Tweet
I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
On Monday, June 7, 2010, the Afghanistan War will complete its 104th month, replacing Vietnam as the longest war in U.S. history.
That’s an incredible investment of blood and treasure, and one that deepens by the minute. We’re spending $1 million per troop, per year in Afghanistan. To date, Congress has approved almost $300 billion in spending on the Afghanistan War. Combined with the costs for the war in Iraq, we’ve spent more than $1 trillion so far on war since 2001, just in direct costs. Right now, Congress is considering charging the U.S. taxpayer another $33 billion to pay for an ongoing troop increase.
And, don’t forget that more than 1,000 U.S. troops have died so far in this war.
If you’re like most people, the first word that comes to mind when presented with these facts is "depressing." This really is a tragic and terrible mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, right? There are enormous, critical issues we have to grapple with; Crushing national debt, hellish military occupations, even abstract (though no less "real") problems like what Tom Hayden calls "superpower arrogance," the institutionally-embedded idea that the US can enforce its national (i.e., selfish) interests worldwide with overwhelming military violence. One person, you, couldn’t possibly deal with this disaster.
But the truth is it really isn’t all that depressing. The problems are complex, confusing, and paralyzing, but the solutions are actually quite simple. Even as the war in Afghanistan becomes America’s Longest War with "no end in sight," as Andrew Bacevich says, we find that the key to ending the war has been right in front of us the whole time. There is, in fact, an end in sight and this grim milestone is our opportunity to finally notice it.
For instance, voters in California’s 36th congressional district see an end to the war. Tomorrow is their Democratic primary, and the race has focused on one issue: Jobs, not wars. Candidate Marcy Winograd has offered up a legislative plan to not only end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to use the dividend from those conflicts to create some 8 million new jobs. She outlines it here:
Here’s How I Would Create Jobs:
Fix our infrastructure – bridges, roads, water treatment plants, ports (employ 2 million) * Create a National Environmental Corps for clean up, maintenance, and prevention of BP-like disasters. (employ 1 million) * Build solar-powered cities and wind farms to end our reliance on polluting fossil fuels. (employ 1 million) * Strengthen our neighborhoods with more farmers markets, senior and youth centers, fully-funded schools and health clinics. (employ 4 million)
Here’s How I Would Pay For Those Jobs:
Bring our troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan and cut the trillion dollar military budget by at least 60-billion per year * Reverse the Bush tax breaks for the rich, generating an additional 45-billion * Collect 100-billion per year in taxes owed by large corporations * Impose a small fee on stock trades to generate another 100-billion per year.
It’s true that this only a plan and may not pass into law, but Winograd’s constituents may have a hedge against this. Winograd has experience as a Democratic organizer, experience that could prove quote potent in whipping a disparate Democratic majority, especially if that majority were to shrink after November. The pendulum will likely swing against the President’s party this year, and progressives in the 36th district seem to have calculated that replacing the anachronistic incumbent with a more steadfast Democratic member of congress would minimize any policy damage from a big minority gain in the fall.
But the important thing to notice here is just how easy it is. Voters don’t have to grapple with "superpower arrogance," they simply dismantle it through legislation and the normal primary election process. And they accomplish it by doing what they had already set out to do, which is creating jobs. They’ve made it about the jobs, the "not wars" part is just extra. "Depressing" and insurmountable problems like taking sides in an Afghan civil war are taken completely off the table, for the simple reason that we need those resources for other policies.
That’s if California’s Democrats succeed tomorrow. But Marcy Winograd, California, and even the Democratic party aren’t the only options available. There are some 76 candidates running this year, including "28 Greens, 21 Libertarians, 20 Democrats, 4 Independents, 1 Republican, 1 Socialist, and 1 Peace and Freedom Party member," all of whom oppose what is now our longest war. It’s easy to see Winograd as just a blip in progressive California, but it’s much bigger than that.
