Why Are We Still In Afghanistan?

George H. Wittman on Afghanistan... and Washington

In 1841 just before Christmas Sir William Hay Macnaghten, Her Majesty's Envoy and Minister of the Government of India, was shot and knifed to death while seeking to negotiate with the son of the Afghan leader, Dost Mohammed. The British envoy's remains were paraded about Kabul's bazaar - in parts. 

In 1997 Taliban fighters seized the former Soviet-backed leader Najibullah. As happened to Macnaghten, Najibullah's body was cut into many pieces that were then displayed on poles in the bazaar. 

That was only fifteen years ago. 

Not much changes in Afghanistan.

In 1979 terrorists kidnapped American Ambassador Adolph Dubs. He was killed in an unsuccessful Russian-led rescue attempt specifically objected to by the American authorities.

At least his body wasn't mutilated. 

It is estimated that from 1979-'89 close to one million Afghan civilians were killed in the war with the Soviets. Is there any sign that President Barack Obama or the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has any awareness of these historic moments and that which has occurred in between? 

Nope. None. None at all.

It might be easy to ignore the dusty history of William Macnaghten's death, but 1997 is not that long ago nor are the numerous public assassinations (such as Hamid Karzai's half-brother, Wali Karzai, and the key U.S. contact, former President Burhanuddin Rabbani) that have followed in retribution for the death of Osama bin Laden since May 2011.

And this is aside from the current calculation of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan. 

Should these not be a bit fresher in the minds of those who ultimately command or seek to command the 80,000 American military personnel still in Afghanistan? 

Nothing at all regarding American involvement in Afghanistan is part of the discussion during the current election campaign.

Disgusting... though... one of the bright spots of Clint Eastwood's address to the GOP Convention last night was that he addressed the matter.

(*APPROVING NOD*)

How exactly does Washington's leadership expect to extract our forces from a country that shows little sign of basically altering a tribally-dominated governmental structure?

Waiting until 2014 was simply a political timetable constructed by President Obama to create a justification for his final "surge" of men and materiel that supposedly was deemed adequate to suppress the Taliban enemy forces while building up a new Afghan Army. 

(*NOD*)

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Folks... unlike Bush, Obama never believed we could "win" in Afghanistan - not "win" in a VE-Day or VJ-Day or even a Korean War ceasefire way.

Nope. Obama knew Afghanistan was Vietnam... yet... he continued to feed blood and treasure into the maw for political self-cover.

Folks... you know how I feel about George W. Bush... but at least he was sincerely wrong! At least he truly believed he was doing the right thing for the nation and the world!

In the Obama strategy these new Afghan troops would be loyal to some imagined democratic process introduced by that great democrat, President Hamid Karzai. 

(*SNORT*)

What part of a near totally corrupt Afghan government and governmental system does Washington - both Democrat and Republican - not understand?

(*SIGH*)

America's part-time allies, Pakistan, told us back in 2004 that military victory as the United States usually envisioned it was just not possible. They said then what they had said before - that a partial and temporary political victory might be possible, but no "European" force could dominate the tribes of Afghanistan for anything more than a short while. 

The bearer of the historically proven advice was their then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the American-trained and highly respected Chief of Army Staff today.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

As the military brass and their political bosses like to say, the United States has the greatest fighting force in the world today. All that is true, but it is also true that the men and women who make up that force hate to lose. America is a highly competitive nation. Our volunteer military goes anywhere in the world and fights to keep enemies away from our shores. These warriors need to know they are doing a job that will help their country. That knowledge is being lost in Afghanistan.

(*NOD*)

The politicians are unable to figure a way to get out. The foreign terrorists, al Qaeda, have been driven out, but the indigenous Islamic radicals, the Taliban, who protected them, remain. 

In Washington each succeeding civilian leadership is afraid they will be blamed for pulling out of a commitment. The result is that they have continued to send troops into battle to beat the enemy, the Taliban, and the troops succeed. 

But...

The trouble is that the war the American troops are fighting is not the war the enemy is fighting. The U.S. forces win the battles and yet the war is never won. Nor can it be without occupying the entire country and building a new nation - which in reality is not our business. It is the responsibility of America's civilian leadership to recognize this and withdraw our military from such situations.

