« Connect the international dots. Part 2. | tpmgary's Blog | Shell dumps wind, solar for biofuels. »
War. Another American enterprise too big to fail?
The war in Iraq was a corrupt venture that took more than people's life savings. An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis are dead. Millions more have been displaced. Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives since Mission Accomplished was declared on May 1, 2003.
When you also factor in torture and the suspension of American liberties, the globally-entangled AIG mess pales in comparison to the size and nature and overextended operation of the United States War enterprise.
How many times will we hear that the reason we need to support such an enterprise is because it's gotten to a point where it's "too big to fail"?
If it is too big to fail, why make it even bigger by expanding the whole operation into Afghanistan? Already we're hearing that the military effort in Afghanistan is too big to fail. That we'll need hundreds of thousands of more troops and a sustained presence there, perhaps 10 or 15 or 20 years. In addition to our sustained though somewhat drawn down presence in Iraq.
And our covert operations in Pakistan. And Iran. And operations we don't even hear about.
The whole thing has spiraled out of control-- those most bellicose about the U.S. being the world's largest and most powerful military and economic superpower are the very ones who have led us to overreach and by doing so, have done more to weaken us as a country than any actual enemy has in recent history.
So let's ask this question:
Why are we at war, with whom and to what effect?
And if any of those answers include the notion that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, look around.
We're on the brink of an economic depression. We have skyrocketing unemployment. Roads, bridges, tunnels and highways across the country are in disrepair. Our schools are underfunded and overcrowded. Textbooks are outdated--some students are still reading from science books that say man will someday land on the moon. And we have one of the worst high school drop out rates in the industrialized world. Our banking industry collapsed--it is insolvent. Our auto industry is on life support. American ingenuity has been starved to death. No one can realistically afford health care. 45 million don't even have it. And the HIV/AIDS rate is higher in our nation's capitol than it is in West Africa.
If we're fighting them over there, how is it that we find ourselves living in such a war-torn country?
How much more blood and treasure must we squander overseas before every member of Congress is forced to realize that we're in the fight of our lives right here?
Advertisement
We've been on this road since at least the end of World War II.
Vietnam really kicked it up a bunch of notches as did many of our Cold War era foreign misadventures. If we don't want to keep having the same conversations again and again, we really need to start voting in the primary elections for a better group of representatives.
Our current policies don't surprise me a bit nor does the new administration's seeming lack of balls when it comes to taking on the Military Industrial Complex.
March 17, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know--the Department of Defense really has grown into a separate branch of government altogether and it has a chokehold on the other three branches.
I think some see this financial crisis as a reason to crank up the war machine, and use the defense industry to keep the American economy competitive.
Or barter--access to the U.S. defense arsenal for oil. What kind of continued protection have we promised Saudi Arabia? How many sided can we play in this game before we have no country of our own to protect?
March 17, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drives me nuts and I was in the military for ten years. I think it is less about the actual armed services as it is about defense contractors, lobbyists and Congress. DoD only spends what it has been budgeted and only gets budgets based on what Congress approves, regardless of what they want or ask for.
I suspect this will be year three and four items if we can actually get Iraq wrapped up and Afghanistan pointed in the right direction. I think the latter is actually doable for us in a way that it never was for the Soviets because of intentions. We were already very close to success in 2002 when Bush pushed us into Iraq.
March 18, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't know Gary, that is for sure. Hopefully, there is more openness now. And there is good evidence of this openness via Exec Orders. We shall see where this all leads.
March 17, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is your gut instinct?
March 17, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do I know.
Afghanistan will keep us there ten years unless we rethink this thing.
We will have covert activities there and in Iraq for decades.
We definitely have covert operations in Pakistan and have had them there for half a century or more.
Besides the Muslim problems and the radical problems and the internal revolution/civil war, they are the ultimate foe to India. And both nations have the big bomb.
China and Russia are too close to Pakistan to not be involved in their own operations there.
AND YOU DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION.
March 17, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crazy question - What do all u think will happen when we 'capture' Bin Laden? Will it make a difference in our presence and efforts over there?
March 17, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it would make any difference whatsoever if we capture Bin Laden. Don't even know if he's alive. (IMO, I don't know what involvement, if any, he had in 9/11. )
March 17, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Propaganda at home and abroad. The power of that message, I do not know Auntie. I frankly think in the 'real' it means nothing. But I would ask Oleeb, Rowan, Quinn (believe it or not), TheraP, Orlando, Bwak (believe it or not) Artappraiser, so many better ...oh and Seashell is five times as bright as you would guess...so many brilliant people here. Tom W is another--he is our world traveler. From an international standpoint I would like his take on the propaganda value of getting the bastard.But set up a blog when yours runs out and see. By the by, I just loved that post today...Never talk about milkmen...not for decades.
March 17, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
no eve of destruction, not tonight anyway:) Here's a hypothetical. Suppose President Obama called for all U.S. troops to exit the entire middle east within 5 years. And suppose he also called for the United States to be completely energy independent in 10 years and helped insure that by letting AIG and Detroit go bankrupt and instead diverted the billions to any company that provided a path to that goal.
What's the worst that could happen?
March 17, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A horrendous scream would resound across the country! We would have out of work, unemployeed Generals, Senators and Congresspersons, all standing on street corners peddling grenades and RPGs. No one would be willing to serve in Congress, having no longer any opportunity to grasp the pot of gold that comes with retirement. And, millions of Americans of all walks of life would be forced to work at McDonalds takeout windows.
I think it best that you simply place some duct tape across your mouth and go sit in the corner.
March 17, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you would have more credibility if you had omitted the last sentence. Personal insults/attacks tend to negate any veracity of your statements. Facts are much more powerful and credible.
March 18, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary if you set this up right and timed it correctly, you might get fifty comments. Hit Newsweek & Time and Huff and some others. They have google like 'engines' not that I know what that means but you search within the site. You present two or three opinions and then work out a hypo like you have here. That would be the last paragraph with a question mark.
Right now I am against letting Detroit (car cos) go down the tubes and I am in no position to even give an opinion on AIG except that I think we (USA) should take over the gd thing now. Fire everyone, replace with new management. I really would.
CarolG has a great blog on this today. Tom has a good blog on this.
But what if we really just got the hell out of the Middle East as I would like. Now. No five years. Goodby. A lot of lefties want this.
The reason I would like you to blog this as a hypothetical is that I would like to see the reactions of other lefties here and guys like Jason.
You could just do a title like: The Middle East, Get OUt Now. or some such.
You are getting more hits lately and I really would like to see the reaction.
And even I learn somethings. Like every day. hahahahah. You probably have a real life. Take a couple days. I do not see anybody taking it away from you.
March 17, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the encouragement.
March 18, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's get the fuck out of Afghanistan.
March 18, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're fighting them over there and the Russians are going to base long-range bombers over here, in Cuba and Venezuela, by report. Frankly, there are too many things to do at this point and that is why our situation is as perilous as it is. Not one thing will bring us down, but a lot of little things. That is how it happens historically.
Again, my Russian history. The Reds did not take down the Russian Empire. It was numerous rebellions simultaneously occurring throughout the Empire. There was no way to quash them all. Then, over the next few years, all those various local rebel enterprises fought each other until the Reds cme out on top. It took years before Russia was cohesive again, and one could argue decades more before it was a super power. Even this, however, seems over-stated given the extent to which their military prowess was fiction. They have actually achieved more since the wall came down then they had before it came down.
March 18, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a NYT article, March 18: U.S. weighs Taliban strikes deeper in Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18terror.html?hp
March 18, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink