THE AFGHAN WAR, WHO NEEDS IT?

“In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do” concludes Robert Scheer in a piece entitled:“War of Absurdity” (See: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091007_a_war_of_absurdity/) a title which is a thrust at President Obama’s recent speech in which he called Afganistan the “War of Necessity”. Scheer bases his absurdity claim on a statement made by Gen. George Jones, President Obama’s National Security Advisor, who is quoted as saying: “The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.” (See: http://content.usatoday.com/topics/quote/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/U.S.+Senators/Jon+Kyl/0aYPaHV6O0eOE/04UO601epxcYS/3)
What could be more absurd...a surge of 40,000 troops to kill 100 al-Qaida? The enemy has virtually disappeared. Yet the generals and others are desperate to continue this war. Why?

Scheer informs us that al-Qaida is also declining in Pakistan, . “Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of al-Qaida are barely hanging on. As The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, ‘Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. … For Arab youths who are al-Qaida’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”

So who are we fighting in Afghanistan if not al-Qaida? On a near-daily basis we target and kill Taliban "insurgents". Are they simply a target of opportunity, where al-Qaida are scarce? If one is to believe our leaders in Washington (and try to follow this logic), we kill Taliban,--and any innocent civilians who get it our line of fire--because, if the Taliban were to return to power they “might, perhaps" invite al-Qaida back.

So if I understand this correctly, we have eliminated our real enemy, al-Qaida, from Afghanistan, but now we must purge any resurfacing Taliban too, and since they are rather popular in the countryside (where they engage with the locals and attempt to improve their lives), we must first change the character of the Afghan country-culture and society so that it is less likely to give succor to the Taliban. This "new and better" Afghanistan will be a society and culture more suited to our leaders and to General McChrystal’s tastes and will be more amenable to US interests. To achieve that goal may be a very costly and lengthy undertaking.

Increasing our footprint in Afghanistan with 40,000 new troops (to about 108,000) is, as Scheer concludes, ”a prescription, ........ for war without end. That (he adds) might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants, but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do.” Well said, Mr. Robert Scheer!

I might add, the level of troop strength requested by McChrystal is about what the Russians fielded over their almost ten year debacle in Afghanistan. Of course they did not have the long supply lines which we have. Our supply routes are so long that a gallon on gas costs us $100.00 by the time it arrives in Kabul. And to field a single trooper in Afghanistan it costs the US taxpayer 3/4 of a million dollars--each! The 40,000 troops McChrystal wants will cost us (40,000 x $750,000 = $30,000,000,000.00) or $30 billion dollars! That is a lot of money the US will have to borrow from the Chinese and Japanese, (and you can add the carrying charges they will charge us!).

Why is it we hear no complaints about military expenses profligacy from Congress? But ask the government for some help for the US taxpayer, or for health-care, or sorely needed infrastructure and quality of life expenses and great clouds of angry dust are raised over Washington.

So let's summarize. Who's needs this war? The generals who see an opportunity to earn higher rank, the defense industry which sees more lucrative contracts, and those in Congress who will use it as a political weapon. The rest of us...we just pay the exorbitant bills...big bills..and suffer the consequences.

Recall how we all gulped and looked on, wide-eyed as Obama gave away a trillion dollars for the great Wall Stree "bail-out", well the Afghan war is the great give-away to the defense industry and the military. It is a transfer of funds from our now dusty and near-empty pockets into the well-lined coffers of the big companies. If they get their way, the Afghan War will cost about a trillion dollars too. It's for the rest of us--the taxpayers-- those who are fated to just look on...we have no one (with a few worthy exceptions) in Washington who will look out for our needs. We don't get any bail-out. We are the bailers!

Get the picture?

rjk