No, this is not a blip…
Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives:
Ken Adler, AR-01, Batesville, Green | Statement
Nick Coons, AZ-05, Tempe/Scottsdale, Libertarian | Statement
Rebecca Schneider, AZ-06, Phoenix, Democrat
Richard Grayson, AZ-06, Apache Junction, Green | Statement
Carol Wolman, CA-01, northwest corner, Green
Clint Curtis CA-04, northeast corner, Democrat | Statement
Ben Emery CA-04, Nevada City, Green
Jeremy Cloward, CA-10, Pleasant Hill, Green | Statement
Mark Williams, CA-12, San Carlos, Libertarian
Mary V. Larkin, CA-17, Monterey, Libertarian | Statement
Les Marsden, CA-19, Yosemite/Mariposa, Democrat | Statement
Randall Weissbuch, CA-26, Arcadia, Libertarian
Richard R. Castaldo, CA-30, Peace and Freedom Party
Marcy Winograd, CA-36, Los Angeles, Democrat | Video
William Hedrick, CA-44, Riverside/San Clemente, Democrat
Ken Arnold, CA-46, Orange and L.A., Democrat | Statement
Mike Paster, CA-49, Fallbrook, Libertarian
Tracy Emblem, CA-50, San Diego, Democrat | Statement
Michael Benoit, CA-52, San Diego, Libertarian
Lisa Ann Green, CA-53, Venice, Green
Gary Swing, CO-01, Denver, Green | Statement
Jerell Klaver, CO-05, Manitou Springs, Libertarian | Statement
G. Scott Deshefy, CT-02, New London, Green
Doug Tudor, FL-12, Riverview et al, Democrat
Marleine Bastien, FL-17, North Miami, Democrat
Regina Thomas, GA-12, Savannah, Democrat
Matt Reichel, IL-05, Chicago, Green
Bill Scheurer, IL-08, Lindenhurst, Green / Independent
Rodger Jennings, IL-12, Alton, Green
Doug Marks, IL-14, Carpentersville, Libertarian | Statement
Sheldon Schafer, IL-18, Peoria, Green
John Wayne Cunningham, IN-08, Terre Haute, Libertarian | Statement
James E. "Jim" Holbert, KY-05, London, Democrat | Statement
Philip Dunkelbarger, MA-09, Westwood, Independent | Statement
Peter White, MA-10, Cape Cod, Independent
Charlie Shick, MI-03, Wyoming, Green
Anna Janek, MI-09, West Bloomfield, Republican
Diana Longrie, MN-04, Democrat | Statement
Michael Cavlan, MN-05, Minneapolis, Independent Progressive | Statement
Kevin Craig, MO-07, Springfield, Libertarian
William OBrien, MO-09, Mexico, Libertarian | Statement
Thomas Hill, NC-08, Fayetteville, Libertarian
Lon Cecil, NC-12, High Point, Libertarian
Anthony Gronowicz, NY-07, New York City, Green
Jonathan Tasini, NY-15, New York City, Democrat | Statement | Video
Emin Eddie Egriu, NY-28, Buffalo, Democrat
Chris Henry, OR-01, Portland, Green
Michael Meo, OR-03, Portland, Green | Statement
Ebert G. Beeman, PA-03, Lake Erie, Libertarian | Statement
Vernon Etzel, PA-05, Oil City, Libertarian
Ed Bortz, PA-14, Pittsburgh, Green | Statement
Jake Towne, PA-15, Nazareth, Independent | Statement
David Segal, RI-01, Democrat
Robert A. Dobbs, SC-01, Myrtle Beach, Green | Statement
Eric Schechter, TN-05, Nashville, Democrat
Christopher J. Claytor, TX-03, Plano, Libertarian | Statement
Steve Susman, TX-22, Houston, Libertarian | Statement
Martin Nitschke, TX-23, El Paso to San Antonio, Libertarian | Statement
John Jay Myers, TX-32, Dallas, Libertarian | Statement
Claudia Wright, UT-02, Salt Lake City, Democrat
Gail Parker, VA-01, Green
Ron Fisher, VA-08, Arlington, Independent Green/Progressive
David Gillis, VA-11, Green
Larry Kalb, WA-02, northwest corner, Democrat
Diana McGinness, WA-02, Bellingham, Democrat | Statement
Roy Olson, WA-09, Olympia, Green | StatementCandidates for U.S. Senate:
Duane Roberts, CA, Green | Statement
Gail K Lightfoot, CA, Libertarian | Statement
John Finger, CO, Libertarian | Statement
Bob Kinsey, CO, Green | Statement
Richard A. Weir, NC, Green | Statement
Cecile Lawrence, NY, Green
Dan La Botz, OH, Socialist | Statement
Rick Staggenborg, OR, Green
Mel Packer, PA, Green | Statement
Ben Masel, WI, Democrat (2012)
…it’s a movement. Is your local candidate on this list? Why not? Tell them to get on it, you need that $1 trillion for jobs.
