Mr. President, bring the troops home
If General Stanley McChrystal's request of President Obama for 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan is to be met, the cost would be $40 billion to $54 b. a year, according to an internal government estimate published by The New York Times on November 15. The General originally requested 80,000 additional troops. The Times reports, "The rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant." The same article quotes Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of a subcommittee on defense appropriations, as saying that "total spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would surge past $1 trillion next year, which could hamper the economy for years to come." It is almost a foregone conclusion that the president will not authorize the 40,000 soldiers requested, but in all probability, he will authorize a smaller number. Any increase, as opposed to embarking upon an immediate exit strategy, would be a grave error. To Obama: Don't get trapped in Afghanistan - let's get out now
President Obama did an excellent job, in both delivery and substance, when he addressed a joint session of Congress last week. As I listened to him, I was reminded of my own days in Congress. Before I left Congress in 1977 to serve as Mayor of New York City, I attended similar addresses of Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I sat in the House of Representatives Chamber thinking how lucky I was to live in such a great country and to have been given the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens in Congress. I recall when President Johnson appeared in that Chamber in January 1969 after President Nixon had been elected but before he took office. As Johnson entered the Chamber and walked down the aisle past me, I reached over and patted him on the shoulder. Although he was unaware of my touch, I said to myself, "I forgive you." I was referring to the Vietnam War, the results of which caused him not to run for reelection. President Johnson had hugely increased the number of American soldiers sent to South Vietnam. I believe he ultimately poured in more than 50,000 combat troops. His enormous good works and reputation, as a result of his civil rights legislative record and "Great Society" initiatives, were lost as he became responsible in the public's collective conscience for the war and was blamed for the casualties, deaths and billions of dollars spent to prop up a corrupt Vietnamese government in an ongoing civil war. The United States was ultimately required to pull out in a publicly humiliating way. As the North Vietnam troops were entering Saigon, later renamed Ho Chi Min City, we ferried American military and civilians, as well as Vietnamese civilians, by helicopter from the roof of our embassy in Saigon to our Navy ships offshore. Many people, myself included, do not believe we can win the war in Afghanistan. The British and the Russians gave up on Afghanistan, as probably did Alexander the Great of ancient Macedonia. Even if we were to win, what would we have won? A truth commission on the use of torture
In 2004, I was one of the few people in the country who campaigned for the Bush-Cheney ticket, and in 2008, campaigned for the Obama-Biden ticket. I did not agree with President Bush on a single domestic issue, but endorsed and campaigned for him because of his strong stance in opposition to Islamic terrorism, which was not, in my opinion, matched by his Democratic opponent, John Kerry. In 2008, I went to Florida and other states to campaign for the Obama-Biden ticket. I announced that I was supporting and campaigning for Barack Obama, having decided that he did understand, in my opinion, the threat of Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, I agreed with him and the Democratic Party on every major domestic issue in the campaign, including national health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, achieving tax equity for the middle class. Pakistan disintegrating
Pakistan, a nuclear nation, is in danger of falling to the Taliban. The Pakistani army, which the world has relied on to prevent the Taliban from taking over the northwest frontier tribal areas, is collapsing. The Taliban, by agreement with the army, has already moved into the Swat Valley and recently partially occupied the adjacent Buner area which is 60 miles from the Pakistan capital of Islamabad. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, husband of the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated on December 27, 2007, is weak and ineffective. He and his government depend on the Pakistani army to keep the country under control and most importantly, to secure the country's nuclear arsenal from the Taliban and al-Qaida. The world worries that terrorists will steal, buy or otherwise come into possession of nuclear weapons. When President Pervez Musharraf, the former general and dictator, was the head of Pakistan's military-run government, the world breathed easier. He lost power when the army command deserted him and democratic elections produced the new Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, who would be assassinated and followed into national office by her husband. More and more like the Taliban?President Barack Obama made a superb statement in France when he said, according to The New York Times, "On the eve of a NATO summit meeting, 'America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes.' Answering questions at a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, he said, reported The Times, "The fight against Islamic extremists [is] one that Europe could not afford to leave to the United States alone." He went on, "I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now president and George Bush is no longer president, al-Qaida is still a threat...al-Qaida is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity." Let's get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now
There was a time when our government under President George W. Bush believed we would never leave Iraq and would retain some kind of permanent base there. Now we have signed agreements with Iraq's government committing us to leave permanently no later than December 31, 2011, and if any referendum in Iraq requires that we leave by June 30, 2010, we have agreed to do so. If I had my way, we would leave at once. I believe we will gain nothing by delaying our departure from Iraq to equal the inevitable American casualties. Does anyone think the Iraqis will come to love or even like us? I don't. The Iraq model is inapplicable in Afghanistan
President Obama has so far received high marks from the vast majority of his supporters and even from many non-supporters. He has fulfilled, particularly by his cabinet appointments, our hope and belief that he would be moderate in his policies. He has disappointed and antagonized those in the Democratic big tent who were hoping he would support radical left positions. The New York Times of February 22nd reported, "The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush's legal team." The argument made by Bush was that federal courts "have no jurisdiction to hear such a case because the prisoners are noncitizens being held in the course of military operations outside of the United States." The US must leave Afghanistan
There are those who object to the war in Iraq, but who continue to support our military efforts in Afghanistan. There is now an ongoing effort to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. We and NATO currently have 62,000 troops in Afghanistan, 32,000 American and 30,000 coalition. The Afghan war, which was approved by the United Nations, is going badly. The Taliban is using Pakistan as its base from which to attack American and NATO troops in Afghanistan. When our troops strike back with airpower, either in Afghanistan or Pakistan, they often kill innocent civilians living with the Taliban and we are denounced by the Afghanistan government which depends on American troops to survive, and the Pakistani government. Leave Afghanistan first
The United Nations resolution authorizing the United States presence in Iraq runs out at the end of this year. The United States and Iraq are now negotiating a new agreement to govern US relations and conduct when the UN agreement expires. The Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri Kanal al-Maliki, according to The New York Times, "was leaning toward concluding a short term security pact with the United States instead of a broader agreement that would last for years." The Iraqi people and their government do not want a permanent US presence in their country. John McCain has said that the US may end up with permanent bases in Iraq, agreed to by the Iraqi government. I don't think permanent bases are necessary. We already have bases in Kuwait and Qatar, etc., and a base in Diego Garcia provided by Great Britain, more than enough to serve our needs as the protector of the area and its oil wealth. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (22)
