Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:42 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Domino Theory Redux

TomDispatch brought this up and I think it bears repeating. The new dominant extension of the Bush meme of "fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here" regarding the current war in Afghanistan is how if "Islamofascists" "win" against US interests in Afghanistan, then Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, and soon the Middle East will all fall to their tide and become one big Caliphate of Evil, soon to destroy Democracy The World Over. It is a repeat of the Domino Theory regarding Vietnam, where if we lost in Vietnam the communist virus would spread across the world and capitalism would be screwed. Of course, we did lose in Vietnam, and communism didn't spread across the world... but let's not let that get in the way of crafting foreign policy, shall we? I encourage reading of the full post, but here's an excerpt from the end:
Quote:
All we do know, based on the last year, is that "more" in whatever form is likely to prove a nightmare, and yet anything less than escalation of some sort is not in the cards. No one in Washington is truly going to cut U.S. losses anytime soon.

In the Vietnam era, there was a shorthand word for this: "quagmire." We were, as the antiwar song then went, "waist deep in the Big Muddy" and still wading in. If Vietnam was, in fact, a quagmire, however, it was so only because we made it so. Similarly, in changed circumstances, Afghanistan today has become the AIG of American foreign policy and Obama's team so many foreign policy equivalents of Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. And as with the economy, so with the expanding Af/Pak war: at the end of the day, it's the American taxpayer who will be left holding the bag.

Let's think about what this means for a moment: According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year. According to Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, it costs the Pentagon about $1 billion per year to station 1,000 U.S. troops in that country. It's fair to assume that this estimate doesn't include, among other things, long-term care for wounded soldiers or the cost of replacing destroyed or overused equipment. Nor do these figures include any civilian funds being spent on the war effort via the State Department, nor undoubtedly the funds being spent by the Pentagon to upgrade bases and facilities throughout the country. In other words, just about any decision by the president, including one simply focused on training Afghan soldiers and police, will involve an outlay of further multi-billions of dollars. Whatever choice the president makes, the U.S. will bleed money.

Let's say that he makes the Kerry choice -- "just" perhaps 15,000 troops. That means at least $15 billion for starters. And there's no reason to believe that we're only talking a year here. The counterinsurgency types are talking 5-10 years to "turn the tide" of the insurgency. Those who are actually training the Afghan military and police, when quoted, don't believe they will be capable of taking what's called "responsibility" in a major way for years to come, if ever.

Throw in domestic politics where a Democratic president invariably feels safer kicking the can down the road via escalation than being called "weak" -- though Obama is already being blasted by the right for "dithering" -- and you have about as toxic a brew as can be imagined.

If the Afghan War is already too big to fail, what in the world will it be after the escalations to come? As with Vietnam, so now with Afghanistan, the thick layers of mythology and fervent prediction and projection that pass for realism in Washington make clear thinking on the war impossible. They prevent the serious consideration of any options labeled "less" or "none." They inflate projections of disaster based on withdrawal, even though similar lurid predictions during the Vietnam era proved hopelessly off-base.

The United States lived through all the phases of escalation, withdrawal, and defeat in Vietnam without suffering great post-war losses of any sort. This time we may not be so lucky. The United States is itself no longer too big to fail -- and if we should do so, remind me: Who exactly will bail us out?
The bottom line that I would emphasize is this: Obama will be called soft and weak and wrong by the Right on his foreign policy for anything short of nuclear strikes. Period. The people who won't vote for him or other Democrats ever once again frame the arguments and cow the center-Right "Left". But Tom Engelhardt is correct, his advisors and his military and the pundits will all say the options are either a lot more, or a little more commitment to the foreign wars. They will demand blood and treasure and years for all the saddest and least credible reasons, that not only will lead to more senseless death and more hatred of the US, but will derail every serious effort to focus attention on the numerous and constantly delayed domestic issues that need real attention now, during this administration.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (11-03-2009), Watser? (11-03-2009)
  #2  
Old 11-03-2009, 07:31 AM
California Tanker's Avatar
California Tanker California Tanker is offline
Compensating for something...
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: VCMXXXVIII
Default Re: Domino Theory Redux

Quote:
But Tom Engelhardt is correct, his advisors and his military and the pundits will all say the options are either a lot more, or a little more commitment to the foreign wars.
I don't see the second one as being an option. You either throw in pretty much everything you can, or you don't do it at all. Where's the point in sending 10,000 more troops and more money to do a half-assed job of something when the opportunity exists to do better?

NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-03-2009, 12:14 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDXCI
Default Re: Domino Theory Redux

You say when, when if is appropriate.

And even that is a very big if. Personally I think Afghanistan was lost as soon as it was started.
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-04-2009, 03:30 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Domino Theory Redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by California Tanker View Post
Quote:
But Tom Engelhardt is correct, his advisors and his military and the pundits will all say the options are either a lot more, or a little more commitment to the foreign wars.
I don't see the second one as being an option. You either throw in pretty much everything you can, or you don't do it at all. Where's the point in sending 10,000 more troops and more money to do a half-assed job of something when the opportunity exists to do better?

NTM
Hmmm. Well, there's the question of what's the point, indeed. But to your argument, there's the variations on the Soviet strategies in Afghanistan, that can offer some parallels, with caveats. Some ex-military have argued (in fact someone linked to it at ff in a previous thread, was it you?) that while the initial strategy of increasing military presence and using large numbers of general troops was not effective, that the transition to using Spetsnaz teams to pursue and fight the mujahideen was a great deal more effective. The use of special forces and unmanned drones is Biden's plan, the "little more". Much of this was covered in the linked post.

The point I was making is that there will be no discussion of withdrawal, only variations on escalation. To me it looks like this: the original strategy for getting out of Afghanistan was focusing on Iraq. The strategy for withdrawal from Iraq was to refocus on Afghanistan. So now the US will commit to a new war as a "withdrawal strategy" out of Afghanistan...eventually, after another four years at least of escalating war in AfPak. Full committal to Pakistan, or maybe Syria, or Iran. Or even back into Iraq. Or we will collapse economically, as we figure out spending one-third of our revenue on the military is a foolish long-term investment. "Full commitment" to an occupation is called colonization.

As has also been pointed out, part of the counter-insurgency strategy that the war-hawks call vital and necessary is the rebuilding of Afghanistan's infrastructure and social services, schools, clinics, etc. The same war-hawks that say there is no money or time or pressing need for health care reform or repair to crumbling US infrastructure; I guess we're spending it on Afghanis -who want the foreign occupiers to leave- instead. There will be no filibuster of the War Appropriations. There will be of health care reform. Perpetual war.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-04-2009, 04:36 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Domino Theory Redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser? View Post
You say when, when if is appropriate.

And even that is a very big if. Personally I think Afghanistan was lost as soon as it was started.
The moment we toppled the Taliban we should have pulled the few dozen special forces out and gloated over our amazing victory. All we have managed to do since then is help our enemies look good.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.59665 seconds with 15 queries