And at the risk of coming off as a broken record, I’ll point out once again that voting is not your only option. Even if your district isn’t voting at all this year, and you didn’t even vote for the incumbent you have, an end to the longest war is still in sight for you.
Tattoo it on your forehead: Pressure Works. You can demand that your representative sign on to an exit timetable. You can tell them to block any more debt tacked onto the $1 trillion, including the upcoming $33 billion supplemental. Pressure is easy (Call (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your representative), and it really streamlines the whole political process for you. When it comes time for you to make your choice, you don’t have to think about who’s a Democrat or a Conservative or anything like that. It’s only about who best responds to the needs of their constituents.
You already know this is how politicians work, lobbyists have been exploiting this pressure in plain sight. If the politicians don’t give in to the lobbyist demand, they lose the funding and support they desperately need to stay in office. You have the same option, if you choose to take it. Instead of falling for the media game and supporting politicians who offer no results, or worse, results only for their special interest lobbyist friends, we instead can demand accomplishments. "Jobs, not wars," as the campaign in California goes.
Tell them no more mailers, no more knocking on doors, no more contributions, no more "grassroots outsider" support, no more GOTMFV unless you join the rest of the country and move to end the war. Sure that doesn’t sound like a lot, but even if you’re stuck with the most craven empty-suit fat cat you can imagine, they’ll still hear "no more lobbyist-paid junkets, no more yucking it up on cable news, no more taxpayer funded meal ticket," and that’s pretty terrifying even to the cold-hearted cynics in congress. There’s a lot of lobbyists, but not enough to matter in an election. Congress still needs you, and whether they do anything for your support or not is entirely your choice.
And it has to be congress, Obama clearly won’t do it on his own. As Daniel Ellsberg says in the video, there isn’t much chance of President Obama being "willing to take the responsibility, and face the charges of weakness and irresolution, that would be involved" in ending the war. It’s going to take some intense pressure to force his hand, and that will happen in congress.
You can help us at Rethink Afghanistan provide that pressure. As it says here, you can contribute to our latest push against congress:
If we can raise $10,000.00 by Wednesday, Rethink Afghanistan and our partners at TrueMajority.org will buy a full-page ad in Politico telling Congress and the President that we want our combat troops out of Afghanistan by December 2011.
It’s Politico, so you know they’ll see it. See the simplicity? Ending a war sounds impossible, but really all you’re doing is choosing candidates in a primary, asking for job creation policies, or pressuring congress to vote on specific legislation. It’s the same thing you do when you want a new speed bump in your neighborhood. It’s pressure. The Longest War in American history, and the complex, decades-long processes that led to that brutal war, are massive issues to wrestle with. But "wrestling" is as simple as doing what you’d normally do, by participating in the political process and pressuring your representatives.
Even though the challenges of our longest war are enormous, the solutions are numerous, easy, and readily available. This stuff just plain works. Primaries work. Advertising works. Pressure works. There is an end in sight, we just have to stop and notice it. Join us on Rethink Afghanistan’s Facebook page and collaborate with the tens of thousands of others around the country working to bring this war to an end.
