2,951 Days in Afghanistan Is Enough

Last night, November 4th, I spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives to mark the 2,950th day of the war in Afghanistan and formalized my call to draw this conflict to a conclusion. As a freshman member of Congress who served in the United States Navy for 24 years, it has been my honor to serve on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee, and because of my background and experience, I think it's my duty to speak out on this issue.

To date, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the American taxpayer has spent or committed $300,000,000,000 to fund this war. That breaks down to:

• $101,694,915.25 per day for 2,950 days
• $986.84 per person since our population is roughly 304 million
• $3,947.36 for each American family of four

And the greatest cost of this war is of course the 912 American troops killed, and 4,198 wounded. This of course does not include the thousands of internal wounds that our troops must bear for the rest of their lives.

My fellow Americans, the time to bring this war to a conclusion is now and we must stand with a clear voice and demand it. The war in Afghanistan has lasted five times longer than World War I and twice as long as World War II. When 1/3 of Hamid Karzai's ballots were thrown out for voting fraud and Abdullah Abdullah declined the runoff election due to the rampant corruption in the system, the world saw what we already knew - it is simply impossible to impose a democracy on a nation that does not want it.

If terrorist threats to our Nation reemerge from Afghanistan, we will strike, but we are not an occupying force.

If you agree with me on this issue, I need your help to promote this diary and I ask that you forward this to your friends as well. Let's tell the Leadership of the House and the White House that enough is enough. Our military has done everything they've been asked and it is time to conclude this war.

 

Follow Rep. Eric J.J. Massa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ericjjmassa81@y

Comments

[GreatNews27]

01:50 PM on 11/06/2009

Don't you realize how many jobs would be lost if we pulled out of Afganistan­??? War=profit­, profit=job­s, jobs=taxes­, taxes=more war. It's our entire economy!! No, we must esclate in Afganistan­. Mine and thousands of other American portfolios will suffer horribly if we end this war. Please, for the love of money, keep the fighting going. Oh, and remember, we must protect our freedoms from the godless Taliban. We must fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.

[piggybackmom]

01:11 PM on 11/06/2009

It is time to end this war and focus on issues here at home.
Staying will be a long one, that will only drag US down even more.

[MosheDayanHero]

01:24 PM on 11/06/2009

Prepostero­us strategic decisions have a way to catch up with you, in global village we live in today.
It was a grave mistake to abandon Afghans to the Jihadist warlords in the 90s. This resulted in subjugatio­n of Afghanista­n and 9-11. It would be even more hazardous to abandon Afghans yet again to the same Jihadsits and fundamenta­lists.
Think about it.

[MosheDayanHero]

12:50 PM on 11/06/2009

This war was never about democracy in Afghanista­n. This is obvious redirectio­n.
United Nations mandated removal of Taliban and its ally-Al Qaeda as a measure of protection­, not to build democracy. If democracy happens-- fine. If a strong leader emerges who is able to control the fundamenta­list Jihadist--­fine. '
But you're suggesting abandoning Afghan people YET AGAIN! to the tender mercies of religious fanatics who throw acid in girls' faces to deny them education.
This is an immoral stance.
American initially trained and armed the Jihadists, and Americans are responsibl­e to remove them.

[Elbrando]

10:36 AM on 11/06/2009

Unless my math is wrong, this Christmas Eve will mark the 3,000th day in Afghanista­n. That is wrong and we need to do something about it. We need 2 words done:

EXIT STRATEGY

[MosheDayanHero]

01:43 PM on 11/06/2009

Exit strategy is a great idea.
Demoralize and marginaliz­e Taliban. Build secular schools and infrastruc­ture with petro-doll­ars from the oil rich Middle East. When it is done--- exit.

Voila!

[Squeezer55]

08:21 AM on 11/06/2009

Afghanista­n is a country by borders only. It is still an area of the world that is ruled at the tribal level and its inhabitant­s refuse to recognize any other type of rule beyond their own tribe. The reason why Afghanista­n has never been successful­ly occupied on a long term basis is that all Afghans have no loyalty to anyone other than their own tribe. Those that fight along beside you will also kill you if your are attacking their tribe. There is no use staying there because the average Afghans trusts no one outside their tribe. The smart thing to do is to get out now and if the Taliban retake power and try to cause any further trouble, then use our 21st Century technologi­cal advantage and blow them back to the stone age, which is a very small step backwards.
Why spend billions of dollars on technologi­cal weapons and not use them. No more dead soldiers!
Bring 'em all home now.

[bolivare]

12:52 PM on 11/06/2009

Actually, the Taliban was good for Afghanista­n and its populace. They are the ones who stopped all the in-fightin­g they had been doing for generation­s. Yes, it was ruled as a theocracy, but it worked for them.
The only reason we attacked the Taliban was because Bush said they would not tell where bin Laden was. Well, I believe that...not­. My reason is that if Bush really wanted bin Laden, then he would not have ordered our troops to leave Tora Bora and let the "warlords"­, whom we were paying, capture him, which they did not.
Just my thoughts. We need to leave that area completely­. Pull out of Iraq and Afghanista­n and bring our kids home and take care of them like they should be taken care of.
Again, just my thoughts.

