|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
Iraq May Be the Easy PartPosted on Nov 11, 2008By Marie Cocco On the international front, things are no easier for President-elect Barack Obama than they are on the front lines of the economic crisis that he vows to ameliorate first. His priorities are Iraq and Afghanistan, complicated entanglements that were discussed—if at all—with glib simplicity in the final weeks of the presidential campaign. It may turn out that leaving Iraq is going to be easier than the calamities we confront when we turn our attention, as the president-elect likes to say, back to Afghanistan. With the Iraqis nearing an agreement on a framework for the continued presence of some U.S. forces in their country and an Iraqi government desire to have most American troops out by 2011, a drawdown of some of the approximately 140,000 U.S. servicemen and -women deployed there now seems inevitable. For all the feverish political argument that has characterized the U.S. involvement in Iraq, beginning a withdrawal is, oddly enough, a pledge upon which Obama can deliver. The point is not only to relieve Americans of the burdens of sacrificing precious lives and scarce dollars in the Iraqi desert, but to devote these treasures to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. It is not, as candidates blithely told us during the long presidential campaign, a matter of shifting troops. It is a matter of figuring out what—if anything at this point—can be done to keep Afghanistan from becoming what it was in the years leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: an impoverished and lawless place where seething tribal and regional rivalries, a corrupt central government, a flourishing poppy trade and an assortment of other social maladies too long to list make it ungovernable—a “failed state.” “In Afghanistan, the problems are so big and the problems go so far beyond the military,” says Caroline Wadhams, a terrorism expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It’s the drug trade, it is corruption issues, it is problems with the government not providing services for its people.” Advertisement No one really knows how much money or time or effort it will take to restabilize Afghanistan. A diversion of a few divisions from Iraq does not rebuild a nation, end corruption, prevent starvation or create jobs. The poverty rate among Afghans is 42 percent, according to the United Nations, and an additional 20 percent live just above the poverty line. Obama has talked about spending about $1 billion annually on development aid to Afghanistan. This is only a bit more than the Bush administration has devoted to it. In political campaigns, we expect politicians to promise more than they can deliver. The exercise that journalists usually undertake to prove this point is to tally the cost of various domestic proposals for tax cuts or spending and say they “don’t add up.” A promise to do things differently halfway around the word is not so easily reduced to arithmetic. And who really would pay attention, when the math of daily life—a paycheck lost to a layoff, a retirement account that is wiped out—is so much more immediate? No one knows what was in the intelligence briefing President-elect Obama received for the first time on Friday, but it is not very hard to guess at its broad strokes. Officials have been warning for some time about a downward spiral in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan. Obama has never minimized the complexity of the foreign policy challenges the next president will face. But the public must quickly come to understand that nothing is as simple as merely flying troops out of Baghdad and into Kabul. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By samosamo, November 11, 2008 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment
Iraq, Afghanistan, both are easy, just leave, just like Viet Nam. We had no business there and we have no business in the two former countries. Easy, just leave.
Report thisBut here is the deal, this is the military but not just the military. It is now the military/industrial/congressional complex. A wholly separate thing from the USA government. It is a byproduct of the neocon PNAC and this will be a very tough nut to break. This is the result of no oversight, no regulation and the allowing of what is a criminal element to further elitist agendas for the corporate benefits. Can it be otherwise? Just what in the hell do we manufacture in america anymore? Bombs, weapons, shady financial institutions(this is money laundrying and where you and I have to account for our money, these high financial institutions steal it on massive scales and give to those who will never think they have enough), fear and war. The whole pentagon and congress have jumped in full force, they want to be rich and to dictate our country and the world.
Lord above or wherever the hell he is, help obama because if he does do the right thing - fire generals, cut back defense spending and regulate the military, this will make for an organization(and that is what it is)that will try to kill him. These crooks will not just give up what has been handed to them and taken from the people to all of a sudden have to go back to being answerable.
The horror of the last 8 years of blank checks, not investigating and forcefully questioning the administration du jour is really starting to haunt us, just as their plan to rob the treasury and create a major disaster to prevent too much attention being cast on any one or two things so as to really raise the alarms for accountability, they appear to be slipping through the cracks and not a one of them will be prosecuted for their crimes.
By More than outraged, November 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
Yes, we need to get out of Iraq as of January 2002! (Yes, I am aware of that date I used - I’m saying we should never have ever even thought of going in).
Report thisWe also do NOT need to stay in Afghanistan and we certainly don’t need to increase bombing and killing of innocents!!!!!
All I can say is this: I have the most extreme honor and blessing of having a dear friend in Afghanistan. I’ve known her for almost a year and a half, yes we met in person in 2007 and talked for a couple of hours and have had some correspondence since. (She is the highest form of humanitarian possible). I’m not going to give her name or any more info due to severe security concerns for her. (She has to sleep in a different place every night to avoid assassination by taliban or US troops and other warlords). I’ll say this though: If just one hair on her head or any of her family or friends is harmed, I will do something like go to Afghanistan and fight the americans (US troops)and the taliban and other warlords!!! My main target will be the US troops though. It’s called revenge and its a dish worth savoring. So Obama better re-think his policy on Afghanistan. That poor country is nothing but rebel now thanks to the US, so what the hell is he going to bomb? Is it not bad enough that the US troops are now under orders to kill civilians?! (Opening fire on every wedding party they come across for example).
By Anarcissie, November 11, 2008 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment
My impression was that Afghanistan was invaded to satisfy domestic political requirements, especially the Something Must Be Done feeling following 9/11. Given that 3000 people perished in those attacks, a mere police operation, even if successful, would not have satisfied the gnawing desire for vengeance and retribution. Probably, the motive for staying there is similar, although now that “we” are there, the imperial instinct—grab and hold what you can regardless—has also been activated. It doesn’t appear to me that there is any practical strategic interest in the project there, unlike the adventure in Iraq, which at once offered control of a lot of oil and a commanding strategic position in the heart of the Middle East. Therefore, “we” could leave Afghanistan at any time “we” were willing to risk the loss of face, whereas deciding to quit Iraq would have important strategic consequences for the Imperium.
Report thisBy Pancho, November 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Scared…..I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Report thisBy Scotty_Mack, November 11, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
So, when Obama is responsible for blowing up dozens of people at wedding parties, will his supporters be as outraged as when Bush did it? I Hope Obama doesn’t Change too many people into ashes….
Report thisBy scared, November 11, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
“It’s the drug trade, it is corruption issues, it is problems with the government not providing services for its people.”
How are we to expect ‘victory’ in Afghanistan when America’s prohibitionist policies do nothing less than hand a blank check to terrorist organizations? Are we really to believe terrorist organizations don’t have direct ties to the drug trade? And that corrupt governments don’t have a hand in said drug trade?
How many decades of failed supply control policies domestic and abroad before do we need to endure before we get the picture? How many billions have been wasted working within the US, Mexico, Colombia, etc. We cannot control the supply side of an underground economy like the drug trade.
America consumes more illegal drugs than any other country on this planet. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by willingly funding these terrorist and organized crime groups. When are we going to stop catering to the vested interests in prohibition?
Last I checked, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of legal and regulated drugs in this country. You’re to tell me we can’t design policies to regulate a few more? The most dangerous drugs are the ones who most need regulation. How many of our citizens are we going to lock up before we start treating drug ABUSE like the public health issue it is and drug USE like the non-issue it is? Drug abuse and addiction are difficult problems for sure, but it’s not as difficult as stopping the worldwide supply of illegal drugs. Legitimize the drug trade and take some of the money away from these terrorists and organized crime groups. Prohibition didn’t work the first time and it never will.
Report this