It's now abundantly clear the Repukes in congress aren't the least bit serious about fiscal restraint, or the deficit - to hear them yap. Last week, even as anti-tax gadfly Grover Norquist pleaded with conservatives to have, at least, a conversation about Afghanistan and the goals and costs of the 10-year war, all he got for his trouble was the cold shoulder. (One estimate puts the price tag at $120 billion per year - but this is likely too low, not factoring in all the futurwe medical costs, therapy etc.)
The latest evidence of clownish frivolity and fecklessness on fiscal matters comes as four freshman Republican senators, including among the most "fiscally conservative" members of the Senate, have concluded a trip to the region. They're now promptly calling for the expensive war to be extended indefinitely. This is despite the fact that the Obama Administration's oft-repeated target dates for beginning of withdrawal (July 2011) and full transition to Afghan control (2014) are not hard deadlines at all.
John McCormack at The Weekly Standard has been gathering reaction from Senators: Marco Rubio of Florida, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ron Jonson of Wisconsin, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. All four came back with basically the same message: progress is being made in the war and there should not be even a timeline for withdrawal.
Here's Rubio's take:
"Based on everything we've see here, we are making significant progress. ...Everywhere we went here--and I mean everywhere--from the markets that we walked on the streets to the Afghan authorities, all the way up to the president, even in Pakistan, what we heard repeatedly was: It is important--it is important--that it is clearly understood that the U.S. is committed to seeing this through."
Which is bull pockey, since any idiot with even one working neuron understands that once the U.S. leaves (as eventually it must, given the bond traders will demand it as debt approaches $16 trillion) the Taliban will re-occupy the region, aided and abetted by the U.S. supposed "allies" in Pakistan. (And we already have seen this very thing happen after the U.S. abandoned a particular corridor in the Korengal Valley some months ago. )
Meanwhile, here's Johnson:
"We’ve sacrificed so many lives and so many dollars in this effort and it’s such an important effort in terms of our national security, we have to see this thing through."
Once again, this is totally illogical and holds no water. Just because one has "sacrificed so many lives or treasure" doesn't mean one keeps doing it until one prevails. Using this ersatz logic, a would-be gambler would be justified - after losing all his life's savings at the craps tables - to continue playing by putting up his home, his car and his kids' education funds too! After all, finally winning means more than anything else, right? One must go "all out" all the time!
Nope!
As it was, numerous studies have shown that the Vietnam War was actually lost once the Tet Offensive (in January 1968) transpired. After that, it was mainly simply more American bodies and treasure tossed down the drain. Had the U.S. pulled out within months after Tet, as opposed to hanging on for nearly 7 more futile years, nearly 32,000 of the final tally of 58,000 dead - would have been spared. And less than 40% of the total $269 billion squandered on that undeclared war would have been wasted.
In the case of Afghanistan there are many similarities, though to be sure, the number of dead and wounded still haven't kept pace with what we saw in 'Nam. But do we wish to reach the point it does? Seriously? Let us recall, that Afghanistan ultimately became the mass grave yard for the Russkies after they invaded, ca. 1979. Not only did their occupation bleed down Soviet treasures and lives, but it left the country on its knees and ripe for toppling. The rest as they say is history, with the Soviet Empire splitting into its dozen or so constituent Republics, and no longer a super-power on par with the U.S.
Many theorize the U.S. is on that track too, but in the sense of fiscal toppling, and being reduced to a de facto third world nation - since so many domestic needs remain unmet, in particular repairing our crumbling infrastructure. All those needs have been left unattended while we've been in the quagmire of Afghanistan joined to a character (Karzai) who's no more trustworthy than the Diem brothers were in South Vietnam.
Meanwhile, we're bleeding ourselves dry in blood and treasure.
Given the exploding deficit of this country right now (with military spending consuming 17.1% of the total national budget, and 55c of every dollar in each of the past three years) , it's high time the U.S. cease pursuing ruinous policies of "Pax Americana" - in trying to force its will on other nations at the point of weapons of war. Even President Obama acknowledged as much in his first formal national security paper, in which he pointedly noted that the U.S. "will have to learn to live within its limits." He made specific mention of the fact that a situation of two wars (actually occupations) cannot be sustained much longer given the known spending parameters.
Alas, in going along with the ultimate 2014 pullout date advanced by Nato, he appears to have forgotten that cautionary note.
The hard fact right now is that each new dollar approved for Afghanistan, if not paid by U.S. taxes in a pay-go modus operandi, will have to come from Chinese bankers. Already, they own $896 billion in U.S. debt in the form of treasurys. How long can this insanity continue? Not much longer.Either the U.S. must pull out of Afghanistan, acknowledging it can never accomplish what every other invading empire has failed to do in a territory (3 times the size of Iraq) of twenty distinct tribes, or it will spend itself into the same sovereign debt crisis as has Greece. And will likely have to go cap in hand to the IMF to have austerity measures imposed.
It was bad enough we've had $140 billion approved in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, but to now try to add indefinite war spending when the deficit threatens to explode, is not only reckless but idiotic. Moreso, since "entitlement" programs such as Social Security cannot be cut or defunded, since they are mandated under law. Pols would have to go in and change those laws, in which case they will likely trigger a political revolt among the elderly that will make the tea party health reform revolt look like....well, a tea party!
