Can I throw an idea out here about why this war still seems to be going on?

[LynneSin]

I am disappointed that Obama hasn't been more agressive with troop withdrawels but then a really profound thought came into my mind.

Now mind you, I'm not saying this is the reason the war should continue. But it is a perplexing problem that not sure what the solution would be. Oh and if I'm missing something here please let me know.

Obviously if the war ended many of those soldiers would be released from active duty in the military and would flood the job market. Now if I recall, if you are in the National Guard, your employer is suppose to retain your job for you when you're called to active duty. But since many of these soldiers have been in the military for years these jobs may have either been downsized or filled by some sort of temp.

If we returned home a large number of military people, wouldn't they ultimately end up looking for jobs and with unemployment at a staggering 9% this would only make things worse.

I know I'm just making random discussion here and btw I am neither suggesting we keep the war going to prevent unemployment from getting worse or that I'm even anywhere near the ballpark with this idea. I'd like to think I'm throwing this idea out here for discussion to see what others have to think.

[DrDan]

1. it costs a million dollars to support a single troop involved with these irresponsible wars

that could fund one heck of a jobs package.

[LynneSin]

6. Very valid point

n/t

[Dogtown]

15. It *is* a valid point, LS,

but expecting our government to do the right thing rather than the easy thing is pretty naive.


I expect that your OP reflects one true cause for our continued involvement.

[LynneSin]

23. Not really, like I had said it's more of a 'what if' and open discussion

I never said it was the reason they were staying overseas but it is a thought of how bringing home the soldiers could impact our employment situation. But as another poster said - we could take the money we're not spending on the war and use that instead to fund jobs for soldiers returning to the work force.

[MadHound]

2. This problem was solved sixty plus years ago, the GI bill

In fact if you had such an increase in college enrollment, it would be an economic boost.

But even if that weren't the case, continuing to spread death and destruction in order to keep our economy above water is a moral travesty.

[LynneSin]

7. But are some of these people even capable of handling college?

I'm sure they are smart enough to attend - there are colleges out there on all sorts of levels. But some of these folks are coming home with some serious PTDS that would probably rule out college.

And again, I hope you don't think I'm justifying the war or anything like that. I want this thing to end - just that I wonder why we are still there.

[MadHound]

10. Well, college would probably be less stressful for PTSD sufferers than a job.

Less pressure to perform, and hey, there are lots of colleges offering online courses.

But as far as why we're still there, as somebody below noted, Afghanistan is filled with trillions in valuable resources, and is the hub of a major proposed natural gas pipeline network. I think that those are the true incentives for continuing this war.

[Avalux]

3. It's an interesting idea. Yesterday I heard the Army will downsize by 50K troops.

That's not congruent with your idea, since those people will be released and will be looking for jobs; albeit the downsizing will happen over a five year period. Honestly, I don't know why we're still in these wars...aren we in so deep can't extricate? Are we trying to establish a permanent presence for economic reasons? I don't n know.

Link to article on troop downsizing:

http://www.stripes.com/news/army-to-cut-nearly-50-000-soldiers-over-5-years-1.156118

[AngryOldDem]

4. I would hope that veterans would receive top priority in hiring.

I'm currently working with such an agency (state funded) to help with my job search, and it's clear that vets come first there. And I have NO problem with that.

I think the main reason we're still fighting is that we've never had a clear exit strategy to begin with, and that goes for just about every conflict we've been in since Korea. We just keep moving the goalposts -- er, I mean timetable -- for withdrawal.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Take a look at this month's Scientific American.

U.S. Geological teams, escorted by troops, have been surveying Afghanistan. They have found large deposits of minerals (Rare earths, gold, copper, tin, iron, etc.) worth trillions.

Do you need to know anything else?

[LynneSin]

8. That might justify leaving 50k and a base in Afghanistan

Iraq is the one that makes no sense to me, we should be out of there by now.

:cry:

[bananas]

14. Greg Palast explains why we're in Iraq

http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/

<snip>

"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.

And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."

Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.

Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.