32 Comments
You would think that now, when we have a problem in the Gulf that will cost the American taxpayer God-knows- how-many billions, and require unbelievable manpower to clean-up, that the O-Man would take this moment to do the right thing!
No one, not even those stupid Republicans, could blame him!
Wadda you mean “How long” ? For the last year and a half I’ve been saying six more months will tell the story.
Just wait till Dec, then we’ll know if it’s working.
(this one was nicely written and argued and is rec’d )
*heh* FU on the FU’s, Mac…! ;-)
two points to Tut !!! LOL
For $1 Trillion, we could have rebuilt Afghanistan into a functioning nation and cured cancer.
Instead, we created more orphans in Afghanistan and more widows and maimed servicembers in the United States, and made some people in the war industry more rich.
Bush and Obama are two sides of the same evil coin.
Not just Afghanistan but a few other nations as well. But that is the difference between soft power and hard power. The advocates of hard power always end up costing us more money and lives. Thank God, Truman and Eisenhower didn’t let them have their way with the Cold War.
Ooh, Robert Greenwald is up next on the Ed Show…!
Robert was good!
(this one was nicely written and argued and is rec’d ) h/t macman
back at ya.
http://wallystoys.com/images/BANKMONKEY1.JPG
Max Blumnthal is in Israel and has some interesting video.
I keep seeing this bandied about. Counting in my head here 104 months would take us back to about August of 1966. I’m pretty sure we were in Vietnam before then, although admittedly I was excited about starting kindergarten in September and not paying attention to global events.
So, who decided that point was when our involvement became ‘at war’ vs whatever it was prior, and why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_in_the_Vietnam_War doesn’t help me…
In any case, is it really a firm enough stake to use in this sort of comparison? Would it be more meaningful to at whatever point say “In the same time we’ve been in Afghanistan, we could have fought WWI, WWII, [or WWII twice, or whatever], and there is no end in sight because we purposefully fail to define an exit strategy and keep moving the target.”
The Afghanistan War is longer than the Vietnam War only if you date it from the Tonkin Resolution to the Peace Agreement in 1973. By that sort of definition, the SOFA ended the Iraq War in 2008. In fact, the US Vietnam War lasted from November 1, 1955, when the US took over from the French in Indochina after Dien Bien Phu, to April 30, 1975, when Saigon fell.
That said, the US needs to start withdrawing from Afghanistan in a deliberate manner. Even if initiated today, the actual withdrawal probably would not occur until after the Kandahar offensive expected this month. But letting Hamid Karzai know that it is up to his troops, as the US is leaving soon, would have a focusing effect on the Kabul government. At which point, the US could negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with a date certain.
The next event to watch will be an anticipated clearing by the Pakistani Army of North Waziristan. More than likely any negotiations with the Afghan government will still be going on then and there is a high probability that US troops will be massed on the Afghanistan side of the border from North Waziristan.
At which point, the US can declare victory over the al-Qaeda forces in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area and leave, finally completing the tasks under the AUMF.
That is the optimistic scenario of what “leaving now” looks like, regardless of what we might want.
So go vote for Congressional candidates committed to end the war in Afghanistan in the primaries and the general election. And start thinking through what it really means to end the war.
In other words, “104 months” is a horseshit number. thx
You’re right, if you want to get technical. Just like Vietnam’s 104 months, the war in Afghanistan is actually much, much longer.
*heh* I’ve cited that same Brzezinski quote numerous times…! ;-)
Considering that interview happened prior to 9/11, his ‘stirred up Muslims’ quote was particularly egregious…!
Actually, the war in Viet Nam started when the US govt refused to grant Viet Nam independence from France at the conclusion of WWII. Gen “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell recommended the US free Viet Nam. The “10,000 Day War” started then. The US taxpayer footed the bill for France.
I will grant that the US refusal to grant Indochina independence from France could also be identified as the start of the war. Although, that position was taken on the part of the Allied Powers (US, UK, USSR) acting together.
