More Troops For Afghanistan
Barack Obama is expected to send 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan when he unveils his long-awaited strategy for the Afghan conflict next Tuesday, US media reports said today.
The Politico website said the US president would make a prime time address to the American people to announce his plans for what he has described as “a war of necessity”.
Just as significant as the number of troops, however, will be pointers to a US exit strategy – something that will be closely watched by the British government, which is under public pressure to withdraw 9,000 UK troops from Afghanistan.
The McClatchy news service reported that the White House plan contained “off-ramps” – points, starting as early as next June, at which Obama could decide to continue to increase troop numbers, halt deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or “begin looking very quickly at exiting”, depending on political and military progress.
I think it will be important to make clear the goals we’re trying to achieve, the strategy we’re choosing to achieve it and an end point. This war has gone on for a long time and I’m certainly ready to exit the graveyard of empires. This decision will not be popular, especially among Democrats. In fact Democrats are going to challenge Obama on how to pay for the war. Rep. Dave Obey and Senator Carl Levin are proposing a “war tax.”
The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan — sending more troops would be a mistake that could “wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy.”
“There ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it.”
Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he’ll demand a new tax — what he calls a “war surtax” — to pay for it.
Exactly. If health care is too expensive then war is too expensive as well. Unlike health care reform, war in Afghanistan will not reduce the 10-year deficit and it won’t be paid for with premiums. I expect the fiscal scolds to find the cost of war is no object unlike the cost of health care for Americans. There always seems to be money for more bombs.
Tags: Afghanistan, Deficit
Looks as if we are getting BUSH II
Bush had absolutely no plan other than invade. He had no exit strategy or occupation strategy.
War tax? I like it. Self sun setting with built in incentives for speedy progress.
What we need is a rapid unconditional withdrawel if for no other reason than to leave a bad taste in the mouth of Americans for foriegn wars. We let Bush and the NEOCONS do it to us, we forgot the lessons of Viet Nam and now it’s time to pay the price. I could care less about “Prestige” or the military’s eternal desire to “win”. For one brief shining moment lets do whats right for Americans.
“Bush had absolutely no plan other than invade. He had no exit strategy or occupation strategy.”
True! We’ll see soon what Obama has to say. For me, his speech on the war soon after Thanksgiving is critical. I am beginning to doubt Obama’s sincerity and judgment, based on TT’s comment above, which has occurred to me as well, and based on other governing problems beginning to surface, as, on his economic recovery policies and the people he has chosen to address them.
Meatball is correct, a war tax will ‘separate the men from the boys’, as the expression goes.
Better yet, let’s have a draft. So far, the burden of war has fallen on the shoulders of a tiny minority of Americans, especially during the off-budget Bush years. Even now, we’re borrowing to finance the wars, which people do not directly feel.
I heard this morning that we’re spending 25 times more in Afghanistan than on Pakistan, the latter where our enemy actually is. Makes sense? Moreover, I see little accomplished in the former. Where is the return regarding our security?
In Afghanistan, we should back off combat, instead, focus on training military and police, training Afghans on governing, secure only population centers, rebuild infrastructure, build diplomatic bridges to tribal leaders, with the goal of being out of there in a couple of years.
Our current goal is to eliminate al-Qaeda, pretty much completed, for what real gain, as we are playing whack-a-mole, which could go on forever? Ineffective strategy?
So the above will be my litmus test for supporting or not supporting the Obama doctrine in Afghanistan. It is his war now!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2 is all i have to say about the “honorable” Gen McChrystal. if a coverup happy war hawk feels he can only win by killing more Americans, then the commander in chief should fire him, and find someone a little less tainted.
not to mention the cost. trying to rebuild a country that has taken down every empire to touch it is NOT as important as Health Insurance for me and all my countrymen. sorry.
Remember, Obama always opposed Iraq but never opposed war in Afghanistan. This isn’t a shock. He said it often enough before he was elected.
A war tax seems like a good idea but who is going to pay it? If the military-industrial establishment gets hit with it then I’m all for it. If it falls on the breaking shoulders of America’s middle class then it’s one more downward pressure on our economy and jobs.
I realize that all this mess from W has to be dealt with, but when do we get to jobs?
another tax? im for it, but can you imagine the political backlash? he’ll lose to Palin in 2012, and ANY good done by the Obama presidency will be undone within 12 hours. I know he campaigned on it but he is wrong. McChrystal is a dishonorable fail. Afghanistan will be the downfall of this president if not the country.
