Rethinking my support for military adventurism

[roo_ster]

How?  He never managed a credible invasion threat - even stripping Western Europe of all its barges....

He could have starved out the UK, and likely would have, if the USA did not involve itself in WWII very early on (before war declaration in the Atlantic).

The UK just could not sustain the loss in cargo ships the Krauts were inflicting and could not feed themselves without importing food.

[Balog]

If you think I'm unfamiliar with Afghani history, you're mistaken. 

Actually, at the risk of sounding as snarky as you, I'd suggest you brush up on Afghanistan's history.

And you think the US would have better luck at installing a lasting and stable .gov than all of the previous empires that have attempted it? /gigglesnort

[roo_ster]

And you think the US would have better luck at installing a lasting and stable .gov than all of the previous empires that have attempted it? /gigglesnort

Well, the Brits didn't have BHO to run the show.

[MicroBalrog]

And you think the US would have better luck at installing a lasting and stable .gov than all of the previous empires that have attempted it? /gigglesnort

For the record, the Mongols succeeded.

[MicroBalrog]

I am convinced that our efforts have had a positive impact on our security.

The question is not whether the impact is positive or negative. The question is how much of a positive impact is it having. It's a question of a cost-benefit analysis.

Look: I have no doubt that wearing a ballistic vest and some plates to work will reduce the chance of me being shot dead. But the discomfort relating to wearing a vest and its cost, related to the chance of someone shooting at me (less than 1%), makes me reconsider this fashion choice. Does it mean I do not value my own life? Of course it doesn't.


The United States used to go around the world, protecting its allies, kicking butt, and installing liberty wherever it went. It might have been not ideologically perfect, but today, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Ukraine, the Baltic States, and countless other countries are relatively free because of what America did - because America fought in WW2 and waged the Cold War.

But now you're suggesting that America should continue investing money, blood, freedom, political capital and international prestige for as many as eight more year - effectively doubling the current expense - in the Afghani mountains, and what we'll have for it is... creating a new Pakistan? For two trillion dollars?

I can think of a dozen things you can buy for two trillion dollars that are shinier than a second Pakistan. One is more than enough.

And this is the best-case scenario. What will likely happen that - five, six years from now - the American public will get tired and America will leave. And then all the money, lives, effort spent will be in vain. Worse, the loss - and its inevitable psychological impact - will be used, like Vietnam, to discourage the American nation, to sap its spirit, to prevent it from other, worthier exploits.

[roo_ster]

For the record, the Mongols succeeded.

They surely didn't worry about collateral damage, I 'spect.

But now you're suggesting that America should continue investing money, blood, freedom, political capital and international prestige for as many as eight more year - effectively doubling the current expense - in the Afghani mountains, and what we'll have for it is... creating a new Pakistan? For two trillion dollars?

I can think of a dozen things you can buy for two trillion dollars that are shinier than a second Pakistan. One is more than enough.

And this is the best-case scenario. What will likely happen that - five, six years from now - the American public will get tired and America will leave. And then all the money, lives, effort spent will be in vain. Worse, the loss - and its inevitable psychological impact - will be used, like Vietnam, to discourage the American nation, to sap its spirit, to prevent it from other, worthier exploits.

Dear Lord in Heaven, that (the bold-face bit) is a depressing thought.

[Balog]

For the record, the Mongols succeeded.

True. But look at how they did it...

[sanglant]

exactly, why are we copying history's losers. it's time to start emulating some winners. now then, let's queue up some MOABs .

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

For the record, the Mongols succeeded.

I would argue that the Brits were successful, too.  Their interest in Afghanistan was strategic, they didn't want Russia or Persia/Iran expanding up to the border of their prime colony in India.  They installed a series of local Afghan leaders as puppets to fill in the vacuum that might otherwise have been filled with hostile entities.  The Brits kept it up successfully for about a century until they relinquished India, making Afghanistan irrelevant to them.

Actually, what the Brits achieved is not all that different from what we're trying to do there today.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The question is not whether the impact is positive or negative. The question is how much of a positive impact is it having. It's a question of a cost-benefit analysis.

I agree, it's a question of cost vs reward.

But now you're suggesting that America should continue investing money, blood, freedom, political capital and international prestige for as many as eight more year - effectively doubling the current expense - in the Afghani mountains, and what we'll have for it is... creating a new Pakistan? For two trillion dollars?

The current $1T expense went mostly to Iraq.  The cost of another decade in A-stan would measure in the hundreds of billions, perhaps $300B or $400B, not in the multiple trillions.  That's still a lot of money, but to me the safety of my family and my fellow citizens is worth it.  I'd rather we fight this war in the mountains of A-stan than the streets and skies over NYC.  And if the end result is a second Pakistan, all the better.

If the cost is too high, there are ample opportunities to save money elsewhere in the Federal budget.  Social Security in one year costs more than Afghanistan to date.  Congress just agreed to spend $40 billion to bump up unemployment, and that's enough money to cover the Afghanistan effort for about a year.  Obama's stimulus bill alone cost enough to fund Afghanistan for another 10 or 20 years.

The cost in blood is harder to analyze.  Certainly our servicemen our bleeding in the war, and that's not good.  But I don't believe that withdrawing will reduce the amount of blood we spend.  It'll simply shift the demographics a bit.  Servicemen or civilians, take your pick.  I pick servicemen, because we give them guns and bombs and let 'em fight back.

