When President Obama announced his troop escalation in Afghanistan one year ago, I wasn't shy about saying the new strategy would make the insurgency worse. I believed the economic and human costs would be far too high, crippling our ability to recover from a deep recession.
Unfortunately, since the escalated campaign began in Marjah last February, those beliefs have been validated. This past year was the most deadly - both for our troops and for civilians - and the most financially costly of the war so far. It's clear that the military escalation in Afghanistan has failed to live up to the promises of its supporters, and it's time to bring our troops home.
Afghanistan was a much more violent place in 2010 compared to 2009, averaging 33 insurgent-initiated attacks every single day. That meant a record 499 U.S. deaths in a single year. More Afghans were killed in 2010 than 2009 as well. Despite the presence of 30,000 additional troops, military reports show that in 2010 the insurgency had a broader presence and could mount more sophisticated attacks.
The costs of the war also skyrocketed in 2010. With each troop deployed for a year in Afghanistan costing taxpayers $1 million, monthly costs for the war increased 63 percent in 2010 to $5.7 billion. This year the war is expected to cost Americans roughly $107 billion. Those are huge costs, especially when you consider that defense spending is one of the least effective ways to help the economy.
These costs help explain why a large majority of Americans are clamoring for Congress to end the war. A whopping 72 percent of those surveyed want us to pass legislation this year speeding up troop withdrawals, with a large plurality feeling that way "strongly." One committed group ran the first-ever television ad calling for an end to the war, created by Brave New Foundation's Rethink Afghanistan campaign. One of the people featured in the ad, Pamela Kemp, says that "it's time to imagine what this nation would be if we focused our resources on education as we do in war."
I agree.
This war has cost the taxpayers in my congressional district more than $580 million so far. That's enough money to hire 11,278 elementary school teachers for a year, or to send 84,653 students to college for a year. These are just some of the bad tradeoffs we're making by spending our national resources on war instead of on fixing problems here at home. Ask yourself: which would you rather have? A war that's not making us safer and that's not worth the cost, or a more educated, more prosperous America?
I and some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives are working to bring this war to an end. I'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of Rep. Barbara Lee's bill, introduced today, that would force the responsible redeployment of our forces from Afghanistan. This week, I've been working with fellow progressives in the House to attach language to appropriations bills that would limit the expenditure of federal funds on war. These steps will be important to end the war, but the real power has to come from everyday Americans demanding their representatives stop wasting our national treasure on failed policies overseas.
We've got some hard work to do this year to stop the war in Afghanistan, but with your support, we'll get there.
Follow Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepRaulGrijalva
From: US Radical Left
Subject: Sorry about that ...
We realize that with democracy breaking out in the Arab world, you had hopes for same in your country. But history shows that Afganis cannot be conquered or govern themselves.
Admittedly, Arabs also never had a democracy in their history, and now will. But we also said that "nation building" would not work in Iraq, wanted US troops withdrawn there years ago. Now that Iraq may end up with something like a secular democracy, we are determined to not be proven wrong again. So we must withdraw our troops and turn your country over to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
1- pay benefits to military personnel who have risked their lives in the past instead of cutting them.
2- build/rebuild failing infrastructure.
3- lead the world with green energy infrastructure.
4- build housing for the poor. subsidize heating for the poor in the winter instead of military contractors who break laws and don't get punished.
5-Educate children on how to live with one another better, and build a sustainable future.
6- use the highly trained law officials from the military to go after the banks that have bled the country dry with reckless abandon.
7- all this while keeping the jobs that they have. Plus money left over to help further job growth.
Or keep sending all that cash over seas so the terrorists can see America bankrupt while they inherit our money. Seems like a clean cut choice. It's really not as complicated as they want us to believe.
Have you all seen this?
http://costofwar.com/en/
This is where I strongly disagree with Obama. He caught my attention and support in 2007 because he was against the Iraq war. I thought he was against wars in general, like me. What happened? In my opinion, he realized he couldn't go against the war industrial complex and expect to win reelection. This industry and others run this country. I wish we were a democracy but we are not. We vote for people to fight for our interests but once they get there they have a different agenda that bows to corporate pressure and money.
10 years of burning cash and bodies while mortgaging our future wasn't exactly prudent.
Unfortunately, the cynical side of me says that the USA is not tired enough of this pointless conflict yet. However, without voices like yours in Congress it may never end.
Consider running for President in 2012.