Average White Man'd in Afghanistan

I must open by saying; I'm just a dude, I profess to have no particular insight, am privy to no inside information, I'm basically just a 40 something, average white man that reads a lot. So what follows is strictly my opinion and I could well be wrong-its happened before. On Wednesday of last week I was all set to write about President Obama's speech on Afghanistan but then I thought I'd take a cue from Mr. Obama and take my time before I said anything.

Unlike his critics I personally found it quite refreshing that he took his time to formulate his ideas on the subject, committing American lives is no small responsibility and called for his due diligence. [BTW he still made his decisions in less time than it took former President Bush to elect to undertake the 'surge' in Iraq] Unlike almost every commentator on the planet I LOVED his speech, it had the proper tone and was nicely devoid of cowboy-ism. It was a serious speech for a serious matter.

I do not care that he did not use the word 'win' because a war in Afghanistan cannot BE won. Just ask Daius or Alexander two 'Greats' that both 'won' but couldn't hold the country between 500-700 BC, or ask the Russians how their 80's went over there. I thought what he outlined was a way to get us out of there and that is what he has always said he was going to do. I also don't care that he gave a timeline for withdrawal, I think that gives incentives to the Afghan government to get their proverbial shit together. I don't think it emboldens the enemy or that they will just hunker down stop fighting and wait for us to leave. And if they do stop fighting just what the hell is so bad about that? Are people really arguing that the terrorists not killing people or mobilizing for any length of time is a negative? To me there is also tangible proof that an 'open ended' exit plan simply doesn't work, even the Bush administration conceded that fact in 2008 when they came up with their 'aspirational objectives date' of withdrawal from Iraq by summer of 2011. It wasn't until then that the Iraqi government really did anything about righting their own ship. Did I like the fact that our President was committing 30,000 more American's to fight in Afghanistan? No, I sure as hell did not but I think at this time it's necessary, is the best action for a horrific situation and even though I am a peace lovin' liberal I support President Obama strongly on this issue.

I must state right now though that I was completely against the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. I was one of those 'un-patriotic' folks that screamed at the top of my lungs that retaliation for the attacks on 9/11 was folly. I have family in NY, it was horrifying I wanted payback as much as the next guy but I believe going into Afghanistan was just utterly stupid. Invading Afghanistan to take out Al-Qaida and end terrorism is like invading Tennessee to take out the KKK and end racism. We should have been hunting individuals, alliances and networks rather than laying waste to an entire country with our 'shock and awe'. I further believe that moving our focus to Iraq for reasons that are 'suspect' at best was an even bigger mistake. A mistake that has not only been a humanitarian disaster but is responsible for creating more terrorists and the main reason we have the heightened threat against us that we do now. I am not alone in that belief either, this is what the last National Intelligence Report from the Bush administration had to say:

"The Iraq war has become the cause celebre for jihadists. Shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives"

It went on to say that skills far more relevant to terrorist attacks in the US are being developed by the insurgents as they learn to deal with urban warfare techniques.

Research fellows, Peter Bergen and Paul Cruikshank from the Center on Law and Security at NYU did a study entitled The Iraq Effect stating:

"The rate of fatal terrorist attacks by jihadist's groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks increased dramatically after the US invasion of Iraq."

By dramatically they mean 607%! Terrorism has gone up by 607% since President Bush decided to invade Iraq. We as Americans are considerably less safe than we were BEFORE the attacks of 9/11 and to make us less safe over 5,000 American service people and countless Iraqi civilians have paid the ultimate price.

So because of the situation we find ourselves in, the history of Afghanistan and what I view to be a clear [albeit ambitious] plan for our involvement there I have chosen to support Mr. Obama's plan for Afghanistan.

I wish my liberal friends would cut the President a break on this subject. I don't think he has backed off on a single campaign promise regarding our involvement in the region. He said he would no longer hide the costs of these wars off the books as the previous administration and he has opened the books and talked about the cost to the American people as a significant factor in his decision making process. He said he would bring our troops back from Iraq, he's doing that and we'll be out of Iraq by August 2010. Now, that's 18 months into his term and not 16 as he originally said but it's a year earlier than his predecessor was bringing any troops home. He also always said we may very well need more troops in Afghanistan so if you voted for the guy quit your bitchin', he's doing exactly what he said he would before he was elected and you voted for him.

