Posts in "War in Afghanistan"

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 6:38PM

A short and incomplete summary of why our foreign policy cannot continue as it has for the last decade.

As is now (hopefully) increasingly common knowledge, our numerous occupations in the Middle East and Africa were not sparked by those countries attacking us.  Rather, with the possible exception of the War in Afghanistan — which has lasted an outrageously long time with huge costs of both blood and treasure, our 5+ wars are unwarranted wars of aggression rendered unconstitutional by their lack of official declaration by the Congress and unaffordable by our $15 trillion national debt. 

The CIA estimates there are fewer than 100 members of al Qaeda left in Afghanistan, and yet we linger with tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.  Recall also that many of the people we’re fighting there we were training just a few decades years ago, possibly including even bin Laden himself.

We’re finally pulling out of Iraq, left unstable and arguably more dangerous than we found it — not to mention the hundreds of thousands of excess civilian deaths our intervention has caused there.

In Libya, we’re not really sure who we supported or if the new government will even be friendly to us.  Many of the rebels we helped are backed by al Qaeda, our enemies just a few countries away.

In Pakistan, our drone operations are permitted to kill 50 civilians — including women and children — for every one terrorist they get, and no one is required to report to the public who is killed.

In Somalia, we’re engaging in covert operations in a dangerous and morally dubious situation which is none of our business and stretches our military — already posted in 900 bases in more than 130 nations around the world — almost thinner than it can stand.

Now, one might argue that it’s somehow OK for the U.S. to engage in this kind of global military expansion, because we’re the good guys, right?  But, as I’ve shown, in many cases we haven’t the foggiest clue who the good guys are, and often end up doing more harm than good to our own defense in the long term.  Perhaps more importantly, how would we like it if we were on the other end of our clumsy, bloody, and expensive foreign policy?  A little consideration of the golden rule might go a long way

Originally published on my blog here.

aheram's picture
By Jayel Aheram at 11:18AM

The End of the Afghanistan War?

image

Reuters has an exclusive about the Obama administration's efforts in Afghanistan:

After 10 months of secret dialogue with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents, senior U.S. officials say the talks have reached a critical juncture and they will soon know whether a breakthrough is possible, leading to peace talks whose ultimate goal is to end the Afghan war.

[...]

It has asked representatives of the Taliban to match that confidence-building measure with some of their own. Those could include a denunciation of international terrorism and a public willingness to enter formal political talks with the government headed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

If these diplomatic efforts prove to be fruitful, it would go a long way in ushering the end of the United States' longest war.


Read more here
aheram's picture
By Jayel Aheram at 5:09PM

Redditor: "My Taxes Killed 1.88 People"

American tax dollars at work:

Approximately 20% of the US budget goes to “defense.”

130,000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do well for myself, and have paid about $500,000 in federal taxes since the War in Afghanistan began 10 years ago.

[…]

With the federal budget at about 3.4 trillion, I pay approximately 0.0000144 of the total budget. Thus, I assume that I have paid for 0.0000144 of all deaths in America’s wars.

0.00144% of 130,000 deaths is 1.88 people.

Big government kills. Anytime people demand more government or more taxation, all they are asking for is more funding for the insatiable military war machine. And even more death and ruin courtesy of you, the American taxpayer.

ndyer123's picture
By Nick Dyer at 6:33PM

BREAKING NEWS: Rand Paul & Mike Lee join Bipartisan Effort for Accelerated Handover in Afghanistan

United States Senate

Bipartisan Amendment Calls for
Accelerated Handover in Afghanistan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC – Ten years after the start of the war in Afghanistan, more than one hundred thousand American troops remain in that nation, providing military and security assistance to the Afghanistan government.  A bipartisan group of senators today offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to urge the president to accelerate the timetable for transitioning to Afghanistan control over their own security.  The effort is being led by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We went to Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda training camps and bring to justice those responsible for the September 11th attacks.  With the death of Osama Bin Laden, we have now accomplished those goals.  It is time to end our presence in Afghanistan and refocus our attention on fighting terrorists wherever they may be,” said Merkley.  “At a time of high unemployment, a wave of foreclosures and growing debt, we need concentrate on nation-building here at home.”

“It is time to have a clear missive from the President on how he plans to end our presence in Afghanistan. We cannot continue endless nation-building efforts overseas while here at home we face expounding national debt, crumbling infrastructure, and out-of-control spending in Washington,” Sen. Paul said.

"For more than a decade we have invested precious lives and resources in Afghanistan to eradicate terrorism and bring to justice those responsible for Sept. 11," said Sen. Tom Udall. "Thanks to the brave work and dedication of our military, intelligence and diplomatic personnel, al-Qaeda no longer has a significant presence in their country and Osama bin Laden is dead. Setting an accelerated timeline to drawdown our troops gives the Afghans strong incentive to take over their security, and it allows us to concentrate on terrorist organizations with global reach.”