The reason for going into Afghanistan was to destroy the support base for the organization that was responsible for the attack on 9/11 and planned similar destruction against Western civilization wherever it could. What's happened is that the physical side of that war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan has succeeded. Unfortunately the various sites for strategic development of jihad have grown elsewhere. The war has shifted locations and character of personnel.

As in Vietnam where U.S. troops won the battles but Washington lost the war because it never really understood the scope of the North Vietnamese Communist commitment, Afghanistan's tribal culture and in-bred ability to absorb the punishment of war survives all battles. Our intelligence analysts have been saying this all along. 

Wars of choice (such as Afghanistan) are won if the political goals are attainable. The battles of these wars must be fought and won with concomitant political results. When it becomes apparent that the battle victories are not aiding in gaining the desired political result, it is time to withdraw from the field. This is the case now in Afghanistan.

There is no need to hold to the 2014 timetable unless there is an intent to maintain a heavy troop presence to provide a secure forward base in western Afghanistan in expectation of assisting an Israeli attack on Iran. 

Is this what is really behind the Obama strategy?

Pat Buchanan and Bill Barker Discuss Romney's First Term

Yep... stand-alone newsbite...

The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan was called to power in 1980 to restore America’s prosperity and military might and halt her stumbling retreat in the Cold War. He succeeded and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide in 1984.

Should Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan prevail, what would be the “large and definite purpose” for which they and their party had been called to power?

Answer: Put America’s fiscal house in order and restore the prosperity the nation knew before the Great Recession.

Yet the only path consistent with party principle to achieve this goal is by imposing real pain upon an electorate that is less likely to reward Romney-Ryan with a 49-state landslide in 2016 than punish their party with a massacre of Republicans in 2014.

(*NOD*)

THAT SAID... IT'S GOTTA BE DONE. THE RISK MUST BE TAKEN.

Recall: In 1982, before the Reagan tax cuts began their healing work, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker’s deep-root-canal economics — double-digit interest rates to scour inflation out of the economy — caused a loss of 26 Republican House seats. In early 1983, Reagan was widely viewed as a one-term president.

Should Romney and Ryan prevail in November, they would face a situation as dire as was Reagan’s — with fewer policy options.

(*NOD*)

Consider the 20% income tax cuts Romney proposes. With present tax rates generating revenue only 15% to 16% of gross domestic product, a cut that size would explode a deficit that is already in excess of $1 trillion for the fourth straight year.

NOT NECESSARILY. NOT IF SPENDING CUTS ARE INSTITUTED. (BUT, YEAH, PAT... I "GET" YOUR BASIC POINT.)

Moreover, the principal beneficiaries of those tax cuts would be Americans in the 35% bracket, who would see their top rate fall to 28%. Someone earning $10 million a year in salary income could get a tax cut of around $700,000 — a nice piece of change.

(*SIGH*)

AGAIN, THOUGH... NOT NECESSARILY. WE NEED TO REFORM THE TAX CODE. CUT OUT THE LOOPHOLES. ARE ROMNEY-RYAN CAPABLE OF - OR EVEN WILLING TO TRY - INSTITUTING SUCH CHANGES?

Romney suggests he will pay for tax cuts by cutting deductions. But the three largest deductions for most taxpayers are mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions. And if the GOP is reluctant even to discuss these cuts today, is it likely to enact them?

I HEAR YA, PAT... BUT WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

The Romney-Ryan supply-side tax cuts had better produce a boom, and fast, because, given the makeup of the media, they will be portrayed as a plutocrats’ raid on the U.S. Treasury.

IF ROMNEY-RYAN ARE ELECTED THERE'LL BE AN IMMEDIATE STOCK MARKET BOOM. THAT WILL SET THE TONE.

Moreover, while tax cuts produce only ideological angst on the Left, any major budget cuts must inevitably cause real pain.

ROMNEY-RYAN NEED TO BE HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! IF NOT DURING THE CAMPAIGN... FROM DAY ONE OF THEIR ADMINISTRATION!

The largest domestic programs are Medicare and Social Security. Pare back these middle-class entitlements, and a President Romney will be at war with AARP, tens of millions of seniors and an army of baby boomers now reaching retirement age at a rate of 10,000 a day.

