RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

You Named That Country!

By Niaf Sag Tan on March 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM in Afghanistan, Barack Obama

The correct answer to my first post here at No Quarter, “Name That Country!,” was: Afghanistan

Yes, maybe that was too easy of a question. I think the clue was that girls only go to school for four years, so that somewhat limited your choices.

Yesterday I asked you to guess the country. Today I start a series about Afghanistan and our involvement there. I’ve read to great my dismay: President Barack Obama intends to ask the US Congress for more than USD 200 billion to cover the country’s war spending.

According to the US defense officials , Obama needs USD 75.5 billion for 2009 to cover the cost of the additional troops deployed in to Afghanistan this year and an another USD 130 billion for the rest of fiscal 2009.

This is while late December, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) reported that the direct cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could reach as high as USD 1.7 trillion by 2018 even with fewer troops in Iraq.

So let’s balance the budget on this $200,000,000,000 (Two Hundred Billion). Ready? Let’s abolish the following Departments. Just get rid of them.

Department of Homeland Security: 42 BillionDepartment of Education: 46 Billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development: 47 Billion
Department of Veterans Affairs: 55 Billion

From OMB Budget

Still $10 Billion short.

Are we out of our minds? Spend a total of $1.7 TRILLION by 2018 in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There are over 190 other countries on our planet, are we not going to send them any money for any reason over the next nine years? How about the grand old US of A?

My good friends over at MoveOn convinced lots of voters that Barack Obama will STOP THE WAR(S), so he was endorsed over Hillary Clinton by the MoveOn members during the primaries (I voted for Hillary in that poll, by the way). What do you say now, MoveOn? Are you just “going to MoveOn?”.

“Troops out of Iraq in one year” candidate Obama said. President Obama now says “19 months”, but by leaving 70,000 troops that is not “Out of Iraq”. By ADDING troops to Afghanistan (17,000 authorized, 6,000 going in June, the rest later) and the Generals calling for 30,000 more troops, not 17,000, it seems like we are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

Why are we in Afghanistan? It’s the Oil Pipeline that got us there. That’s the next story.

  • QueenofHearts

    MoveOn is one of the biggest producers of KoolAid in the country, along with the other two Big Three KoolAid manufacturers, HuffPost and DailyKos.

    Who says America doesn’t manufacture anything anymore? Our production of KoolAid has gone through the roof in the last two years!

  • pm317

    Pouring billions into Afghanistan and Pakistan, but what is our long-term strategy and what do they have to do in the first place for being rewarded with those billions?

  • Tricia Spiegel

    This is really crazy, especially when I don’t see any strategic plan. I know we can’t get details, but something general would be good to try to understand.

  • solara 7

    How can we pay for all of this when we don’t have jobs here at home? I feel like I am falling down a rabbit hole.

  • Patricia K

    This is just sick!! Especially went so many people are hurting here in the U.S and when the reason that Obama says he is doing this is NOT the real reason. This has got to STOP!! Rise Up!!!

  • Patience

    I’ve always thought the ONLY reason the POTUS wasn’t forced to bow out of the race in spite of things like his inexperience, 20-year attendance at a racist church, affiliations with corrupt and/or shady Chicagoans, etc., was simply due to the perception and even belief that he was anti-war.

    I’ve been waiting to hear a hue and cry from his anti-war supporters ever since it’s become clear he’s NOT anti-war. Their silence has been deafening.

    Jeez, what if the US just spent a fraction of the war appropriation for infrastructure improvements in Afghanistan, building hospitals, providing food, etc. — maybe we’d make some friends over there rather than more enemies. We’d still need a military presence to help insure the security of workers. But this may be naive — after all, the Taliban have a history of targeting even humanitarian relief workers so maybe it’s just plain hopeless.

    I’m reminded of the POTUS as a community organizer who, for political reasons, essentially wanted the status quo when it came to ghettos. Maintaining communities of homogeneous socio-political conditions helps keep a consolidated grip on power that diversity dilutes.