The war tax proposal is on people making >$250K/year. I like the idea of charging war profiteers instead though. I think the proposal of a war tax is way to say “put up or shut up.”
c’mon. will fixed news ever report a new tax as truth? will their throngs of idiotic worshipers know they are being lied to? what about the neutered pussies (sorry ladies) over at CNN? as much as this tax is needed, it PLUS an increase in troops (which conservunists only support when a republican is president) will be the end of this president’s popularity. There is no way this can end well
Ok UI what’s the end game and how would you define Victory
Lessons in History Alexander the Great stopped there the Brit’s got their asses kicked several times and just a few years ago the Russians left with their tails between their legs after ten years now we are there. In Nam the French got their butts kicked and then we went in and got ours handed to us but not all was lost today Nam is one of our Trading partners.
Well, personally, I would like us to get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible leaving a stable government.
I think the big issue of leaving is the stability of not only Afghanistan but also Pakistan, which also has nukes. I also wish we would capture bin Laden but I doubt that will happen.
Wiki Wox, what exactly was “the lesson of Vietnam” and how do you know? Without quoting Vizzini, if possible. 😉
“There is no way this can end well.”
Probably true, but starting now this will be Obama’s war, an unpopular war except to the neocons, so that politically it is a probable loser for Obama over the short run no matter what he chooses to do. His base will be upset, and the neocons will criticize him for not doing enough. This is lose-lose for Obama and the country.
Obama has to change the politics. I say put it on the neocons with the threat of a war tax, and with bringing on the draft. Doing both is important, because opposition to the war will then be huge, enabling Obama to implement his end game to wind down the war, in spite of the neocons.
If Obama then backs off to only UI’s war tax, this will continue the wind down momentum initiated by the threat of a draft. Most Americans will never support a draft for this war!
The way I heard it on NPR during lunch was that the war tax would be 1% on those with “taxable income” and a gradual increase in rates as you move up the income ladder. So that means we all would be paying this tax – never did they mention only those making $250K or more.
More importantly, the military has expressed no interest in a general draft. They’re doing skilled work, and every quote I’ve seen prefers “professional” to “citizen’ soldiers.
Well it now looks like our discussion here is moot, since Obama is going to commit about 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan, according to leaks reported by McClatchy.
I’ll hear him out when he speaks in a week, but I’m thinking that he is losing my support on this issue.
Brooke, we don’t need ‘professionals’ to perform support tasks in theater. We so need more people to shoulder the burden of war if we must have war!
I’m all for the tax, to put more pressure on ending this war, and to meet our fiscal responsibilities. That’s win-win!
I’m not sure how we got to “support tasks in theatre.” If the guys doing the job don’t want piles of random citizens underfoot, I take that seriously. What have I missed?
so much for the thin venier of “Iraq is the bad war, Afghanistan is the good war”.
Brooke, have you been in the military?
No, but all male relations have, and sister & BIL career. Why?
Because you do not seem to understand the term “in theater”. If you had had basic training, you would understand.
The point is that only a small fraction of our troops in Afghanistan are actually involved in combat, where “professional” capabilities are an asset. Working in a kitchen, in a motorpool, in supply functions, in military hospitals, …, do not require professional combat skills, meaning that draftees could handle many of these tasks.
Maybe they could, and when I see military people asking for it, I’ll look at it from that point of view. However, most of what I see written from the POV of professional military prefers the current volunteer set-up. The impetus for renewing the draft seems to come all from civilians.
I work with amateurs, without being at risk. If I had the money, I’d prefer people I’d had the training of, too. 😉 If I was handing out guns, I’d want volunteers. So I hesitate to impose an additional burden on the military for political reasons, even if I agree with the goal.
Brooke, you are using the classic excuse, used by those who prefer that the burden not be shared by all Americans.
This is one technique used by the warhawks, those who like wars in which they do not have to participate themselves, except to cheer from the sidelines. This is predominantly a question of fairness.
The reason there are political reasons, is that if we had a draft, we would be less likely to go to war, therefore the warhawks would have fewer supporters.
“if we had a draft, we would be less likely to go to war”
this is the real reason Perry (and his cohorts) want a draft, he thinks it will increase opposition to the War.
He is not interested in what is best to defend the nation.
Proposal
War tax, start at 1% at lowest level of taxable income, increase to 3% or so on incomes at the highest current bracket.
Tie this to net additional troops in the Iraq/Afghanistan theatres.
As long as by 2012 we bring net soldiers back from the mideast, then this tax goes away, or else is sharply reduced.
Going into the 2012 presidential election, he (hopefully) can point to the tax going into effect in 2010, and being completely phased out by 2013, due to drastic cuts of US troops in Iraq, and hopefully some reduction in Afghanistan (by then). He shows that he is not weak on ‘national defense’, that he is strong on ‘fiscal discipline’, and the configuration places appropriate pressure on him to bring our troops home. This should enable him to have a good shot at re-election, without abandoning Afghanistan or the budget deficit. This paints a sharp contrast to Republican efforts at waging and paying for wars, which should help across the board in 2012.