NOT NECESSARILY! NOT IF HE AND RYAN USE THE BULLY PULPIT TO PREACH TRUTH AND EDUCATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

If Romney is going to bring the budget even close to balance, he has to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and stay out of any new wars in Syria or Iran. But a policy of no war where no vital U.S. vital interest is imperiled would be seen as a moral abdication by the democracy crusaders and a betrayal by the neoconservatives.

FUCK 'EM! ROMNEY WILL JUST HAVE TO MAN UP AND FACE THEM DOWN.

As for defense, Romney has taken that off the table and would increase it to 4% of GDP.

HOPEFULLY THIS IS SIMPLY CAMPAIGN TALK... (*SIGH*)

What about education? The major items here are Head Start, Bush II’s No Child Left Behind, Pell grants and student loans. Has any president since Sputnik jolted America awake ever cut back on education?

WE MUST! ROMNEY AND RYAN MUST EXPLAIN THAT WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING HASN'T BEEN WORKING! WE'VE GOT TO GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE EDUCATION BUSINESS! EDUCATION IS BEST LEFT TO THE STATE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

What about infrastructure? Since the Interstate Highway Act of President Eisenhower, when has federal spending for highways, roads, bridges, airports, ports and mass transit ever been cut?

AGAIN... GOTTA DO IT!

Among the major poverty programs are rent supplements, food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare and Medicaid. Would a Romney administration that is slashing tax rates for the top 20% dare to cut programs that benefit the working poor?

HE HAS TO!

Only once in the lifetime of Americans now living did the U.S. government slash spending.

Right after World War II, the feds’ share of the U.S. economy was cut by two-thirds, and all those dollars put away in wartime savings came flooding out to buy the homes, cars, TVs, freezers, and washers and dryers suddenly available.

What would a Romney-Ryan administration do once in office?

A guess: freeze federal spending rather than slash it.

(*SIGH*) I PRAY YOU'RE WRONG, PAT.

Retain the Bush tax cuts, and pass the new Romney rates.

(*SIGH*) I PRAY YOU'RE WRONG, PAT.

Take a chainsaw to regulations choking free enterprise. Tighten eligibility for federal programs. Cut federal payrolls through attrition.

LET'S HOPE SO!

And pray it all works, as it did for the Gipper not so long ago.

(*NOD*)

But however it turns out... those 49-state landslides are history.

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, August 31, 2012

Busy, busy, busy day in front of me, folks!

Yep...

(*PAUSE*)

There's a Doctor Who marathon starting at 10:00 a.m. on BBC America!

I need to catch up! The Sci-Fi Channel ran Doctor Who for a few years but then stopped doing so. I've missed a whole season - perhaps more!

Oh...? What's that...? You're asking what I thought of Clint Eastwood at the GOP Convention last night?

Um... well... er...

(*WINCING*)

I choose to believe that...

(*AWKWARD PAUSE*)

Oh... screw it! It was awful. Don't know whose fault it was... whether that's what Clint wanted to do or whether it was the idea of a bunch of lame Republican consultants... but it didn't work.

Mitt?

Well... he gave a damn good speech. Gotta give him props for that. The "entrance..." No. Bad idea. I'm assuming they were mimicking a president's State of the Union Address entrance... but Mitt's not president (yet!) and some convention hall in Florida ain't the Capital.

(*SIGH*)

Thank God the Convention is over - that's my bottom line. 

Depressing. 

Depressing that things have reached the point where I'm praying Mitt Romney becomes the next President of the United States.

Folks... we don't have the luxury of cutting our noses off to spite our faces this time around. 

No... you can't vote for Ron Paul!

No... you can't write-in someone!

Folks... this is the "hope and change" election. It's not "good" against "bad," it's "the possibility a Romney-Ryan presidency will do the right thing more often than not" vs. "the certainty that a re-elected Barack Hussein Obama will complete his 'fundamental transformation' of America."

Yep... it's that friggin' simple.

The "Bipartisan" Farm Bill

Bipartisanship in action, folks...

(*SIGH*)

[This year's] so-called “farm bill” - the Federal Agriculture and Risk Management Act (H.R. 6083) - will [if passed] cost $957 billion over ten years according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The last farm bill, enacted in 2008, cost $604 billion over ten years.

This [Congressional session's] bill amounts to a 60% increase in farm and food aid since the last re-authorization.

