Afghanistan: "Obama's War"

This was the lead story - front-page, above-the-fold-in yesterday's edition of USA Today: Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan.

I found this striking because almost every other news venue was covering economic issues, devoting attention either to the slightly expanded mortgage-holder relief program that the Obama administration is beginning to push or the new requests for billions of dollar in corporate welfare requested by GM and Chrysler.

Like most Americans, I cannot judge how much of a threat to international or national peace the Taleban continues to pose: I simply do not have access to the relevant information. But I do think we need to keep an eye on foreign military adventures as we ride the all-too-adventurous roller-coaster of economic affairs.

This deployment to Afghanistan, while not at all expected, is scheduled to occur before any draw downs in troops in Iraq. That's worrisome. But what is also worrisome is the tendency Presidents have to use military buildups to jumpstart the economy. How will be know whether the build-up in Afghanistan addresses national security (we have the same Secretary of Defense we had under the George W. Bush administration) or whether it is serving as a locus of unquestionable spending, rather like Operation Desert Shield during the George H.W. Bush term or Grenada during the Reagan years?

For those of us who would like to see government spending meant to help the economy concentrated on domestic infrastructure, rebuilding our own country rather than ravaging another one, how will we hold this administration accountable for assuring us that it is not using the good old military-industrial complex and the new tactic of shouting "terrorist" to siphon funds to the special interest groups that will push for military spending in Afghanistan but who have little or no interest in domestic improvements?

Comments

[Msakel]

It was incredibly ironic to hear Obama respond to CBC's Peter Mansbridge(Canadian Broadcasting Corp--CBC)when asked how he proposes to contain terrorism:
"I believe in diplomacy and development; military solutions don't work out...." bla bla...

Then, simultaneously, I hear that he is sending 17,000 troops to Afganistan! Is he a congenital liar? A war monger? Or the other, xeroxed, side of the Bush coin? Why aren't the media reporting on this blatant contradiction between his words and actions? With an explosive Pakistan next to it harboring former CIA-funded Taliban Pashtan fighters,the same ones who defeated the Soviet Empire, Obama is playing with nuclear disaster! Hillary was right. Barack's Judgment and Experience are not his greatest assets! An Obama presidency is much like giving the keys to the new family car to your licensed-yesterday teenager. Except the whole world's sitting in the suicide seat with this neophyte pompous dunderhead at the wheel! Zeus help us!

[Msakel]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that Canadian taxpayers have paid $22 Billion dollars for their Afghanistan contribution, not to mention the human lives' contribution. No doubt Barack goes to Ottawa to convince them of the need to prolong the unwarranted cost and human suffering there. For what? To provide armies to protect the oil pipelines in the Caspian. The same George Soros interests that wanted a face lift for America, even if it meant the overthrow of the more competent, capable, but female, presidential candidate. Obama stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton because they thought he was the most manipulable candidate and the one to provide a 'face lift' to American warmongering policy that has destroyed the economic viability and world reputation of this formerly prosperous nation. Well, they were right! Obama's dancing to their tune, and this is unfortunately only the beginning. He's an immature half-baked politico from Chicago playing a grownup's game--but using the world as his unfortunate playpen.