Afghanistan Plus More Troops = Catastrophe

This is such an explosive headline, I couldn't resist using it, even though this post is about much more than military escalation. This is the title of part one of Brave New Foundation's new full-length documentary (think Uncovered: The War on Iraq and Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers), which they began releasing online for free today. Their documentary campaign, Rethink Afghanistan, tackles issues like the costs of war and troop buildup--the subject of part one--featuring experts like Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Kinzer, Anand Gopal, and Dr. Ramaza Bashardost, Afghanistan's Independent candidate in their upcoming presidential election. It's worth checking out to hear what those experts have to say alone, and the fact that it's free is always an incentive!

But what I want to talk about is the ultimate goal of the Rethink Afghanistan campaign, which is to push for congressional oversight hearings. As I wrote last week, oversight has been a cornerstone of government accountability throughout our country's history, particularly in wartime. And some of the best oversight has not only been bipartisan, but it's come when the president's own party is debating his policies. Take the joint committee investigations during the Civil War, Senator Truman's Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program during WWII, and the Fulbright hearings during Vietnam. The same oversight needs to be applied today, especially after we saw this system of checks and balances shattered during the Bush administration and Iraq war.

I realize this war is an incredibly hairy issue. It has folks on the left divided, particularly in the progressive blogosphere, and it's important to be able to debate the issues surrounding this war. After all, that's the kind of plurality of opinion Obama has called for and respects and is willing to listen to--how refreshing! What is not debatable, at least in my mind, is the need for congressional oversight.

Whether you're for this war or against it, whether you think military escalation will cost too much and accomplish too little or you see it as part of our moral obligation to the region, it's hard for anyone to argue against the fact that oversight would benefit everyone. It would ensure the executive branch isn't overstepping its bounds; it would help curb wasteful military spending; and it would make sure military agencies are running efficiently. Above all, as Andrew Bacevich told me last week, it would educate the public about the Obama administration's policies so we can continue to have this debate.

Comments

[Rule Of Law]

We went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden--period!

We have failed.

We did NOT go to Afghanistan to effect regime change, install democracy, or turn them into a client state.

Other countries have tried variations on those things, and all have failed at them as we surely will.

US out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them become protectorates of the UN, is they should so choose.

[oxi]

Who says we went there to get osama or fight our allies the Taliban? The corporate media and the politicians? You believe them?

We are there to expand the NATO alliance to complete the encircling of Russia and as a bonus construct new oil pipelines like the TAPI one to by-pass Russian influence to the north and west. If we were serious about fighting terrorism or osama, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and never bombed Serbia to rescue KLA terrorists back in 1999.

Why else would NATO troops be there out of bounds of their treaty obligations? Afghanistan is not the North Atlantic. With the ABM base going up in Poland and the continued NATO expansion the U.S. is dead serious about defeating Russia.

Russia for their part is fighting back. When Georgia fired artillery shells towards Russian troops in S.O., Russia took matters into their own hands and invaded Georgia in response and the U.S. countered just days later by signing the Polish ABM base deal. Funny how things work out.

Russia recently closed the Manas air base just as Obama is only just beginning his war in Central Asia. We will wait and see the next moves when Russia and the U.S. meet soon.

[Rule Of Law]

Oxi, I agree with you. Yes the line about Obama is the Corporate lie, but it was the only one the people would buy at the time. You're right about the Taliban too--we created them. The pipeline, ditto.

I was trying to keep it simple for folks here. You know--we failed, time to get out--might resonate with some. After reading Krauthamer's article of Sat. a week ago, I am firmly convinced that the only way out of this economic Manufactured Meltdown will be another, real, war--and the drums are already beating to make Russia the enemy du jour. And, I believe it is with the consent of the ruling oligarchs in Russia.

Here, it will mobilise the people against an ancient enemy and you'll see flocks of silly rednecked boys running off to fight the "commies." Though when you look at what Russia is doing now it really only looks like what we are doing in terms of movement on the geo-political stage. Eerie. The Russian economy is even worse than ours and Putin's power is tenuous--a real war would fix both those things for him. In America it would allow for the re-cementing of the bank's power over our government while stimulating another bubble--A war bubble.

[Rule Of Law]

Forgot to mention Japan and WW2. This is the same strategy we used to cut them off and force an attack, though, as I said, this time it will be with the assent of the Ruling Russians who want to stay in power and don't care if another 20 million die.

Don't know that much about Serbia.