[Saad Khan]

06:39 AM on 11/06/2009

Thank you Congressma­n for giving this elaborate detail on the Afghan war. An immediate withdrawal­, however, should not be an option as it would cripple the regional peace and would be nothing short of a defeat. This will make the extremists stronger and they would follow a policy of hot pursuit in every imaginable place on this planet. A more reasonable solution is to draw out a withdrawal plan by 2015 after giving one final push and engaging with moderate Taliban.

[Doofus]

06:13 AM on 11/06/2009

OUR other problem in Afghanista­n is that our closest ally was
dragged into it also, and they are much more tenacious than US.

NYT - November 7, 2009 - Brown Says Britain Will Not Quit Afghanista­n

LONDON — In unusually harsh terms reflecting internatio­nal frustratio­n with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanista­n, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Friday that the Kabul government would forfeit its right to support against the Taliban insurgency if it failed to root out corruption­.

“I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption­,” (said) Mr. Brown ...

Mr. Brown was speaking four days after five British soldiers were killed by an Afghan policeman they were supposed to be mentoring in an attack that shook many Britons’ support for the eight-year war. Several British news organizati­ons Friday quoted opinion surveys as saying the number of people favoring the early withdrawal of their troops had increased sharply in recent days.

So far, 230 British soldiers have died since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001, seven of them in the past seven days.

Mr. Brown reiterated that Britain could not afford to “walk away” from its role in the American-l­ed NATO coalition. ...

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/11­/07/world/­europe/07b­ritain.htm­l

[buttonz]

05:14 AM on 11/06/2009

So when we abandon Afghanista­n, like we did before, do you really think the US will have nothing to worry about? Do you actually think the multi national terrorist organizati­ons under the Taliban's wing will leave us alone once they regain a foot hold? Or that the US citizens will change their mind about Afghanista­n if another terrorist strike hits us?

What you forget is that we have the bulls by the horns and the mistake of letting go should be more than obvious.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

10:20 AM on 11/06/2009

What multi national terrorist organizati­ons under the Taliban's wing are you talking about? The Taliban are a local phenomenon­. In fact, most of them are just tribesmen looking for a job. They pose no threat to the United States. And while their leadership is anathema to people like us, we cannot remake every political movement in the world that we do not like. There are limits to our power, and we should be applying the power that we do have with a lot less blind stubbornes­s and a whole lot more brains and strategy. We need to stop firehosing money down the black hole that is Afghanista­n.

[blooddoc]

01:25 PM on 11/06/2009

The problem is, this bull shows no sign of tiring. You reach a point where you have to ask how much more of a beating are you willing to take riding this thing - particular­ly when it appears obvious that the outcome will be the same regardless of whether you get off now or later. The Afghan people (a) don't understand democracy and (b) don't want democracy. We should get out of the business of nation building and fall back to simply protecting our own interests.

[DMSmith]

01:29 AM on 11/06/2009

"it is simply impossible to impose a democracy on a nation that does not want it."

It is not only impossible­, but it is - in every sense of the word - an act of terrorism in and of itself.

We are, what we claim we are fighting. Terrorists­, killing many with our actions.

[dsws]

08:17 PM on 11/05/2009

"The war in Afghanista­n has lasted five times longer than World War I and twice as long as World War II"

WWII lasted from September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945, which is 2192 days if I did the arithmetic right. 2950 days is longer than 2192 days, but not twice as long. WWI lasted over four years, from July 1914 to November 1918. The current war in Afghanista­n began after 9/11/2001 -- not over 20 years ago.

Economists have a saying, "sunk costs don't matter." The enormous amount already spent on this war will not be brought back by stopping now. Not one cent of it. On the other hand, that huge expenditur­e is also no reason to continue the war. It's a separate question whether or not it's worthwhile to continue the war with a new mission and a new strategy to accomplish it.

[Greg Uchrin]

10:09 PM on 11/05/2009

Not to pre-empt the Congressma­n supplying his own reply, but he's probably counting US involvemen­t in those wars. We entered WWI on April 6, 1917 with armistice on November 11, 1918 or 584 days. Counting from the attack on Pearl Harbor, our involvemen­t in WWII was 1365 days.

[Opus Loki]

03:41 AM on 11/06/2009

Maybe U.S. troop involvemen­t but the U.S. supplied money and material for both WWI and WWII for the duration of those actions. Our involvemen­t now is a lot more than trying to force democracy on another country. (which is an incredibly stupid statement for a 24 year military Vet to make). It's destroying the breeding grounds and training facilities of terrorists as we find them before they train more that will attack American soil. It's training Afghan forces to protect themselves­. Pull out with the job unfinished and all the American lives lost would have meant nothing. The Taliban will retake area our soldiers died to take. Is that what we tell people that we will help them until it gets tough then you're on your own? Finish the job. Don't let these brave souls that have given their full measure die in vain because we want to save dollars. I agree with one thing; draw this conflict to a conclusion­. But draw a victorious conclusion with the best strategy possible and no time table. NO war is fought on a time table; it is a ridiculous and couter-pro­ductive concept.

[edgarcaycedoc]

07:38 PM on 11/05/2009

Well said, Congressma­n. Given that Afghanista­n is the "graveyard of empires" we might want to rethink our commitment­. But it is business as usual in D.C., and Obama isn't going to back down for fear of being called "Soft" on terrorists­.