Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Happy Anniversary, Afghanistan

by Sheldon C. Good 10-13-2009 | 5:00pm
Print
12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

On October 7, the U.S. Senate said "Happy Anniversary" one day early to the war in Afghanistan with a defense spending bill that puts the cost of war at $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's more than $3 billion per month ($100 million per day) since 2001.

Four days before the Senate decision, an attack on a pair of outposts in Afghanistan left eight soldiers dead -- the deadliest attack on U.S. and NATO forces in more than a year.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal admits that we need a new strategy. "We are going to have to do things dramatically differently," says McChrystal, "even uncomfortably differently in the way we operate." For him, this means a troop increase, and, thus, a budgetary increase.

But where will this budgetary (troop) increase get us? Many soldiers today aren't sure why they're even in Afghanistan. The Times of London recently documented soldiers' lost hearts. "We're lost -- that's how I feel," said U.S. Specialist Raquime Mercer. "I'm not exactly sure why we're here." So why would we send a troop increase -- and thus increase our national debt -- if our troops don't even know what they're fighting for?

Nonetheless, President Obama is considering an increase of 40,000 troops, as Gen. Stanley McChrystal has recommended. According to House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-WI), an increase would propel the cost of the war to almost $1 trillion over the next decade.

But wait, what about Iraq? Optimists note that the Congressional Budget Office said on Oct. 7 that Obama's timetable brings military personnel, fuel, and transportation costs in Iraq to zilch by 2013. Realists understand that war costs don't end when troops leave. For example, some estimate the cost of damaged equipment repairs at more than $50 billion - not to mention the long-term costs committed to Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, and their families.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently acknowledged what every taxpaying citizen recognizes. "We don't have unlimited money," Gibbs said.

Wait, are you sure? It sure seems like we do given our recent spending

12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-13-2009 @ 11:26pm

Why do people say "War in Afghanistan" when the USA never declared war on the country nor the enemies in the country?

I am a Vietnam Veteran and while people say "Vietnam War," it was really just a conflict without the USA and North Vietnam declaring war on each other.

It is correct to say "Iraq War" since the Bush Adminstration declared war on Iraq; although neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein declared war on the USA.

When we first sent troops to Afghanistan, it was to go after the leaders of the terrorists who crashed the hijacked planes on September 11, 2001.

Well, either the top guy has never been caught yet, or the CIA is holding him somewhere.

According to some US Military Iraq veterans, Saddam Hussein was never in the hole in the floor of that house where he was supposedly captured. The photo with him standing in the hole was photoshopped and added after the picture of the soldiers pointing at the hole in the floor was taken.

by: Knightscrossing

10-14-2009 @ 2:18am

This is no longer about terrorism, its about the business of war. What we really have not learned yet is the concept of futility,,

by: NMRod

10-14-2009 @ 5:08pm

At least by having no draft, the government has avoided demonstrations in the streets and civil disobedience.

by: SisterMarie

10-14-2009 @ 5:23pm

The Afghanistan government did not attack the United States. Most of those who carried out the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. It is true that Afghanistan refused to cooperate in our efforts to locate and attack al Quaida. And for that reason, I initially supported the decision to invade Afghanistan.

However, the strategy we have followed has been horrible. Instead of seeking out those responsible for the attack, we adopted a policy of nation building there and failed to pursue bin Laden and his minions. Then, we were totally diverted by a needless war in Iraq. As a result, we are stuck with a real possiblility of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan and a conservative Shia government running Iraq in much the same manner as that sect now rules Iran.

by: NMRod

10-14-2009 @ 5:08pm

At least by having no draft, the government has avoided demonstrations in the streets and civil disobedience.

by: SisterMarie

10-14-2009 @ 5:23pm

The Afghanistan government did not attack the United States. Most of those who carried out the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. It is true that Afghanistan refused to cooperate in our efforts to locate and attack al Quaida. And for that reason, I initially supported the decision to invade Afghanistan.

However, the strategy we have followed has been horrible. Instead of seeking out those responsible for the attack, we adopted a policy of nation building there and failed to pursue bin Laden and his minions. Then, we were totally diverted by a needless war in Iraq. As a result, we are stuck with a real possiblility of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan and a conservative Shia government running Iraq in much the same manner as that sect now rules Iran.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 5:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 3:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 3:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 5:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-13-2009 @ 11:26pm

Why do people say "War in Afghanistan" when the USA never declared war on the country nor the enemies in the country?

I am a Vietnam Veteran and while people say "Vietnam War," it was really just a conflict without the USA and North Vietnam declaring war on each other.

