Why are we still in Afghanistan/Iraq?

[8timechamps]

I was reading through a report, and the estimated "War Request*" for fiscal year 2012 is almost 132 billion dollars!! How in hell can we (and by "we", I mean our government) justify that expenditure given the financial mess our country is experiencing?


*Source: Congressional Research Service report (2011), breakdown of operational expenditures (in billions): Iraq - 17.7, Afghanistan - 113.7, Enhanced Security - 0.1

[SoonerProphet]

I was reading through a report, and the estimated "War Request*" for fiscal year 2012 is almost 132 billion dollars!! How in hell can we (and by "we", I mean our government) justify that expenditure given the financial mess our country is experiencing?


*Source: Congressional Research Service report (2011), breakdown of operational expenditures (in billions): Iraq - 17.7, Afghanistan - 113.7, Enhanced Security - 0.1

Our little adventure in Libya cost almost a billion. These forays have done little to defend our nation or advance our national interests. A ridiculous waste of lives and treasure.

[8timechamps]

Our little adventure in Libya cost almost a billion. These forays have done little to defend our nation or advance our national interests. A ridiculous waste of lives and treasure.

I had forgotten about our involvement in Libya. Also, a good point about the lives, which are, of course, more valuable than the money.

I served in the first Gulf War, and didn't question our involvement...as a good soldier shouldn't...but, older (and arguably wiser), I can't figure out what the hell we're still doing over there.

[rock on sooner]

I had forgotten about our involvement in Libya. Also, a good point about the lives, which are, of course, more valuable than the money.

I served in the first Gulf War, and didn't question our involvement...as a good soldier shouldn't...but, older (and arguably wiser), I can't figure out what the hell we're still doing over there.

My last day of service was some 45 years ago (and it was in Pakistan...literally steps from
Afghanistan) and I, too, can't figure out why we're still in both places. The powers that be
would say "national interests" or "finish what we started" but it IS time to bring our finest
home and leave that part of the world to those that live there and REALLY don't want the
help.

[okie52]

My last day of service was some 45 years ago (and it was in Pakistan...literally steps from
Afghanistan) and I, too, can't figure out why we're still in both places. The powers that be
would say "national interests" or "finish what we started" but it IS time to bring our finest
home and leave that part of the world to those that live there and REALLY don't want the
help.


I agree as long as we level the place when we go.

[sappstuf]

I agree as long as we level the place when we go.

That might be improving it...

[okie52]

That might be improving it...

Nothing wrong with giving them a head start....

[sappstuf]

Nothing wrong with giving them a head start....

Your kindness and generosity is something we all should strive for.. ;)

[okie52]

Your kindness and generosity is something we all should strive for.. ;)

:playful: Compassionate conservatism.

[rock on sooner]

I agree as long as we level the place when we go.

The Afghan landscape is nearly all mountainous, so to level that country would take too
much ordnance...could we be selective and save some bucks? Iraq has enough sand that
it wouldn't take much to turn it to glass.

[pphilfran]

Bombing them into the stone age would only set them back a week...

[okie52]

The Afghan landscape is nearly all mountainous, so to level that country would take too
much ordnance...could we be selective and save some bucks? Iraq has enough sand that
it wouldn't take much to turn it to glass.

Certainly we should be economical.

I also suggest leaving plenty of landmines as a friendly reminder.

[rock on sooner]

Certainly we should be economical.

I also suggest leaving plenty of landmines as a friendly reminder.

Nah, landmines hurt too many kids (they're illegal, too). Maybe a selective
herbicide that kills poppies but doesn't effect wheat, corn, barley or other
foodstuffs would be a great legacy.

[pphilfran]

Certainly we should be economical.

I also suggest leaving plenty of landmines as a friendly reminder.

YOU are going to have to make a decision....with a limited number of mines available do you beef up the middle east or our southern border...

[okie52]

YOU are going to have to make a decision....with a limited number of mines available do you beef up the middle east or our southern border...

If I ever thought they would give the go ahead for the southern border then absolutely the southern border. Until then I guess we'll just have to use alligators and catapults.

[okie52]

Nah, landmines hurt too many kids (they're illegal, too). Maybe a selective
herbicide that kills poppies but doesn't effect wheat, corn, barley or other
foodstuffs would be a great legacy.

