David Swanson, Asia Times: Victory at all costs in Afghanistan

[Prometheus Bound]

May 13, 2010
Isn't it time to call what the United States Congress will soon vote on by its right name: war escalation funding?

Early in 2009, President Barack Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan with 21,000 "combat" troops, 13,000 "support" troops, and at least 5,000 mercenaries, without any serious debate in congress or the corporate media.

...And remember what this $33 billion actually involves: adding more troops, support troops and private contractors, whose work, in turn, will mean ongoing higher costs to maintain the Afghan occupation, construct new bases there, fuel the machines of war, and provide the weaponry. Keep in mind as well that various other costs associated with the president's most recent "surge" are hidden in the budgets of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State and other parts of the government. Looking just at the military, however, this is $33 billion to be added to an unfathomable pile of waste. According to the Congressional Budget Office, congress has already approved $345 billion for war in Afghanistan, not to mention $708 billion in Iraq.

...The fact is that military spending is destroying the US economy. An excellent report from the National Priorities Project, "Security Spending Primer", provides a summary of research that supports these basic and well-documented facts:
# Investing public dollars in the military produces fewer jobs than cutting taxes.
# Cutting taxes produces fewer jobs than investing public dollars in any of these areas: healthcare, education, mass transit, or construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair.
# Investing public dollars in mass transit or education produces more than twice as many jobs as investing in the military.
# Investing public dollars in education produces better paying jobs than investing in the military or cutting taxes.
# Investing public dollars in any of these areas: healthcare, education, mass transit, construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair has a larger direct and indirect economic impact than investing in the military or cutting taxes.

...Anti-war advocates for peace and justice are not taking all of this lying down. Cities are passing resolutions opposing any more war funding. People are holding vigils and sit-ins at local congressional offices - more than 100 of which are planned for May 19. Congressional phones are ringing, newspaper editors are receiving letters and an online whip list - a list of where every house member stands - is being constantly updated. In the end, though, the fundamental question is how many people will outgrow their partisan loyalties, of either variety, and tell their representative that they will vote for someone else if he or she votes for more war.

An extreme step? Well, what do you call wasting $33 billion on a hopeless, immoral, illegal war that a majority of Americans oppose, and denying those same dollars to job creation or any other decent purpose?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LE13Df01.html

[ixion]

1. These war hawks need to define 'victory'

because running around fighting an endless insurgency will never lead to anything resembling a 'win'.