  • candymarl

    Where are all of the so-called liberals that were screaming about Bush’s spending, especially on wars, affecting future generations?

    Now Obama is spending trillions, much of which has to be borrowed, and that’s just fine.

    No one is answering these questions. Heck, in this climate many folks are not even asking any questions.
    Blind adoration of anyone tends to lead to disaster. That has been borne out by history.

    Giving someone a chance is one thing. Saying that their actions cannot be criticized or even scrutinized is another thing.

    What about the bill saying Presidential term limits should be abolished? Whether it passed or not there would have screams had it even been introduced under Bush.

    Now? Nothing. What about the administration’s praise for Chavez finally getting the constitution changed so that he can remain President indefinitely? It was praised as a step forward for democracy. The MSM hardly mentioned it.

    The spending, the wars, the constantly changing policies and mixed messages are all disturbing.

  • Rich

    Good story. What concerns me is that in order for a country to get help, it first needs to become a serious problem rather then doing preventive intervention. This seems to be our instant gratification society that does not allow for long term plans for almost any issue, or for good preventive anything including street and bridge care, gang prevention, healthcare, etc.

    Rich

  • Animal Control

    I didn’t respond to the question because I thought you were attempting levity, after all, one of the two the links just below the question was Afghanistan underlined.

    Totally agree we are headed in the wrong direction. Obama has proven he can spend other people’s money. There probably will be another party this Wednesday unless Michelle needs a new pair of earrings.

    So welcome and keep up the pressure and let us know what’s going on there (Afghanistan) because the mainstream media is in the tank.

  • Don X

    We should not be in Afghanistan at all unless we want another interminable war with no end, thousands of dead soldiers and civilians, an an economy already tanking, falling off the cliff. Anyone who thinks the troop escalation in Afghanistan is a good idea should read about the horrible Soviet experience which led to their withdrawal after 10 frustrating unsucceessful years of military involvement. Check this out:

    http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=other.diseases.ailments&conitem=4a3a99edbbbd201099edbbbd2010cfe793cd____&cm_mmc=DailyDoseNL-_-2009_03_09-_-MainBlk-_-7

    This article not only details the Russian experience, but it gives a long history of conflicts and frustrated efforts in that region. I think the Afghans and the Pakis and the Muslims in that region should solve their own problems. We have no business trying to resolve issues in countries where tribal disputes and religious issues have been a problem for ages. We can’t be expected to fix the unfixable.

  • Don X

    Sorry, I inserted the wrong link. Here is the correct one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

    Worth a read, even if you disagree with my comments earlier.

  • Naif Sag Tan

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_hWi3JLIdY

    Dear Readers: Thank you for your comments and insights.

    More money and more troops won’t end the dying and destruction, they will only cause more of both.

    In the video at the above link, you will hear what the “Taliban” are fighting for. Leave Afghanistan, no foreign troops on their soil.

    Thanks again for your comments. The next story will be on the Afghanistan Pipeline, the real cause of Bush’s bombing Afghanistan in the first place.

  • Chris Martin

    How much of those billions of dollars go to the troops? I’d love to see a breakdown of where those dollars are going.

  • Patty Mooney

    And let’s not forget about the soldiers from these current conflicts who are going to be joining the ranks of the homeless from all the other wars we have engaged in. We’ve got Vietnam vets, Gulf War vets, Korean War vets and even WW2 veterans wandering around our streets suffering with PTSD. The fact that we send them out there to do unspeakable things in the name of our country, and then we discard them like so much trash, really speaks volumes about We the People, doesn’t it?

  • TeakwoodKite

    Naif San Ta, after Naming this Country, I thought about how many people in this country can “Name that State”?

    On the very next day after BO says “no more suplementals, the Penta-gone says “so sorry BO, but you don’t know the “state” of things. ’cause there will supplementals for a decade.

    BO is Pajama People.