I'm not worried about "collateral damage". Kids grow up to be terrorists, too.

Landmines are illegal in a war? I'm pretty sure I'd toss that rulebook.

Killing the poppies would be great, too. Not so much as an action against drugs but just to kill their economy.

[rock on sooner]

I guess landmines aren't illegal but there is an international treaty to ban
them. Most of the UN Security Council (USA included) hasn't signed the
treaty. Yeah, some do grow up to be terrorists but the vast majority do
not. Killing the dirty money crop would go a long way toward solving a
big problem...illegal drugs but without replacing the poppies with some-
thing else would only fan anti-American flames to a raging inferno and
make even more terrorists.

Whatever the fantasies...need to get the hell out of there and soon.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I'm not worried about "collateral damage". Kids grow up to be terrorists, too.

This is what got is in Afghanistan in the first place...complete disregard for blowback. America does not act in a vacuum, independent from the results our actions cause.

Not to mention if you completely disregard innocent lives, we're kind of straying from our mission of "Enduring Freedom" right?

[okie52]

This is what got is in Afghanistan in the first place...complete disregard for blowback. America does not act in a vacuum, independent from the results our actions cause.

Not to mention if you completely disregard innocent lives, we're kind of straying from our mission of "Enduring Freedom" right?

What got us into Afghanistan was our continued involvement in the ME and Bin Laden's hatred for our meddling in their affairs. And we are in the ME primarily because of oil. If we ever removed that albatross from our neck we might actually have a freer hand in our foreign policy and avoid these unnecessary conflicts.

Afghanistan doesn't operate in a vacuum either and should suffer the consequences of allowing a bunch of terrorist idiots control their country. We've been there 10 years and the citizenry still hasn't risen up to take on the Taliban. Screw enduring freedom. If the citizenry of a country wants to rise up against a dictator then I'm for possibly supporting them covertly but for the most part we need to avoid interventionism.

When we are in a war there aren't really any innocent lives. There is collateral damage. It doesn't mean we target non military targets but we sure don't avoid them because of the "innocents" either.

[rock on sooner]

The first Gulf War and, possibly, Iraq were about oil and protecting the flow of it.
Afghanistan was more about Bin Laden. We started with Afghanistan but detoured
to Iraq based on WMD's (supposedly) and then went back to Afghanistan almost
out of necessity...Dubya wasn't sure what to do.

The citizenry of Afghanistan really just want to be left alone, grow poppies and live
like they have for the last 1500 or so years. Tribal culture, war lords, who pays the
most, keeping women in the dark ages, no one goes to school, Taliban, safe haven
for really bad guys, that's what that country was, is and always will be. The Russians
couldn't handle them (the mujahadeen,) armed with US stingers, courtesy the CIA
made sure of that.

I'm of the conviction that some peoples of the world just want to be left alone and
several of those peoples are in Southwest Asia. Leave them the hell alone, come
home and spend the money here to fix what ails us.

Okie52, you're right. War really has no innocents and as to "collateral damage",
well, the US is the only one that tries to follow rules of engagement to avoid as
much of that as we can. The enemy just sets up to invite the collateral damage.

[8timechamps]

The first Gulf War and, possibly, Iraq were about oil and protecting the flow of it.
Afghanistan was more about Bin Laden. We started with Afghanistan but detoured
to Iraq based on WMD's (supposedly) and then went back to Afghanistan almost
out of necessity...Dubya wasn't sure what to do.

The citizenry of Afghanistan really just want to be left alone, grow poppies and live
like they have for the last 1500 or so years. Tribal culture, war lords, who pays the
most, keeping women in the dark ages, no one goes to school, Taliban, safe haven
for really bad guys, that's what that country was, is and always will be. The Russians
couldn't handle them (the mujahadeen,) armed with US stingers, courtesy the CIA
made sure of that.

I'm of the conviction that some peoples of the world just want to be left alone and
several of those peoples are in Southwest Asia. Leave them the hell alone, come
home and spend the money here to fix what ails us.

Okie52, you're right. War really has no innocents and as to "collateral damage",
well, the US is the only one that tries to follow rules of engagement to avoid as
much of that as we can. The enemy just sets up to invite the collateral damage.

Well said. America doesn't need to westernize every country on the globe. Some people live different that we do, and they're okay with that. And you know what? If they really don't want us there, then we need to leave!