It is “depressing” And Lee Fisher the Democratic candidate for Ohio is not on that list. If Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner had won she would be on that list. But the big $$ machine was behind Lee Fisher and will more than likely be a warmonger. He is all ready on the I lobbies warmongering bandwagon.
Who will work in CONGRESS???!
I believe that the responsiblity for getting us out of these bloody, useless, clusterfuck(s) rests with the centrist in the White House…you, know, the one who has sustained and in some cases, ratcheted up, George Bush’s policies.
Plus; I think the voters understand that perfectly well.
I should add, that about the voters getting it, is OK with me, because I think we’re going to have to turn bush-lite out of office (along with some other democrats) before we even have a chance to get out.
And if the progressives who paved the way for his winning the presidency are talking about how much of an opportunity he’s squandering, and of how ineffective he is at salvaging something from 8 years of Bush, then what will the rest of the people who voted for he and the dems in 2008 do in the midterms and in 2012?
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100608/D9G6OS400.html
Let them vote for Republicans.
Bluetoe, I think that Obama had a window to speak the truth about the loon crusades to the american people…that there is simply not going to be a happy ending for us in either one. Nothing remotely user-friendly to the Fortune 500. None was ever possible.
Instead, he let the warbots continue to frame these miseries in the “It’s still doable” bullshit context, and now he’s stuck with them around HIS neck, which is only fair.
For me, that leaves us with this; the outcomes are going to so lousy; so add-to-the-rest-of-the-things-on-which-Obama-funked-the-job, that it won’t bother me if the repubs get back in and have to deal with them. In fact, there’s a certain justice in that.
And I don’t think they’ve got the slack to start a mid-east war…too many of our brass and our congers (as noodle-spined as they are…) understand that that would mean changes in our quality of life that would make the Gulf disaster look like child’s play, for them to do that.
I also think that we’ve got a chance to turn Obama out of office in 2012. If his numbers are as low as I think they’ll be, there will be people coming out of the woodwork to run against him.
Watch the mid-terms, to see how many dems running want him to campaign with them. I doubt there’ll be many of them.
It’ll be a harbinger of things to come.
I think Mac’s right; it’s gonna be a hell of summer…in a lot of ways.
I’m hoping someone will primary BO.
Sunshine, at this point, I’d practically bet on it.
I don’t see how he can avoid ratings that are so low that he’s going to look like the historical poster-boy for a failed president.
My question is who is working and promoting the next war. The empire and it’s nation of imbeciles will not be denied their glory.
David Dayen is upstairs!
Ex-Florida GOP Chair Greer Implicates Crist In Donation Scam
I am all for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, ending the blockade of Gaza, and not snuggling too closely with Indonesia, but I’m not sure that we can continue to think of Iraq and Afghanistan as the longest US wars. I have to think that the movement west in US history actually provided the longest war. It really is a matter of how you define it. The war was not aimed at one specific group if you consider Apaches and Hurons to be different people as they did, but it was against one major type of people, those that were here before the Europeans. The US or its proxies warred against the first peoples here for many years. The war was not fought in major battles every day, just as the 100 Years war was not. The Texas European settlers fought against the Comanches from the overthrow of Mexican control until 1875; that’s almost 40 years. The fighting had begun prior to that.
You’d think somebody would have had the foresight in the mid 1800s to realize what would happen in the early 21st century and help the Comanche. /s
Are we going to be in Afghan till that damn pipeline is built? And if so, after it’s built will we stay there to protect that pipeline so companies can gain huge profits using our military and tax dollars and yet again (as in US oil in the Gulf is “given” to BP and the US doesn’t get any money/royalities from that oil and gas off our boarders yet Alaska gets funds from the oil in that state.) Is that why the US is there?
From wiki, sorry I forgot the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
My Rep has been in office since Jan 1977 and is a Democrat. I am voting for his opponent. Not a 3rd party, because they rarely win, I am voting for a Republican because I want my Rep who has voted for never ending war to be fired and this is the best way I know how to do it.