  • pm317

    From http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/08/the_moderate_taliban_a_field_guide

    The moderate Taliban, a field guide
    Sun, 03/08/2009 – 7:28pm

    Having apparently given up on his search for an honest man in Washington, President Obama has now directed his new White House Office for Exercises in Futility to embark on the search for the moderate Taliban. One can only imagine the instructions handed out to the CIA operatives and special forces troops entrusted with this task:

    The man you are looking for will display one or more of the following views:

    1) Seeks only partial destruction of the United States

    2) Advocates stoning unfaithful women to death with only small rocks and pebbles

    3) Believes terrorists are rewarded in heaven with only 25 virgins

    4) Offers Bin Laden refuge in his home only during inclement weather

    5) Still seeks to march every last Israeli into the sea but promises not to gloat about it afterwards

    This gentleman will probably have a somewhat shorter beard than is typical, smiles occasionally, speaks some English and was last reported living with the Tooth Fairy in Candyland.”

  • Koavog

    You can’t address Afghanistan without including Pakistan. The two nations are inexorably linked due to their proximity, and Pakistan’s nuclear status. Going away and ignoring that corner of the World is ignorant and foolhardy.

    Hilary Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, and President Obama reluctantly understand the need to send troops into Afghanistan. They further realize it will not resolve the problem, BUT will temporarily secure the region until further assistance arrives from a coalition of NATO and other G20 nations.

    In the article linked below Secretary Clinton states:

    “Indicating the new U.S. approach, Clinton said Afghanistan and Pakistan must be seen as a single strategic concern.

    “We must recognize that one tiny, remote corner of the world — the borders of Pakistan — is the nerve center for extremists who planned 9/11; the bombings in Madrid and London, the assassination of (former Pakistani Prime Minister) Benazir Bhutto and the recent carnage in Mumbai,” she said.

    “They are planning similar attacks right now,” she added.

    The top U.S. diplomat said to address the threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan there needed to be a regional approach and better coordination within the U.S. government and NATO.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSL5388074

  • Koavog

    Just read this article – Thought it appropriate…

    “This is a tricky, auspicious moment for a young president. He is ending one century, beginning another. Concisely, he essentially laid out his approach to foreign policy in a blurb for a recently reissued book by the late theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. He wrote that he took away from Niebuhr’s works “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain.” He added that “we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.”

    This, then, is the Obama Doctrine: wisely, to have none at all.”

    http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/03/taliban_and_the_obama_doctrine.html

    • pm317

      So if 0bama says to Taliban “you do your thing but don’t kill us, or don’t kill us today when I am President” we should accept it as smart strategy?

      When he says “we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things…” he is elevating the status of Taliban to new heights of credibility. What we need is smart and realistic short and long term strategy to deal with groups and regions which are terrorizing the world. By realism I don’t mean that we have to accept some false humility and modesty about our capacity to limit the atrocities of groups like the Taliban.

      • Koavog

        REALITY CHECK:

        70%-80% of the Taliban fighters would lay down their weapons today if given enough money. They don’t fight for a cause or religion; they’re poor and desperately need to support their families.
        President Obama’s “smart strategy” is to humbly submit we can, and must eliminate the “Taliban” doctrine with the ideal everyone is entitled to a respectful, descent standard of living. Afghanistan, being one of the poorest nation in the World with a political body wrought with deceit and corruption, doesn’t need high ideals and morals enforced by a massive show of weaponry, they need infrastructure and hard cold cash.
        While attempting to accomplish this goal, if the 20% of the Taliban that holds onto to their religious fanaticism were to regain power it would definitely give credence to their ideal of terrorism, thereby making it nearly impossible to interject an acceptable standard of living into their nation, and would wreck havoc in the region. Thus, the need to stabilize the region militarily, then the work can be done to bring Afghanistan into a contemporary era of economic stability with a massive World coalition providing necessary assets. This is what Secretary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke are attempting to build.

        Inaction and pulling away the shoring timbers (military force) at this time would prove fatal!