I am in the camp of “I’m initially disappointed, but will try to catch his speech and will hope to be appeased.”
I think many of us do share the burden, and as someone who has family with frequent deployments and many military friends, resent your saying otherwise. But I certainly look with concern on military buildup, anywhere.
Using the threat of the draft to, essentially, take hostages to try to win a political argument isn’t right… and it wouldn’t be just or effective, either. And if it would put more of our regular soldiers, etc. at risk, what purpose does it serve?
A military draft is not about hostages, it is about long term military policy — something that civilians traditionally set. The current set up of the “professional” soldier class largely creates a government agency that gets to spend a great deal of government money, support a massive bit of the economy and be available for the fetishization of the defense of the US. The fetishization of where the neocons and their followers come in. A real draft or mandatory service takes the discussion of real defense out of the hands of the fetishists and subjects the entire business to a much broader political discussion and control.
Brooke:
Forgive me but I don’t understand your argument about “professionals” vs. “amateurs” if there were to be a draft. All our current volunteers are professionals because they’ve receieved military training to be such. If we had a draft, all of those “amateurs” would recieve the same training and then be professionals too. You don’t HAVE to know how to shoot a gun before you go to iraq, because they teach you. I have no military background so i feel i may be missing something. Can you explain?
If that is his plan, I will support the President. The only way to go home is to defeat the Taliban and hand it over to the Afghan government. There is a saying, go big or go home. We should have had more troops there years ago when they were weaker.
I too oppose a draft. A draft should only be a last resort when national survival is at stake. WW2 is an example. Forcing people into a war they may oppose will result in more casualties. Some from people who did not put their heart into training. History has shown draftees are not as good as a volunteer force. That is why the military opposes it.
I wouldn’t want my life in the hands of some of those drug burned out losers.
I look around at all of the problems we face here – without getting into who might have caused them, as I believe there is PLENTY of blame to go around – and these political interest wars sicken me. We really need to think about here.
The way he has it framed is about hostages, cassandra. “Oppose the war or we’ll send your children.” If the country was composed of people exactly like me, we’d really NEED a draft, and a few more prisons. I’m contrary and lousy with authority. When I mooted about joining the service, as a young woman, my father gave me one of the best pieces of advice ever. He said, “YOU shouldn’t join anything where they throw you in jail if you don’t go to work.” That was it for my military career, lol. I’m also largely pacifist, (exceptions for self-defense) so I’m afraid I would only be a giant legal problem, even if drafted.
My sister, as I said, is career military. I’m extremely proud of her, and of her husband. I don’t understand why they’d sign up for the life they have, and there’d be no point in the world in asking me to do it, but I consider we’re all blessed to have people of their caliber and aptitudes in the armed forces.
It’s possible we could design a draft that was more equitable than the draft for Vietnam. I’d certainly hope so, if we were to commit to a larger mobilization. But I think a draft is an extraordinary measure, and not called for, under the circumstances. I ACTIVELY opposed the return to draft registration (which is a scandal, I still think.) and I don’t think a more militarized citizenry makes a more just approach to policy. As that’s my goal, I’d oppose it.
V, i think i understand brooke’s argument to be that since the military is volunteer, it that means (for the most part) people choose to go there. in a draft, you are dealing with a lot of unwilling participants . we are also dealing with an enemy that has no country and is more on an idea…. like communism. The draft would be the most horrible choice…. even Bush knew that.
David, do you realize that Bush basically defeated the taliban and handed control to the afghan government… actually, the taliban WERE the government. Afghanistan is an unwinable black hole. It is a very bad choice to spend any more time money or blood there. concentrate on defeating threats to the U.S and leave there.
it will never be stable, it will never be a functioning democracy.
is that if we had a draft, we would be less likely to go to war
This is what was said — and I suppose you could see this about hostage taking or you could see this about not letting our treasure (kids or taxes) be thrown away so quickly, so easily and for reasons not always connected to the security of this country. The thing about a draft is that its unwilling participants and their parents suddenly are more important that the latest belligerence of William (The Bloody) Kristol.
I am looking forward to Obama putting his case to the American people next week.
Raising taxes during a recession? Bad idea.
Hope we get a clue as to the mission in Afghanistan…
Raising taxes during a recession? Bad idea.
Conservatives are always telling us don’t raise taxes, cut the spending instead. Now it is time to apply that philosophy to our foreign wars.
So, if you don’t want to pay for the wars, what is your exit strategy?
leaving afghanistan to rot. that sounds like a pretty good exist strategy to me.
“Raising taxes during a recession? Bad idea.”