[okie52]

The first Gulf War and, possibly, Iraq were about oil and protecting the flow of it.
Afghanistan was more about Bin Laden. We started with Afghanistan but detoured
to Iraq based on WMD's (supposedly) and then went back to Afghanistan almost
out of necessity...Dubya wasn't sure what to do.

The citizenry of Afghanistan really just want to be left alone, grow poppies and live
like they have for the last 1500 or so years. Tribal culture, war lords, who pays the
most, keeping women in the dark ages, no one goes to school, Taliban, safe haven
for really bad guys, that's what that country was, is and always will be. The Russians
couldn't handle them (the mujahadeen,) armed with US stingers, courtesy the CIA
made sure of that.

I'm of the conviction that some peoples of the world just want to be left alone and
several of those peoples are in Southwest Asia. Leave them the hell alone, come
home and spend the money here to fix what ails us.

Okie52, you're right. War really has no innocents and as to "collateral damage",
well, the US is the only one that tries to follow rules of engagement to avoid as
much of that as we can. The enemy just sets up to invite the collateral damage.

I'm all for leaving them alone...as long as they leave us alone. And I agree, lets get the troops home.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's not comfortable to say and I have to admit, it pains me to even think it, but maybe we're still there because if we weren't, in the rampdown of military spending, it'd be the ol' bullet in the head of the wounded horse as far as our economy is concerned.

Maybe we're doing it to keep jobs and keep us limping by.

Just a thought.

[rock on sooner]

It's not comfortable to say and I have to admit, it pains me to even think it, but maybe we're still there because if we weren't, in the rampdown of military spending, it'd be the ol' bullet in the head of the wounded horse as far as our economy is concerned.

Maybe we're doing it to keep jobs and keep us limping by.

Just a thought.

Yeah, it's a thought, but I don't think that's the driving force behind Afghanistan.
The 'whoosh' that you'll hear when we leave is the Taliban openly setting up shop.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

It's not comfortable to say and I have to admit, it pains me to even think it, but maybe we're still there because if we weren't, in the rampdown of military spending, it'd be the ol' bullet in the head of the wounded horse as far as our economy is concerned.

Maybe we're doing it to keep jobs and keep us limping by.

Just a thought.
Inefficient government spending is not what is propping our economy up. Broken window fallacy in action right here.

[StoopTroup]

Ex-President Bush is staying out of the current GOP Campaign against President Obama.

Some say it's for different reasons. Most think it's because they don't want to remind the American Public what he did as POTUS and get them worked up enough to get mad at the GOP for every supporting him as POTUS.

I'm not sure it's a great idea as it seems to leave a lasting impression that there were massive mistakes made when he was POTUS. There were things I didn't understand that he did as POTUS but I never was so upset that I would create things about him to see him lose his 2nd administration. He didn't do that and that's why I was looking for a POTUS that would.

In 2008 we elected a POTUS that not only worked with our Military to dispose of OBL....but he was followed the Bush Administrations plan to end the War in Iraq and somehow finish up the Bush/Cheney plan to bring Freedom to Iraq. What President Obama didn't do is continue to try and convince everyone that we should also go to War with Iran. We continue to try and leave Israel and Iran to work out these issues of Nuclear Power.

[StoopTroup]

Had to cut post 26 short as my Son had a soccer practice I had to take him to.

The idea I was headed to was that until we are sure Iran and Israel isn't going to start WWIII, maybe we should hang around and try to make things better instead of have to come back later to stop some sort of genocide?

[rock on sooner]

Ex-President Bush is staying out of the current GOP Campaign against President Obama.

Some say it's for different reasons. Most think it's because they don't want to remind the American Public what he did as POTUS and get them worked up enough to get mad at the GOP for every supporting him as POTUS.

I'm not sure it's a great idea as it seems to leave a lasting impression that there were massive mistakes made when he was POTUS. There were things I didn't understand that he did as POTUS but I never was so upset that I would create things about him to see him lose his 2nd administration. He didn't do that and that's why I was looking for a POTUS that would.

In 2008 we elected a POTUS that not only worked with our Military to dispose of OBL....but he was followed the Bush Administrations plan to end the War in Iraq and somehow finish up the Bush/Cheney plan to bring Freedom to Iraq. What President Obama didn't do is continue to try and convince everyone that we should also go to War with Iran. We continue to try and leave Israel and Iran to work out these issues of Nuclear Power.