<snip>

[Erose999]

21. The oil is just now starting to flow from Iraq. Saddam left the oil fields in piss poor shape and

its taken this long to both secure them and rebuild them.

[lame54]

9. Bring 'em home to re-build our infrastructure

[MineralMan]

11. I have no doubt about that being a consideration.

I don't think it's a major one, though. Iraq will be pretty much fully drawn down by the end of the year. Afghanistan has a different schedule, but it looks to me like we'll start pulling out of there starting next year, with a full pullout after the election sometime - assuming President Obama is re-elected.

But, you're right, they are thinking about this to some degree, I'm sure.

[NNN0LHI]

12. If there is not bipartisan support for ending a war it will not end

Can't be done.

I knew this before President Obama was elected.

As for the idea that your "employer is suppose to retain your job", goes, by law that is the way it is supposed to work. But their are enough loopholes in that law it is in fact not a very real expectation unless someone has a union contract to back that up with.

Don

[LynneSin]

13. Which means we're really fucked

Because god forbid a republican wins in 2012 (which I doubt) then the war will keep going.

At least if Obama wins, he'll be less likely to suck up to congress since he'll be lame duck.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Hence, I will never support any military action again that isn't an attack on America or an ally

that we have a mutual defense treaty with no matter how compelling.

The reality is it is easy to get in and all but impossible to get out and whatever the reasons for going in undergo a dramatic transformation to moving goalposts and bickering about semantics.

Perhaps there will never be a World War III, the second one is ongoing but has just had ebbs and flows and several rebrandings. The rotating targets are of little consequence when all the money keeps going into the sinkhole and governments are given "special powers" to "maintain security".

It doesn't matter who the enemy is as long as there is always one to keep the people in fear of and to create demand for the MIC and easy profits for the banks.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Even if we are attacked we need to consider if war is still in our best long term interest

Lets use South Korea for an example. North Korea launched some type of weapon at a South Korean ship last year and split that thing right in half sending it to the bottom of the ocean and killing over a hundred crew members.

This ship:

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100326&t=2&i=82269824&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2010-03-26T161044Z_01_BTRE62P18Y000_RTROPTP_0_KOREA-SHIP


And South Korea played down the attack:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/26/us-korea-ship-idUSTRE62P30E20100326

By Cho Mee-young

SEOUL | Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:51pm EDT

SEOUL (Reuters) - A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea, killing some of the more than 100 crew on board, but officials played down suggestions that it may have been attacked by the North.

A defense ministry official later said that the unidentified object the vessel had fired at on Friday night near the western sea border that divides the two Koreas may well have been a flock of birds.

Initial fears that North Korea might be to blame caused ripples on Wall Street, where share prices dipped partly on geopolitical concerns, and the South Korean won dropped against the dollar.

"It is premature to discuss the cause of this sinking," presidential Blue House spokeswoman Kim Eun-hye told Reuters early on Saturday. "It is not clear whether North Korea was involved."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff also said it could not conclude that the reclusive North was behind the attack.

---------------------------------

Why was that a lot of people wonder? Well South Korea concluded that it was not in its best financial interests to pursue any retaliation. They were not going to empty out their factories of its trained workers to be used as bullet catchers like we do.

Doing that would be bad for bidness and would not be in their long term best interests so they didn't do anything.

Don

[JVS]

16. Where does the idea that the military would lay people off come from?

One enlists for a period of time. They don't say "We've got an opening, but it's in Iraq"

[LynneSin]

22. I know people who are still getting called back after their time was done

that's how screwed up this war is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. The troops signed a contract for a certain length of duty. Which makes that argument moot.

No matter if the war continues and they stay in Afghanistan or they're pulled out because the idiot leaders summon up the courage to admit we lost and pull them out. The result is the same. They reenlist and stay employed by the MIC or get out and look for a job.

[area51]

18. Hmm.

However, we have a crumbling infrastructure which the returning troops could be offered jobs in fixing.

Also, we have a GP physician shortage, and returning troops could be offered the chance to get into med school to train for this profession.

[LynneSin]

24. But that would require our dumbass congress to make money available for the jobs

ugh!