimer that the date could be postponed. What do the guys on the ground in Iraq think? Are they of the opinion that we're doing something worthwhile there? Or are they cynical and angry?

I suppose it's a good sign, no it definitely is a good sign that no fatalities happened in Iraq last month. My sincere prayer is that it may continue like that and somehow the government will do the right thing by the end of this year.

Afghanistan is another story. What in the hell has been accomplished there at such a cost? Was it all about Bin Laden and the Taliban? I doubt it, but whatever else it is, some strategic balance of power in the region or whatever, I say that's enough. Let's get out of there.

Unfortunately, as the August deaths indicate, it's going in the opposite direction. What do those troops think? Is the idea that the U.S. is policing the world in order to make it safer something that sustains them? Bush and Bush supporters always said that, but do people still think that way?

The op-ed I linked to made the point that in order to heal the economy at home we need to stop spending so much on these wars. That may be true, but to me there's a more important reason, a more human reason to end these ill-fated endeavors. We have young Americans dying over there and I honestly cannot see for what.

As has been said many times in defense of pacifist and non-intervention arguments, the best way I can see to support the troops is to bring them home, every one. We can spend some of that money on VA hospitals and PTSS clinics. We can invest in education and vocational programs for these young volunteers.

This is how we can make America strong.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Republican Candidate Johnson Believes Vocal Opposition to the War Undermining Efforts, should be kept Secret. Suggests Blind Allegiance to General.

Want to save over $100 billion of your hard earned tax dollars next year? Vote against Republican Ron Johnson. Oh, and in Johnson’s world, our elected Senators don’t oppose our wars in public.

Jsonline: Businessman Ron Johnson not only supports the war but suggested in an interview that (Sen. Russ) Feingold's vocal opposition was undermining the war effort and was inappropriate for a sitting senator.

In an interview Friday, Johnson's most pointed comment: … that when he and other senators "come out and start demanding a U.S. pullout and that kind of thing in public, it just undermines what our troops are trying to do. That's not saying if you have real grave concerns as a member of Congress you should not be talking to the administration. It's just extremely harmful to our nation when it's all done in public.

Johnson then repeated his suggestion that when there are troops in the field, lawmakers opposed to U.S. policy should be expressing their opposition in private rather than in public. "There's an appropriate way of opposing a policy and an inappropriate way," he said. "The appropriate way if I'm a U.S. senator is going to be not public. If I'm opposed to something, I'll make those views known very, very well, but privately with the administration."

So much for the often repeated Republican argument for having a public debate over the nation’s most important, and costly, issues…except when it comes to war. Conversely, shouldn’t politicians also keep their support a secret if it undermines the military efforts to strategically draw down efforts?

There is also the false equivalency that support for the troops means you must support the war.
And just one more thing. Republicans are always denouncing government help because it fosters public dependence. Yet withdrawing Afghani troop support by our military would be a disincentive? Think about it.

(Johnson) criticized the president's talk of a timetable for troop reductions, saying if the local Afghanis "fear we're going to pull out, they don't have any incentive to side with us … and "the fact is we do have General Petraeus in charge … If he believes he can win, I've got faith in him."

Haven't we finally had it with all this phony talk of lowering the deficit but still borrowing funding for the war and tax cuts for the wealthy that would add nearly a trillion bucks to the deficit. It’s apparently not about the deficit, but about gaining power.

And for those accusing Feingold of flip flopping on the Afghanistan war:

Feingold: "Al-Qaida is operating not only in Pakistan, but places like Somalia and Yemen. Putting $100 billion this year and even more next year into a ground war in Afghanistan has virtually nothing to do with al-Qaida," Feingold said on MSNBC July 29. "It is bankrupting the American people, and I think it plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden." Feingold supported the original U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, but opposed President Barack Obama's troop buildup. Feingold offered an amendment May 27 that would require a plan to draw down troops from Afghanistan. Feingold … contended it is "catching fire" with the public and has a receptive audience even among conservative voters worried about costly and "unwinnable" interventions abroad.