Nowhere Near Enough

Thirty-three thousand over more than two years; ten thousand this year. When you consider the numbers of troops involved (about 100,000) that Obama proposes is certainly not a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan--and yet it's more than the "military wanted."

More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.

In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.

What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.

The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.

More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.

Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.

Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.

What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.

An Awful Anniversary

Ten years ago today the US invaded Afghanistan: it's the longest war in our history, and in some ways, the worst. I think, in terms of outcomes, Afghanistan will rank as the worst, for us, for the Afghans.

The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.

But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.

In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).

But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.

For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.

It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.

But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!