The War In Afghanistan
It appears the Obama Administration has found the right war. As the United States properly begins a draw down of troops, and a diminished role in Iraq, the President is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. He is doing so without providing a rational justification and certainly he has not established clear objectives.
After 911 the United States was, in most Americans eyes, justified pursuing military action in Afghanistan. The mission, to root out Osama Bib Laden and crush the terrorist organization responsible for the unprovoked deaths of over 3,000 Americans. A clear justification and a clear mission.
After spending billions on the effort we managed to subdue the terrorist organization, and capture some of it's top leaders, but still the prime target is free. We pushed the Taliban into hiding, manged to put into place a corrupt and inept government, and then along came the Iraq opportunity.
Former President Bush found in Saddam Hussein an evil Dictator whom many felt deserved to be removed from power. From this premise his administration built a case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, would likely use them, and therefore posed a national security threat to the United States. The Administration did the usual diplomatic dance for peaceful resolution, ultimately was supported by a majority of congress, and took us into a very costly war and prolonged occupation which will not entirely end until 2011.
We still haven't found the weapons of mass destruction, the Middle East is more destabilized than before we invaded Iraq, and we are billions more in debt as a result. Not to mention the loss of American soldiers, the price of which is incalculable.
Now that President Obama is firmly in the saddle so to speak, he is riding his war horse deeper into Afghanistan. Could this be the next Democratic President that escalates a war only to find out it can't be won? Could this become our next Vietnam? Where is the media questioning the legitimacy of this this escalation? What is the specific mission? Is the mission attainable? At what additional cost in lives? What is the projected cost to American taxpayers? What is the exit strategy once the "enemy" is subdued?
These and other questions remain unanswered. Further, does anybody remember the outcome of excursions into Afghanistan by other major powers. The British were unable to defeat the rugged Afghanis. The Soviet Union suffered their Vietnam at the hands of the Afghanis. Has anybody thought about this in the Obama administration? If so by what rational have they arrived at the conclusion it will end differently for America?
Accomplished, successful gamblers I am thinking would place their bets on Afghanistan. The United States can not, nor should they continue to be the policemen of the world. We simply cannot afford it. This video of Ron Paul addressing this matter is right to the point and right on the mark.
The only ethical, and moral justification for armed conflict is in response to aggression. When the liberty, wellbeing, and safety of a people are threatened. Then and only then can armed conflict be justified, and only then in DEFENSE of a nation and it's peoples interests. Does anybody recall President Dwight D. Eisenhower's warnings about the military industrial complex? Might be worth researching if you've forgotten or never heard it.
This is not to imply a strong and effective military is not necessary. It absolutely is.The military should be equipped with the most modern and effective defensive systems as well as offensive. Our military must be trained, supported, and the most highly qualified in the world. The draft should be re instituted. Every single male and female, possessing the physical ability to serve, when reaching the age of majority (18) should be required to do so. If there is to be service it is only just that every cable person serve.
And so, it appears at least at this point in time, President Obama is getting another pass. He has some questions to answer and we should all hope the media, the congress, and the American people demand the answers. Our nation and it's people deserve the answers.
Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA
After 911 the United States was, in most Americans eyes, justified pursuing military action in Afghanistan. The mission, to root out Osama Bib Laden and crush the terrorist organization responsible for the unprovoked deaths of over 3,000 Americans. A clear justification and a clear mission.
After spending billions on the effort we managed to subdue the terrorist organization, and capture some of it's top leaders, but still the prime target is free. We pushed the Taliban into hiding, manged to put into place a corrupt and inept government, and then along came the Iraq opportunity.
Former President Bush found in Saddam Hussein an evil Dictator whom many felt deserved to be removed from power. From this premise his administration built a case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, would likely use them, and therefore posed a national security threat to the United States. The Administration did the usual diplomatic dance for peaceful resolution, ultimately was supported by a majority of congress, and took us into a very costly war and prolonged occupation which will not entirely end until 2011.
We still haven't found the weapons of mass destruction, the Middle East is more destabilized than before we invaded Iraq, and we are billions more in debt as a result. Not to mention the loss of American soldiers, the price of which is incalculable.
Now that President Obama is firmly in the saddle so to speak, he is riding his war horse deeper into Afghanistan. Could this be the next Democratic President that escalates a war only to find out it can't be won? Could this become our next Vietnam? Where is the media questioning the legitimacy of this this escalation? What is the specific mission? Is the mission attainable? At what additional cost in lives? What is the projected cost to American taxpayers? What is the exit strategy once the "enemy" is subdued?
These and other questions remain unanswered. Further, does anybody remember the outcome of excursions into Afghanistan by other major powers. The British were unable to defeat the rugged Afghanis. The Soviet Union suffered their Vietnam at the hands of the Afghanis. Has anybody thought about this in the Obama administration? If so by what rational have they arrived at the conclusion it will end differently for America?
Accomplished, successful gamblers I am thinking would place their bets on Afghanistan. The United States can not, nor should they continue to be the policemen of the world. We simply cannot afford it. This video of Ron Paul addressing this matter is right to the point and right on the mark.
The only ethical, and moral justification for armed conflict is in response to aggression. When the liberty, wellbeing, and safety of a people are threatened. Then and only then can armed conflict be justified, and only then in DEFENSE of a nation and it's peoples interests. Does anybody recall President Dwight D. Eisenhower's warnings about the military industrial complex? Might be worth researching if you've forgotten or never heard it.
This is not to imply a strong and effective military is not necessary. It absolutely is.The military should be equipped with the most modern and effective defensive systems as well as offensive. Our military must be trained, supported, and the most highly qualified in the world. The draft should be re instituted. Every single male and female, possessing the physical ability to serve, when reaching the age of majority (18) should be required to do so. If there is to be service it is only just that every cable person serve.
And so, it appears at least at this point in time, President Obama is getting another pass. He has some questions to answer and we should all hope the media, the congress, and the American people demand the answers. Our nation and it's people deserve the answers.
Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA
What makes you honestly believe that President Obama is a Marxist? I have trouble seeing how a "Marxist to the core" could win an election by so much. Or at all.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Actually to describe Obama as a Marxist is a misnomer. I addressed this issue in a prior post, " Is Obama a Marxist - Part 2"
ReplyDeleteHe is in fact a socialist/statist. My error, and many others in referring to him as a Marxist.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, simply used Marx as a vehicle to advance their lust for power. A perversion of Marxist philosophy.
Marx was in fact an economist in the mold of Adam Smith. He would have been proud of Henry Ford had he lived long enough to see Ford's improvement in productive efficiencies.
Most use Marx as the rallying point to wage war against socialism/statism, both of which Marx actually opposed. he was not a proponent of "the redistribution of wealth."
Obama is properly referred to as a socialist/statist.
Referring to Marx as a Marxist really means nothing. Marx himself said, " As for me I am not a Marxist."
As for me I am a free market capitalist in the the true sense of the concept.