If you're saying that we should get violent with Iran or at least support Israel in that issue,
then I gotta say that's a no go...1. Our military is bushed and can't do another one, at least
for a year or two.

2. Our allies are not on board...too much economic problems.
3. Iran isn't worth it...sanctions WILL work.
4. North Korea is a bigger loose cannon.
5. I bieleve covert efforts in EVERY case would solve the issues and,
yes, taking out nutty leaders should be on the table.

It seems that these people get in place and all they want to do is promote
agendas that are self serving and internationally dangerous. Nope, we aren't
the world's cops, just some sensible world citizens to help keep sanity around.

[rock on sooner]

Had to cut post 26 short as my Son had a soccer practice I had to take him to.

The idea I was headed to was that until we are sure Iran and Israel isn't going to start WWIII, maybe we should hang around and try to make things better instead of have to come back later to stop some sort of genocide?
ST, I don't think Israel would do anything that they haven't figured out the end game of. Iran is
the unconventional one...after all, they fought with Iraq for eight years and solved nothing.. The
religious leaders have no compunction about sending waves of soldiers to death, all in the name of
Allah. Isreal would not hesitate to decapitate the "snake", if that's what it came to. I don't see
WWIII, but it sure as hell would be messy and really screw up the world status for a long time.

We can only hope that common sense prevails. My thought is that Iran doesn't know how lethal, in
the short term, that Israel would be, and, unfortunately, how much the US would involve itself in the
followup.

[8timechamps]

In 2008 we elected a POTUS that not only worked with our Military to dispose of OBL....but he was followed the Bush Administrations plan to end the War in Iraq and somehow finish up the Bush/Cheney plan to bring Freedom to Iraq. What President Obama didn't do is continue to try and convince everyone that we should also go to War with Iran. We continue to try and leave Israel and Iran to work out these issues of Nuclear Power.

I can't speak to what plan Obama is or isn't following (as it relates to ending the war), but I know he campaigned on getting our troops out. And we are still in both countries. I can't think of any good reason why we should still be there. I'm sure there are people high in our government that have their reasons, and are privy to things I am not, but staying in Iraq to prevent another dictator or genocide, doesn't wash with me. Why aren't we in other countries that have that problem already?

It's costing all of us dearly to continue having a presence there, and it's time to leave.

[8timechamps]

ST, I don't think Israel would do anything that they haven't figured out the end game of. Iran is
the unconventional one...after all, they fought with Iraq for eight years and solved nothing.. The
religious leaders have no compunction about sending waves of soldiers to death, all in the name of
Allah. Isreal would not hesitate to decapitate the "snake", if that's what it came to. I don't see
WWIII, but it sure as hell would be messy and really screw up the world status for a long time.

We can only hope that common sense prevails. My thought is that Iran doesn't know how lethal, in
the short term, that Israel would be, and, unfortunately, how much the US would involve itself in the
followup.

I think Iran and (to a greater extent) North Korea play the international fear game well. I don't think either nation is rouge enough to use nuclear weapons. But, the threat that they have them, and could use them, is (in their own minds) their chair at the negotiating table.

[StoopTroup]

The religious leaders have no compunction about sending waves of soldiers to death, all in the name of Allah. Isreal would not hesitate to decapitate the "snake", if that's what it came to. I don't see WWIII, but it sure as hell would be messy and really screw up the world status for a long time.

We can only hope that common sense prevails. My thought is that Iran doesn't know how lethal, in the short term, that Israel would be, and, unfortunately, how much the US would involve itself in the followup.

Iran's religious leaders...I'm not sure they have that kind of clout after seeing just how quickly they all might end up in Guantanamo Bay for the rest of their lives if not maybe just waiting for Allah to get them those Virgins they were promised.

They know that Israel has no problem sending them all to Allah ASAP and that we have no problem selling Israel what they need to make that happen....especially with Hillary Clinton about to leave the State Dept. I think she has a way of scaring the Allah out of them. I know she sure can bother the crap out of the GOP here.

I think Iran knows exactly just how much we will get involved if Israel were to attack them and that we won't be coming to their aid anytime soon if they do. We would likely only get involved if we were the aggressor and Israel waited long enough for us to do the dirty work to avoid them getting involved.