It is correct to say "Iraq War" since the Bush Adminstration declared war on Iraq; although neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein declared war on the USA.

When we first sent troops to Afghanistan, it was to go after the leaders of the terrorists who crashed the hijacked planes on September 11, 2001.

Well, either the top guy has never been caught yet, or the CIA is holding him somewhere.

According to some US Military Iraq veterans, Saddam Hussein was never in the hole in the floor of that house where he was supposedly captured. The photo with him standing in the hole was photoshopped and added after the picture of the soldiers pointing at the hole in the floor was taken.

by: Knightscrossing

10-14-2009 @ 2:18am

This is no longer about terrorism, its about the business of war. What we really have not learned yet is the concept of futility,,

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-13-2009 @ 11:26pm

Why do people say "War in Afghanistan" when the USA never declared war on the country nor the enemies in the country?

I am a Vietnam Veteran and while people say "Vietnam War," it was really just a conflict without the USA and North Vietnam declaring war on each other.

It is correct to say "Iraq War" since the Bush Adminstration declared war on Iraq; although neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein declared war on the USA.

When we first sent troops to Afghanistan, it was to go after the leaders of the terrorists who crashed the hijacked planes on September 11, 2001.

Well, either the top guy has never been caught yet, or the CIA is holding him somewhere.

According to some US Military Iraq veterans, Saddam Hussein was never in the hole in the floor of that house where he was supposedly captured. The photo with him standing in the hole was photoshopped and added after the picture of the soldiers pointing at the hole in the floor was taken.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-13-2009 @ 11:26pm

Why do people say "War in Afghanistan" when the USA never declared war on the country nor the enemies in the country?

I am a Vietnam Veteran and while people say "Vietnam War," it was really just a conflict without the USA and North Vietnam declaring war on each other.

It is correct to say "Iraq War" since the Bush Adminstration declared war on Iraq; although neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein declared war on the USA.

When we first sent troops to Afghanistan, it was to go after the leaders of the terrorists who crashed the hijacked planes on September 11, 2001.

Well, either the top guy has never been caught yet, or the CIA is holding him somewhere.

According to some US Military Iraq veterans, Saddam Hussein was never in the hole in the floor of that house where he was supposedly captured. The photo with him standing in the hole was photoshopped and added after the picture of the soldiers pointing at the hole in the floor was taken.

by: Knightscrossing

10-14-2009 @ 2:18am

This is no longer about terrorism, its about the business of war. What we really have not learned yet is the concept of futility,,

by: Knightscrossing

10-14-2009 @ 2:18am

This is no longer about terrorism, its about the business of war. What we really have not learned yet is the concept of futility,,

by: NMRod

10-14-2009 @ 5:08pm

At least by having no draft, the government has avoided demonstrations in the streets and civil disobedience.

by: NMRod

10-14-2009 @ 5:08pm

At least by having no draft, the government has avoided demonstrations in the streets and civil disobedience.

by: SisterMarie

10-14-2009 @ 5:23pm

The Afghanistan government did not attack the United States. Most of those who carried out the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. It is true that Afghanistan refused to cooperate in our efforts to locate and attack al Quaida. And for that reason, I initially supported the decision to invade Afghanistan.

However, the strategy we have followed has been horrible. Instead of seeking out those responsible for the attack, we adopted a policy of nation building there and failed to pursue bin Laden and his minions. Then, we were totally diverted by a needless war in Iraq. As a result, we are stuck with a real possiblility of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan and a conservative Shia government running Iraq in much the same manner as that sect now rules Iran.

by: SisterMarie

10-14-2009 @ 5:23pm

The Afghanistan government did not attack the United States. Most of those who carried out the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. It is true that Afghanistan refused to cooperate in our efforts to locate and attack al Quaida. And for that reason, I initially supported the decision to invade Afghanistan.

However, the strategy we have followed has been horrible. Instead of seeking out those responsible for the attack, we adopted a policy of nation building there and failed to pursue bin Laden and his minions. Then, we were totally diverted by a needless war in Iraq. As a result, we are stuck with a real possiblility of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan and a conservative Shia government running Iraq in much the same manner as that sect now rules Iran.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 3:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 3:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 5:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.

by: arachne646

10-15-2009 @ 5:58pm

The British P.M. has sort of agreed to increase their troops in Afghanistan, a very unpopular move with voters. Canada has forces defending Kandahar airport, operating the hospital there and training Afghan troops in combat. We haven't lost very many soldiers there, but the government can't send more, and has to pull them all out by 2012. The original motivation was Canadian corporations' interest in a potential oil pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asian oilfields through Pakistan to the sea.