THAT'S WITH A REPUBLICAN HOUSE, FOLKS... WITH JOHN BOEHNER AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

SUPPORTERS OF THIS PROPOSED 60% INCREASE CLAIM THAT THE BILL ACTUALLY "SAVES" MONEY, HOWEVER... (READ ON!)

It is only because the CBO must ignore the expiration date of these programs and assume their continuation into eternity - including the Obama food stamp expansions - that the bill can be judged to “save” $35 billion.

This is really just Washington-speak for spending 3.5% less than "expected" ($957 billion instead of $992 billion) - it’s not a cut. [Again...] the bill includes policies that over ten years will cost 63% more than the previous authorization.

80% of H.R. 6083’s spending is comprised of food stamp spending. This is because there are now 46 million individuals on food stamps, compared with 30 million in 2008 and 17 million in 2000.

The reduction in the rate of growth to the food stamp program contemplated by the bill equals just $16 billion - or 2% - not the sort of reforms that will lead to rolling back the food stamp program.

THE LAST THING THE DEMOCRATS WANT IS TO ROLL BACK THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. INDEED, FOLKS... DEMOCRATS AT BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS HAVE BEEN LITERALLY "MARKETING" THE PROGRAM - USING TV ADS, RADIO ADS, POSTERS IN SUPERMARKETS TO ENTICE AMERICANS TO "TAKE ADVANTAGE" OF THIS "BENEFIT."

The bill does eliminate wasteful direct payments to farmers...

DON'T GET EXCITED YET, FOLKS! IT'S A SCAM! (READ ON!)

...but it then plows much of the “savings” back into three new “shallow loss” entitlement programs that will actually serve to guarantee the profits for a larger number of farmers than currently benefit from direct payments.

In addition, the bill sets new price floors for commodities (in most cases, higher than average recent prices) and expands crop insurance subsidies.

FOLKS... SHORT OF VIOLENCE... SHORT OF REVOLUTION... HOW DO WE STOP THE SCUM OF BOTH PARTIES FROM JAMMING THIS DOWN OUR THROATS?

(*PURSED LIPS*)

HERE'S ANOTHER TACTIC SUPPORTERS OF THIS MONUMENTAL INCOME TRANSFER SCAM WILL THROW OUT: THEY'LL THROW OUT THE FALSE CLAIM THAT PASSING THIS BILL IS "NECESSARY" IN ORDER TO PROVIDE DROUGHT RELIEF. THIS ISN'T TRUE!

The House has already passed a separate piece of legislation - the Agriculture Disaster Assistance Act, H.R. 6233 - to provide $383 million in emergency assistance to farmers, ranchers, and orchardists. The Senate refuses to act on the measure in order to put artificial political pressure to pass a massive farm bill.

Heritage opposed this drought assistance, but regardless of a Congressman’s support for such assistance, it should have no bearing on whether they support a separate, long-term farm bill.

Note: Some congressional offices, in an effort to confuse the issues, have noted that there is no food stamp spending in this separate drought package. That is true, but it confirms that the future of the drought package is not tied to passage of a multi-year farm bill!

BASTARDS!

[The question is:] Should the federal government be providing $323 million in drought assistance?

[The answer is:] No.

Proponents of the bill cite the drought’s impact on livestock and the absence of livestock-specific disaster programs as the principle reason for the aid package. However, the livestock-specific disaster programs expired in 2011, meaning ranchers knew that they had to plan for possible disasters, including drought.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The Washington Post explained that “farmers should have to hedge as other businesses do: by diversifying their product lines, purchasing insurance at market rates, leveraging assets or maintaining cash reserves.”

Because livestock producers did not take preventative action, they are now clamoring for a bailout.

The bill also goes well beyond drought-inflicted livestock losses, by offering “subsidies to ranchers for livestock killed by raptors and wolves (along with hurricanes, floods, blizzards, disease, and extreme cold).” It also includes wildfires. The “drought” bill also covers trees, defined as “a tree, bush, and vine”, impacted by late-season freezes and insect infestations.

JEEZUS...

U.S. agriculture is thriving.

Net farm income hit a record $98 billion last year and is expected to reach $122.2 billion in 2012.

The top five earnings years in the last three decades have all occurred since 2004!

With a healthy agriculture sector and a spiraling federal debt, now is the time to reform and eliminate commodity subsidies that cost taxpayers and distort the market.

AMEN! (AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!)