Afghanistan Bananastan

It's a funny thing, politics. For eight years Republicans didn't utter a peep as one general after another, including Gen. Eric Shinseki, Gen. George Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, were summarily replaced after offering criticism of former President George W. Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan war strategies. Others, like Gen. Anthony Zinni, voiced their opposition after leaving the job. Bush insisted he always "listened to the generals on the ground," but in the end he made his own decisions regardless of how much these top-ranking warriors disagreed with him. Which is why it's quite hypocritical for conservatives to now vilify President Obama for taking a few weeks to weigh the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, for 40,000 additional U.S. troops. Obama must listen to the generals! GOP puh-leeze.

Making the situation more complicated was the fact that McChrystal last week chose to publicly air his dirty laundry in an interview in London, suggesting that without more troops the war could be lost. McChrystal also said he had only spoken once with Obama over the last several months since taking over the region's top military post. To many, this was a breach of protocol for which he's since been harshly criticized.

Eugene Robinson put it quite succinctly in his Washington Post column last week: "How to proceed in Afghanistan will be among the most difficult and fateful decisions that President Obama ever makes. But he's the one who has to decide, not his generals. The men with the stars on their shoulders -- and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service -- need to shut up and salute.Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is entitled to his opinion about the best way forward. But he has no business conducting a public campaign to build support for his preferred option ... "

As to be expected, Republican leaders are using the Obama-McChrystal episode as an opportunity for fear-mongering. Sen. John McCain said ignoring McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops would be "an error of historic proportions." I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of McCrusty wearing the Iraq surge on his chest like a $200 Armani tie.

Over the weekend, retired Lt. Col. Ollie North, a Fox News commentator and conservative standard-bearer in his post-Iran-Contra life, was asked to define the goals for success in Afghanistan. "A stable government in Kabul...a pro-American government in Kabul...and a government that believes in human rights. That's how you measure Victory in Afghanistan."

But is that what we have in Iraq, where Republicans like to claim victory? Using North's criteria, have we really won anything? Without our troops there, Iraq will likely bloody itself in civil war, and the government will crumble, just as Vietnam proved to be a colossal waste of American money and lives. Are we to simply and rashly repeat these same mistakes in Afghanistan now just because some general wants more ass-kicking? Do we really want to be occupying these countries forever? War is like stock investing: you haven't won anything until you exit with a real, sustainable gain.

The debate over McChrystal's request is nothing more that pure partisan politics. Does listening to the generals mean Obama must do whatever commanders like McChrystal request? To the contrary, the president's job is to carefully weigh all options presented. Obama's delay is the right thing to do. Unlike his impulsive, obdurate, irresponsible predecessor, Obama is showing patience, earnestness and discipline when it comes to Afghanistan. Eight years, $700-billion and 4300 dead U.S. soldiers later we've seen the cost of Bush's rush to war in Iraq. A couple of months of analysis is not only prudent, it's to be applauded.

Comments

[Aaror]

Sorry, was doing it from memory, and goofed, it is obey all lawful orders, and I skipped some parts. It is easy to look it up if you want the full version, search military oath of office...

[Aaror]

"I, (state your name) do solemly swear to support and defend the constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, to obey all orders from those appointed over me..."
President is at the top of the chain of command, generals obey President's orders, Nyet?
If President has to do what general says, then general is at the top of the chain of command, and president is not commander and chief of the armed forces. Which is against the constitution and the oath of office both the general and president swore.
But I guess blowing off the constitution and forswearing yourself is ok for some reason?

[ActionCounts]

I agree with Andy Ostroy. The industrialized world, driven by greed, is always in a rush. Our culture in general -- not just the right-wingers who criticize Obama -- applauds REACTING itself ("He who hesitates is lost") over self-introspection ("Look before you leap"), and other valuable 'passive' activities like listening and mulling things over.

Everyone's in such a hurry to make a profit, and the defense industry is certainly no exception!

Obama takes a measured approach to things, inviting as many diverse opinions as possible. He thinks before he speaks or acts. Those are some of the reasons I voted for him.

One of my favorite Buddhist sayings is, "Learn to respond, not just react."

But I really do feel sorry for our President now. It's like he's in the clutches of a 'self-entangling monster' -- our military-industrial complex -- and faced with a conundrum (Afghanistan). His critics must think he's all-powerful -- as if he could change things with the wave of a wand. In my view, the sad reality is that our military-industrial complex has grown much more powerful than any single President. Eisenhower warned of this in the 50s, and it's sickening to see this problem continually worsen in my lifetime. Over half of our federal tax dollars are now spent on war. You can see proof of that at www.fcnl.org (Friends Committee on National Legislation -- the Quaker lobby).

[Aaror]

I would disagree that half of our tax dollars are spent on war, though I see your point.
A little over 50% of the dollar expenditures controled by the federal government are in Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Unemployment insurance (and a few similar programs too small to mention). These programs are paid by dedicated taxes, not by income taxes, so they are often "off the books."
Looking at the spending from income taxes or other "general fund revenues," over half of that spending is directed for the military, but that is not always "for war." In fact, not all "cost of war," funds ended up going directly to pay for the war, much of it was spent to repair or replace items damaged by the war, or by the enviorment (sand and gears don't mix well).
But yes, over 50% of general fund revenues go towards the military, leaving only scraps for "peaceful," programs like the CIA and FBI...
If you look at the non-military, non-dedicated revenue spending of the US, it really is small enough to "drown in a bathtub," now...

[ActionCounts]

Aaror: You said, "...over 50% of general fund revenues go towards the military." I agree that using the word "military" is more accurate than "war," but still -- we basically agree.
What's disturbing is that I've found many Americans are completely unaware of this problem. The response is usually shock or horror when I've posted it elsewhere or mentioned it at social gatherings.

You'd think people would be massively protesting it, since the quality of our daily lives is utterly impacted by these warped national priorities in spending. But it's under the radar because the commercial media won't touch it. (Go figure: the likes of Boeing are their main sponsors!) Plus, the military, when publishing their budget, hides a big slice of the pie under "discretionary funds." The Friends Committee on Nat'l Legislation has a great pie chart with detailed explanations at their web site.

Do you also find that very few people know about this problem?