To add insult to injury in all this, it's now more than ten years and counting since the Pentagon "misplaced" more than one trillion dollars of defense funding, as was then elaborated by former defense analyst, Chuck Spinney. See also:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_spinney.html
And now, Rubio and his Teepee clown pals want to toss even more down the shit chute? They all need their heads examined!
John McCormack at The Weekly Standard has been gathering reaction from Senators: Marco Rubio of Florida, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ron Jonson of Wisconsin, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. All four came back with basically the same message: progress is being made in the war and there should not be even a timeline for withdrawal.
Here's Rubio's take:
"Based on everything we've see here, we are making significant progress. ...Everywhere we went here--and I mean everywhere--from the markets that we walked on the streets to the Afghan authorities, all the way up to the president, even in Pakistan, what we heard repeatedly was: It is important--it is important--that it is clearly understood that the U.S. is committed to seeing this through."
Which is bull pockey, since any idiot with even one working neuron understands that once the U.S. leaves (as eventually it must, given the bond traders will demand it as debt approaches $16 trillion) the Taliban will re-occupy the region, aided and abetted by the U.S. supposed "allies" in Pakistan. (And we already have seen this very thing happen after the U.S. abandoned a particular corridor in the Korengal Valley some months ago. )
Meanwhile, here's Johnson:
"We’ve sacrificed so many lives and so many dollars in this effort and it’s such an important effort in terms of our national security, we have to see this thing through."
Once again, this is totally illogical and holds no water. Just because one has "sacrificed so many lives or treasure" doesn't mean one keeps doing it until one prevails. Using this ersatz logic, a would-be gambler would be justified - after losing all his life's savings at the craps tables - to continue playing by putting up his home, his car and his kids' education funds too! After all, finally winning means more than anything else, right? One must go "all out" all the time!
Nope!
As it was, numerous studies have shown that the Vietnam War was actually lost once the Tet Offensive (in January 1968) transpired. After that, it was mainly simply more American bodies and treasure tossed down the drain. Had the U.S. pulled out within months after Tet, as opposed to hanging on for nearly 7 more futile years, nearly 32,000 of the final tally of 58,000 dead - would have been spared. And less than 40% of the total $269 billion squandered on that undeclared war would have been wasted.
In the case of Afghanistan there are many similarities, though to be sure, the number of dead and wounded still haven't kept pace with what we saw in 'Nam. But do we wish to reach the point it does? Seriously? Let us recall, that Afghanistan ultimately became the mass grave yard for the Russkies after they invaded, ca. 1979. Not only did their occupation bleed down Soviet treasures and lives, but it left the country on its knees and ripe for toppling. The rest as they say is history, with the Soviet Empire splitting into its dozen or so constituent Republics, and no longer a super-power on par with the U.S.
Many theorize the U.S. is on that track too, but in the sense of fiscal toppling, and being reduced to a de facto third world nation - since so many domestic needs remain unmet, in particular repairing our crumbling infrastructure. All those needs have been left unattended while we've been in the quagmire of Afghanistan joined to a character (Karzai) who's no more trustworthy than the Diem brothers were in South Vietnam.
Meanwhile, we're bleeding ourselves dry in blood and treasure.
Given the exploding deficit of this country right now (with military spending consuming 17.1% of the total national budget, and 55c of every dollar in each of the past three years) , it's high time the U.S. cease pursuing ruinous policies of "Pax Americana" - in trying to force its will on other nations at the point of weapons of war. Even President Obama acknowledged as much in his first formal national security paper, in which he pointedly noted that the U.S. "will have to learn to live within its limits." He made specific mention of the fact that a situation of two wars (actually occupations) cannot be sustained much longer given the known spending parameters.
Alas, in going along with the ultimate 2014 pullout date advanced by Nato, he appears to have forgotten that cautionary note.
The hard fact right now is that each new dollar approved for Afghanistan, if not paid by U.S. taxes in a pay-go modus operandi, will have to come from Chinese bankers. Already, they own $896 billion in U.S. debt in the form of treasurys. How long can this insanity continue? Not much longer.Either the U.S. must pull out of Afghanistan, acknowledging it can never accomplish what every other invading empire has failed to do in a territory (3 times the size of Iraq) of twenty distinct tribes, or it will spend itself into the same sovereign debt crisis as has Greece. And will likely have to go cap in hand to the IMF to have austerity measures imposed.
It was bad enough we've had $140 billion approved in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, but to now try to add indefinite war spending when the deficit threatens to explode, is not only reckless but idiotic. Moreso, since "entitlement" programs such as Social Security cannot be cut or defunded, since they are mandated under law. Pols would have to go in and change those laws, in which case they will likely trigger a political revolt among the elderly that will make the tea party health reform revolt look like....well, a tea party!
To add insult to injury in all this, it's now more than ten years and counting since the Pentagon "misplaced" more than one trillion dollars of defense funding, as was then elaborated by former defense analyst, Chuck Spinney. See also:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_spinney.html
And now, Rubio and his Teepee clown pals want to toss even more down the shit chute? They all need their heads examined!
No comments:
Post a Comment