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama began the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan with the goal of removing all combat troops by the end of 2014.  However, that would mean that tens of thousands of troops will remain in country for three more years with many support and training personnel remaining beyond that. 

Given that America has largely accomplished the goals set out at the onset of the war and that the chief mission has morphed into a wide-ranging “nation-building” effort that is costing our country nearly $10 billion a month, the senators believe that we need to rethink this use of our military resources and speed the handover to the Afghanistan governmen

The resolution calls for the President to expedite transition of responsibility for military and security operations to the government of Afghanistan and provide a plan to Congress within 90 days of passage of the resolution of a timeframe and completion date for that accelerated transition.

Full text of the resolution is below.


Read more here
Shaun Bowen's picture
By Shaun Bowen at 3:11PM

CIA Doublecross?

Ahmed Wali Karzai was not a nice guy. Known as one of the big leaders in the Afgani opium trade, he obviously had some enemies. Combine that with his brother, Hamid Karzai, being the American puppet leader of Afghanistan, and no one should be surprise that he was assassinated. However, despite the awesome movie his life would make, there are now many questions arising from this assassination that I have a feeling are going to go unanwered.

 The first and primary question that should be on everyone's mind is why was the CIA giving Wali Karzai money. In 2009, the New York Times reported that the CIA was paying Wali Karzai for intellegence and to help train paramilitary forces. All of this was happening when it was known that he is directly involved in the drug trade in the region. I don't know about you, but if our nation's laws prohibit the possession and trade of opium, I'm wondering why our tax dollars going to support one of the ring leaders.

The second question is simply a more specific "Why?" Why was he killed -- and by one of his trusted and long time bodyguards in his own home no less? It is now coming out that the CIA was directly involved with this bodyguard and that the bodyguard had family in one of these CIA-run paramilitary groups.


Read more here
Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 3:32PM

Terrorist Whack-A-Mole

image

This captures my favorite part of this excellent video clip from the Daily Show on our new pretend war ending, this time in Afghanistan.  The whack-a-mole is missing Pakistan, though.

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 3:45PM
Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 8:29AM

Does this mean the War in Afghanistan will end?

Well, Osama bin Laden is dead, which means America is officially avenged for 9/11. 

So will the War in Afghanistan -- launched "to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it" -- now draw to  a close?  Because let's review:

  • Bin Laden caught?  Check.
  • Fewer than 100 members of Al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan?  Check.
  • Taliban regime removed?  Though the Taliban is still fighting, it's no longer in charge, so check.

And the cost of this whole little project:


Ouch.

So we've met our goals at a very high price -- not to mention the human casualties.

Now can we end this thing?

Cross-posted on my blog here.

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 8:01AM

Is this really victory?

As some frolic on the White House lawn to celebrate Osama bin Laden's death, I have to say I particularly appreciated the large number of YAL members and other liberty people in my Facebook feed this morning.  A few of the more noteworthy comments:

  • "10 years, 2 wars, 919,967 deaths, and $1,188,263,000,000 later, we managed to kill one person. Was it worth it?" -- YAL's Mikayla Hall

  • "[Killing bin Laden] sent a loud message to the world: Mess with the U.S. and we'll bankrupt ourselves trying to find a few dozen men. So if you're the kind of terrorist comfortable with suicide missions and want to bring down the U.S. economy, please come on over and attack us again. As an added bonus, we'll trample on our own citizens' civil liberties, humiliate and sexually assault them in airports, and completely ignore our own Constitution, so you'll have effectively destroyed our freedoms AND our prosperity." -- YAL's Wes Messamore
  • "There's something unsettling about cheering the death of someone...even if they were responsible for unspeakable acts. We should be content with justice but not revel in the spilled blood." -- C4L's Matt Holdridge

  • "Only government can fail for 10 years and spend trillions of dollars over budget and still be cheered and celebrated after it finally accomplishes what it originally set out to do." -- YAL's Jeff Frazee
  • "AMERICA: 10 years, 2 (well, 3 now) wars, over 1 million deaths, over $1 Trillion in direct costs, over $9 Trillion in indirect costs, all funded by debt, all in the name of revenge to kill one person that the U.S. used to fund. Reasonable people call this failure. Americans, however, throw parties on the White House lawn." -- YAL's Jared Fuller

I was going to write up my own commentary at greater length, but I really couldn't top this.

Cross-posted on my blog -- with a few more personal reflections -- here.

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 6:25AM

The Cost of War

I'm not really interested in the government funding schools and stuff, but otherwise this is good information. 

(via)