What exactly has he said we will do there?

1) Deny a current safe haven for terrorists 2) Stop the Taliban from growing and gaining momentum 3) Strengthen the Afghanistan security forces and government. If these things can happen with any moderate success then in 18 months we're outta Dodge. As Mr. Obama said in his speech, all of these things are designed strictly to create a 'secure populace'. It is having this secure populace that will enable the Afghan people to take their country back so we can leave. Virtually every expert on the issue agrees that the success or failure of our mission in Afghanistan relies mostly on the Afghan people. Andrew Wilbur of the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University believes that this plan to create a sense of security for the Afghan people is the only viable way of 'putting them in the driver seat'-and that is what needs to happen so American troops can come home.

It is essential that the President named an exit 'date', American sentiment is incredibly negative in the region after the last eight years and it is paramount that we not be seen as occupiers-occupiers don't set a date for leaving. In the town of Nawa, in the Helmand province, Marines there have secured the city, helped build schools, roads and hospitals. The people there are supporters of the US troop involvement and they are starting to take control of their town back from the Taliban and Al Qaida. Their only fear is that we'll stop there and Marja, a bigger city nearby where terrorists and corruption rule the day, will envelope them. The first wave of US military is destined for Helmand province, they will secure Marja and enable those people and the surrounding area to take control of their lives back. That is what our mission is in Afghanistan; secure the place so we can leave and a by-product of that mission is that we will be safer. Both for the elimination of direct threat and for the improved 'relationship' in a region who's hate for us has created a breeding ground for terrorists.

Mr. Obama has also spent a great deal of time rebuilding alliances destroyed by the Bush administration, we are not going into this fight alone. All 44 nations of the International Security Assistance Force have agreed to send troops, in fact after his speech on Tuesday the ISAF pledged 2,000 more troops than he originally asked for bringing the total to 7,000 international troops in theatre. He showed guts by calling out Pakistan, demanding that they do more and is spending considerable political capital there including sending CIA chief Leon Panetta and special envoy James Jones. In the past two months 400 Pakistani's have died as a direct result of terrorist attacks and although they are sharing information it is a country full of internal conflict regarding American 'assistance'. I would not want to be President Rardari of Pakistan for all the rice in China because right now the Pakistani's are very leery of US involvement and any cooperation with the US is politically very tough for him. The international alliances ease some political pressure on him and enable Pakistan to be a more helpful partner in the endeavor. The situation in Afghanistan is directly tied to Pakistan as the President said in his speech and most experts agree. I believe Mr. Obama to be addressing that situation with considerable skill and diplomacy and given his successes around the globe to date I have no reason to doubt his success in improving that relationship.

It frustrates me that the Republicants are so determined to see Mr. Obama fail that even when they agree with his actions they still only focus on the one thing they don't like. They want a strong war on terror and the President is taking action. They kept bitching that a President should listen to his commanders and not spout policy. He did, this is basically General McChrystal's plan and he totally supports what the President is doing. And yet all they do is comment and complain on how setting a withdrawal date is tantamount to failure, even though they have absolutely no proof to back it up-it's just the only thing they can disagree with so that's ALL they talk about. I encourage them to all remember how they ganged up on anyone expressing concerns about the run-up to war, how they called us un-patriotic. Practice what you preach and get behind the man- he's your President too.

So, although I was once arrested for smoking a joint in the post office and burning my 'selective service' registration and I've riled up my liberal friends, including my wife I'm behind the President on this military action-do I like it? Nope, but I get it and he's my President so I've got his back on this one.

Politcal Lives

I have yet to meet one single person, not one, that doesn’t think that the health insurance system in this country needs to be changed. I read a minimum of four newspapers every single day from all over the country and not a week goes by that I don’t read multiple articles or editorials that address the issue. It doesn’t matter if you call yourself a Democrat, Republican or an Independent, it’s in the news, it’s on our minds and according to Gallup it’s the # 2 issue in America running slightly behind the economy. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122885/Economy-Healthcare-Top-Important-Problem-List.aspx

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for some type of government involvement [not necessarily the public option also including system reforms] at a whopping 77%.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

Well, it’s a complicated issue for sure and I am not going to tell you that I have an answer or that I even know all of the problems but I feel confident in saying that the vast majority of Americans feel the need to change the current system in some way. My own main support for believing that something needs to be done is found in the following uncomplicated statistical facts. Average wages have fallen 1.4% this year through September, and overall since 1999 wages have only gone up 2% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics . In the exact same time frame health insurance premiums rose 131%, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. That’s pretty clear cut in my mind; we’re in the hole 129% over the past decade in our ability to provide health care for our families. I don’t care what business you’re in or what activity you equate it to if over ten years you were down 129% you’d be stupid not to change the way you operate. I don’t believe Americans are stupid. I don’t even believe our politicians are stupid but they are ridiculously selfish, they lack the courage of their convictions and are not accurately supporting the will of the American people that they are sworn to represent.