Political capital and prestige?  Meh.  Too vague to analyze.

And this is the best-case scenario. What will likely happen that - five, six years from now - the American public will get tired and America will leave. And then all the money, lives, effort spent will be in vain. Worse, the loss - and its inevitable psychological impact - will be used, like Vietnam, to discourage the American nation, to sap its spirit, to prevent it from other, worthier exploits.

This is the real risk of the endeavor.  We won't fail because we couldn't do it. If we fail, it will be because we didn't want to do it.  There's no force anywhere in the region that can eject us from Afghanistan against our will, no force that can ultimately stand up to us.  Only we can defeat ourselves.

[longeyes]

The current $1T expense went mostly to Iraq.  The cost of another decade in A-stan would measure in the hundreds of billions, perhaps $300B or $400B, not in the multiple trillions.  That's still a lot of money, but to me the safety of my family and my fellow citizens is worth it.  I'd rather we fight this war in the mountains of A-stan than the streets and skies over NYC.  And if the end result is a second Pakistan, all the better.

Don't worry about NYC.  There are only two hundred mosques there already.  Yeah, keep worrying about Afghanistan.

[RocketMan]

And what happens to all the "cost-benefit" analyses when the first mushroom cloud blossoms over DC, or tens of thousands of people in the Bost-Wash corridor start keeling over from some biological nasty?
There is a reason to expend our blood and treasure over there.  If we fail to deny AQ and the others that hate us a stable and relatively secure area to plan and prepare their attacks on us, the mushrooms will grow here.
While AQ is working elsewhere in the region and Africa, their strongholds are not all that strong and secure.  That can, and will, change when we pull out of A-stan.
That said, I agree with others that think we lack the national will to do what is ultimately necessary.  We will pull out of A-stan before the job is finished.

[longeyes]

Al-Q doesn't need Afghanistan to plan their attacks.  They can do that from any number of places--in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe...in America.  What we need to worry about is where and from whom they are going to get the weapons that will kill us.

[White Horseradish]

And what happens to all the "cost-benefit" analyses when the first mushroom cloud blossoms over DC, or tens of thousands of people in the Bost-Wash corridor start keeling over from some biological nasty?

How does our being in Afghanistan prevent this? It isn't known for having neither nuke or bio labs, nor any scientists of note. Or do you expect those guys in Khyber Pass make a nuke with hand files, like they make AKs?

[RocketMan]

White Horseradish, you completely missed the point of my post.  All I can say is "Google is your friend."  Do a little research on the subject instead of regurgitating a sound byte.

edited to clarify

[MicroBalrog]

How great is the likelihood of that happening?

Me being shot and killed is a bad thing I try to avoid. But because the likelihood of someone sending bearded assassins to take me out is very limited, my survival plans do not involve changing my name and undergoing plastic surgery to avoid said bearded assassins.

The threat level posed by Al-Quaeda and its minions is such that an equivalent threat level will always be posed by someone or other. As such, if the current threat warrants an emergency, then we will always be in a state of emergency.

[longeyes]

How great is the danger?

You live in Israel, Micro, you tell us.

[seeker_two]

I think a lot of our large-scale military operations are a result of the neutering of the CIA at the hands of the Church Commission and the Democrats. If we had an intelligence agency or two that could fight anti-Western Civilization threat in the same way the Cold War was fought (including assasination of enemy leaders), then a lot of our military "adventureism" would have been avoided....

What would be preferable?....a long, drawn-out military conflict and occupation?....or a series of assasinations taking out hostile foreign leaders with minimal collateral casualties?....

BTW, I consider the F-117 and the B-2 two of the best "sniper" platforms ever developed.... 

[RocketMan]

Note to seeker_two: The F-117 has been retired.

[roo_ster]

Note to seeker_two: The F-117 has been retired.

To be replaced by the several hundred F22s were were going to buy.   

The USAF: Best 1970s technology in the skies! (F16 & F15)

[MicroBalrog]

How great is the danger?

You live in Israel, Micro, you tell us.

I live in Israel, and  tell you now: I find people who have issues reliably hitting the country they're aiming at with a rocket as fitting characters more of a  comedy than a horror movie. Even during Cast Lead I didn't bother to leave my room during air raid alarms. These people fear us; we need not fear them.

[Ryan in Maine]

I live in Israel, and  tell you now: I find people who have issues reliably hitting the country they're aiming at with a rocket as fitting characters more of a  comedy than a horror movie. Even during Cast Lead I didn't bother to leave my room during air raid alarms. These people fear us; we need not fear them.

Haven't you had a dozen or so close-calls (well, a couple that aren't arguable)? Doesn't that shift the statistics in Ashdod?

[MicroBalrog]

Haven't you had a dozen or so close-calls (well, a couple that aren't arguable)? Doesn't that shift the statistics in Ashdod?

The closest we had was... about a block away.

[Balog]

I live in Israel, and  tell you now: I find people who have issues reliably hitting the country they're aiming at with a rocket as fitting characters more of a  comedy than a horror movie. Even during Cast Lead I didn't bother to leave my room during air raid alarms. These people fear us; we need not fear them.

The closest we had was... about a block away.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes. Out of hundreds of rockets they fired. HUNDREDS. Most of which missed Israel altogether.

I'm sorry if I'm unimpressed with their prowess as artillerymen.