Iran's masses might follow their religious leaders for one or two waves but I don't think they really have the moxey to support having Nuclear Power in their Country over setting their Country even further into the Stone Age because their leaders don't want to play nice. I think they give their leaders up for free Cellular Smart phones in less than 15-20 minutes. The all want to check each other's Facebook Status more than they want "Death to Israel".

[Turd_Ferguson]

especially with Hillary Clinton about to leave the State Dept. I think she has a way of scaring the Allah out of them. I know she sure can bother the crap out of the GOP here.Surely you jest...

[StoopTroup]

Surely you jest...

Hell....the way you talk about her....I think you are scared of her too.

[Curly Bill]

ST thinks the GOP planted probes in his head or something...

[jkjsooner]

Almost everyone thought in late 2001 that Afghanistan was a justifiable and necessary war. (Iraq was a different story of course but in the years following 9/11 most of those who disagreed felt compelled to keep quiet.)

I don't like this revisionist history about Afghanistan. When we went in everyone knew there wasn't going to be clear cut criteria defining when we've won the war yet almost everyone supported it.

I think the question is whether Afghanistan poses (or will pose) a greater threat to us than other areas of the world (Somalia, etc.) where we choose to remain uninvolved.

I think it is that case that Afghanistan no longer poses a unique threat and we've made our point to governments around the world that if you harbor those who pull a stunt like 9/11 you will pay a price. If this is true (and I don't pretend to be an expert) then I do think it's time to start getting out.

[rock on sooner]

jkj, you make an excellent point about paying a price for 9/11. But I don't think anyone is
revising history about Afghanistan. 23 of the top 32 Al Queda leaders are playing with
the virgins and the Taliban, while still around, can only flex muscles where we are winding
down and cranking up the Afghan army/police. Make no mistake, when we leave in 2013
or 2014, the Taliban will set up shop in every bazaar in the country. Whether that translate
to more bad guys striking out against us, I don't know.

You can already see what's happening in Iraq, even with the largest embassy in the world
staffed by Americans. Bombings, civil strife, assassinations. I believe that just leaving them
alone is in our best interests, now and going forward.

Al Queda is trying to set up in Yemen, Somalia and the Horn of Africa. I'm pretty sure that
there are drones hunting for more "virgin playmates". There is more involvement than meets
the eye. Covert activity is more of an answer than full military assault and, ultimately, cheaper
for us and more effective in erasing bad guys. I advocated covert head hunting for Saddam
and Ghaddafi and still, in hindsight, think that would have worked and saved 4600 lives and
multi billions of dollars.

Now, we all know hindsight is 20/20.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Inefficient government spending is not what is propping our economy up. Broken window fallacy in action right here.

Is it?

Is that why military support industries are experiencing steady business and minimal job losses when just about every other sector is taking it in the can? If it's MREs, bullets, or bandages, folks that make them are going to have plenty of work in wartime.

[8timechamps]

jkj, you make an excellent point about paying a price for 9/11. But I don't think anyone is
revising history about Afghanistan. 23 of the top 32 Al Queda leaders are playing with
the virgins and the Taliban, while still around, can only flex muscles where we are winding
down and cranking up the Afghan army/police. Make no mistake, when we leave in 2013
or 2014, the Taliban will set up shop in every bazaar in the country. Whether that translate
to more bad guys striking out against us, I don't know.

You can already see what's happening in Iraq, even with the largest embassy in the world
staffed by Americans. Bombings, civil strife, assassinations. I believe that just leaving them
alone is in our best interests, now and going forward.

Al Queda is trying to set up in Yemen, Somalia and the Horn of Africa. I'm pretty sure that
there are drones hunting for more "virgin playmates". There is more involvement than meets
the eye. Covert activity is more of an answer than full military assault and, ultimately, cheaper
for us and more effective in erasing bad guys. I advocated covert head hunting for Saddam
and Ghaddafi and still, in hindsight, think that would have worked and saved 4600 lives and
multi billions of dollars.

Now, we all know hindsight is 20/20.

That pretty much sums it up.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Bump, Pulitzer prize winner from this year, aftermath of a suicide bombing in Kabul that killed 63. Makes ya stop and think how good we have it
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/17/article-0-12A06E55000005DC-865_634x479.jpg