I make no secret as to my political leanings, I am a liberal. I don’t say I am a Democrat anymore because to me the Democratic Party is too centrist but I support the Democrats overall because they are more closely aligned with my core personal values. However, in this case there are enough Democrats screwing this up for me to lump all politicians together. There were 39 Democrats that voted against a watered down House health reform bill-39! Why?- because they are more concerned about being re-elected than they are about accomplishing a task that 77% of Americans are in favor of. You want proof? 31 of the 39 Representatives voting against the House bill were from districts won by John McCain in 2008 including all 13 that hold seats that switched from Republican to Democrat in the last election and are in for tough re-election fights. Republicans are in lock step about opposing any Democratic sponsored health care reform and these Democrats are afraid that if they stand up for what they believe in, that which is a main plank of the Democratic platform, the Republicans will beat them in November. Well good, if the people in their district think that the Republican platform of non-government involvement and opposition is more in line with what they want then they should be voted out because they don’t represent their constituents. They were elected as Democrats; health care reform was a huge part of their and President Obama’s campaigns and they happily road his coat tails into office. Yet now because of the threat of losing their seats they are caving in. That’s not leadership that’s cowardice and selfishness. In the Senate there are three Democrats on record as opposing the proposed reforms. They are from Louisiana, Nebraska and Arkansas. In Arkansas the support for health care reform runs 6% higher than the national average and yet she opposes the bill because she is trailing to all four Republicans slated to run against her in 2010. The fact that these three people could effectively kill health care reform in this country infuriates me. Combined, the population of these three STATES [9,040,727] is less than the COUNTY of Los Angeles [9,862,049] but that is the nature of the democratic republic in which we live and I can’t really bitch about that. [Although I just did]

As for the Republicans, they are the most culpable to me, all of them. They all agree that the system needs reform just like the rest of us yet they have opposed health care reform at every turn. Their alternative was a four page outline that basically said ‘we oppose government run health care’. It didn’t say how many people theirs would cover, how much it would cost or how it would cover them. So you don’t like this plan? Fine, come up with an alternative instead of spending every waking hour bashing the one that’s actually out there. They can’t do that though because if this plan passes, it would be a significant victory for President Obama and that is the thing that Republicans really oppose more than anything. It is widely accepted that if President Obama manages to accomplish the main social reform promised throughout his campaign that he will be even harder to unseat in 2012. In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a report which estimated that 18,000 American adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance. According to iCasualties.org 5,285 Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Yet, despite those facts Republicans continue to shout that the President is moving too fast on health care reform and too slow on troop deployment in Afghanistan. The overriding majority of Americans want health care reform, we’ve demonstrated that and it is unacceptable to the Republicans that a Democrat will accomplish it. They call it Obamacare which is ridiculous because the White House has been unbelievably hands off on the whole deal. In fact, President Obama has been far too hands-off for me and most of us in support of sweeping changes. They use phrases like socialized medicine and scare tactics about deteriorating service and losing your own doctor. You know the last time those phrases were used? 1969, about Medicare, and now one of the main arguments Republicans use against the plan are the proposed cuts and reforms to the sacred untouchable Medicare system. It’s a joke, except nobody is laughing.

I don’t know if the plan being offered in the Senate will work. But I do know it is the best available option out there and that not doing anything is not a viable option to most Americans. I’m hopeful, there’s a lot in it that all sides agree on if other people would actually read it. I’ve included a link to a very readable synopsis below. I’d give you a link to the Republican plan but there isn’t one. Regardless of where you fall on the issue, get involved, check out how the people representing you are voting and why and let them know how you feel. Our elected officials are playing politics with our lives, more concerned about keeping themselves in power than enacting the will of the people and that is unacceptable but unless we do something about it we are as culpable as they are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html?hp