I guess you missed the headlines–we are out of the recession. Check GDP numbers–they’re positive. This is called a recovery–the word starts the same …
Lowering taxes during a war? Bad idea. (Unless you are a foreign lender who is happy to see higher and higher interest rates on the loans you extend to the low-tax-while-in-war-USA to fund their war-worsened budget deficits.)
If Afghanistan rots, we smell it in our burning cities. I could support a 1% war tax. The proposed tax suspiciously costs more than we spend and a lot more than the surge. It is just a shameless money grab.
We are still in recession. One quarter of growth does not end it especially when 70% of that growth was from a program that you guys ended. Maybe we need cash in your pockets instead of cash for clunkers, with a payroll tax rebate for those under an 100k.
Well obviously the exact rate and scope of the war tax would be up for debate. It’s OK if we tax more than we are spending, because we have to cover for the amounts we already have spent.
The war tax should be progressive, because the richest have benefited from the war (think oil/Halliburton investors). Now it’s time to claw back the money.
I appreciate Obey’s suggestion that everybody be taxed at least 1% with the richest taxed 5%.
I’m OK with taxing the middle class and the poorest 1%, because they need a wakeup call that war is not free.
“If Afghanistan rots, we smell it in our burning cities.”
Oh, grow up. They succeeded once. They cannot use that method of attack again, as all sorts of protocols have been changed in response. “Burning cities”? Such as where? Even in Israel, which is right in their midst, they can’t do much more than explode the occasional suicide bomb. To prevent these mosquito bites, we should spend tens of billions of dollars, not to mention the lives lost?
And you call yourself a “conservative”? What is it you claim to be conserving?
Strategy…
1. Get Bin Laden & his leadership WHEREVER they are and don’t play the “border” game.
2. Leave. Afghanistan is a country of tribes. Imposing our rules is not sustainable.
They succeeded once. They cannot use that method of attack again, as all sorts of protocols have been changed in response.
I think they know that and they will evolve. Afghanistan and Pakistan are problems that need to be solved together. Pakistan is fragile enough without having an even more out of control state next door.
Let it fall apart and fester into Pakistan and we will be dealing with a suit case nuke.. Geezer, you are reckless and foolish. At least our President isn’t. I have a cousin who worked in the WTC complex and a friend(we carpooled including that 9-11) whose brother in law did as well. I remember what it was like waiting for word. For the record, my cousin was fine, but my friend’s brother in law died. You can live in your alternative reality if you wish, it is a free country. I want to ensure that we have the ability to tolerate fools so I will stay in the real world.
Oh, no, a suitcase nuke! Yes, let’s set foreign policy for a generation based on your bad feelings one day 8 years ago. What did it feel like, David? Did it make you feel like less of a man to see your country attacked? Just for the record, would your friend’s brother-in-law be less dead if he died in a car accident on the way to work that day?
Do us a favor — work out your daddy issues with a shrink, and stay the fuck away from the government. You’re correct that one of us is living in reality. You’re wrong about which one. Your not-much-to-begin-with intellect has been overwhelmed by your overactive imagination, and you’re being manipulated accordingly. WAke the fuck up.
Criminy — I agree with Tom S. Check the sky for horsemen.
Central Europe Ready To Send More Soldiers To Afghanistan
The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 12, 2009 | Marcin Sobczyk
Just as President Obama discusses the idea of putting Afghanistan more in charge of its own security, Central European troop contributors, despite growing casualties, mull sending more soldiers and equipment to the country.
With around 2,000 soldiers in the Ghazni province, Poland is leading the Central European pack. The country is mulling an increase of its contingent as generals complain at insufficient staffing and equipment, even blaming politicians for underfunding that may have led to several recent deaths of Polish soldiers.
The Czech Republic is also planning to boost its contingent in 2010 to about 600 from more than 300 at present, adding a combat helicopter squadron supposed to train Afghan pilots. The use of refurbished Russian-design helicopters means Afghan forces should have no problems flying them.
Southeastern EU state Bulgaria, which has troops in Afghanistan, has no intention of cutting them despite tough times and budget woes. Romania, which is exiting Iraq, also agreed to increase deployment in Afghanistan.
Officially, Poland is still thinking about how to respond to the call by U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal for more than 40,000 troops. There’s been speculation in the Polish media that the country has already responded, even though there is nothing official neither from the office of the prime minister, which would need to make a formal request, nor the president who approves it.
RD, everyone has a friend’s brother in law who was killed or hurt in 9/11 it seems more people every year were there. that doesnt give anyone the right to advocate a military strategy that has NEVER worked. it has only served to bring down whoever steps into that muck. Afghanistan will ever be controlled, or run by any kind of government we could conceive of. lets worry about keeping us safe and let the afghan people decide how they want to live.