For those of you who had to cut checks and wait in long lines at the Post Office yesterday, here's a stat to darken your already gloomy week. According to the National Priorities Project (NPP), 37.3 cents of every tax dollar went toward military spending last year. NPP has a site set up where you can actually see the breakdown of where your tax dollars went in 2008, based on your city and county info. For instance, in Philly where I live, the median income family paid $1,958 in federal income taxes last year. Of that, $576 went to military spending and another $155 went to military interest on debt, while education received a paltry $59 and environment, energy and science combined got just $55. Why are these numbers so skewed?
Thankfully, the Obama administration has called for substantial investment in woefully underfunded areas like education, healthcare reform, and renewable energy. And investing in renewable energy will translate into more jobs, even though the NPP notes that 30 percent of military spending currently goes toward securing fossil fuels. Here's the thing though, if our country is simultaneously escalating the war in Afghanistan, calling for a long-term military commitment, how can they possibly deliver on their economic agenda?
"Can more be done to create more of a coalition so that the U.S. isn't burdened with bearing the cost in lives and treasure alone?"
"Since over half of the citizens of Afghanistan are female, shouldn't we ask them what kind of help they want from us, if any?"
"What would happen if we pulled out military troops and replaced them with agricultural experts, economic development experts, Peace Corps volunteers, medical corps, and specialists to help in development of strong governmental structures and other "helpers" to help Afghans obtain an improved quality of life?"
"Why don't we try diplomatic negotiation with all involved parties, including The Taliban FIRST?"
These are some of the questions we all should be asking right now about the war in Afghanistan. They are a sampling from over 460 viewer-submitted questions Brave New Foundation received for their upcoming series of three debates between Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress and The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel. Clearly, people are starting to see that regardless of whether you oppose the war in Afghanistan, substantive debates from experts on both sides of the issues would benefit everyone. That's why Korb, who favors more troops and resources, will go head-to-head with vanden Heuvel, who calls for regional diplomacy and military withdrawal. They will debate whether military escalation is the best method to combat terrorism, and the effect more troops will have on an already unstable Pakistan; Korb and vanden Heuvel will agree upon a third topic chosen from the hundreds of submitted questions like the ones above.
Though this war continues to intensify, we still don't know the answers to some of the most basic questions, which is why the ultimate goal of Rethink Afghanistan and debates like these is an educational one. Raising public awareness and fostering discussion will prompt Congress to hold substantive oversight hearings that bring in experts to explain policy and offer answers.
Every single aspect of the war in Afghanistan must be opened up to debate, especially considering the fact that over 172 billion of our tax dollars have gone to this war to date. That means we should be talking about the staggering costs, about exit strategy, about the rights of Afghan women, and whether diplomacy can win over hearts and minds. And we should be ranking the importance of these issues for Congress, which you can now do with this new voting tool where you also can submit your own written questions.
The same neocons who orchestrated the war in Iraq and undermined US efforts in Afghanistan the first time around are at it again, determined to sink us deeper into the costly Afghan quagmire. They have resurfaced in the form of the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington think tank headed by Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, and Dan Senor. As Sam Stein reported last week on The Huffington Post, the FPI will hold a summit today titled "Afghanistan: Planning for Success." And slated to attend the event are powerful Republicans and Democrats like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY), and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). What's particularly troubling about McCain and a think tank like the FPI is that they are trying to manipulate President Obama's plans for military escalation into a massive, limitless war of Iraq proportions.
We already know where McCain stands on Afghanistan. He and fellow warmonger Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) celebrated the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war by urging the Obama administration to support an all-out military commitment in Afghanistan, regardless of cost. McCain clearly shares the FPI's warped notion of "success" in Afghanistan, which he has discussed everywhere from the Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post to his recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute. He envisions a Utopian outcome to this war, one in which our military engages in a broad-based, long-term counterinsurgency to create "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary." Compounding that highly improbable scenario is the fact that McCain and the FPI are getting away with defining "success" in Afghanistan because not enough mainstream journalists or members of Congress are contesting their views.
How did Senators John McCain and and Joe Lieberman spend the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war? Did they apologize for cheerleading the Bush administration's pernicious lies that led our country into and have kept us mired in Iraq? Did they show remorse for a war that took the lives of over 4,000 US soldiers and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, while costing us $3 trillion when all is said and done? No, instead these Senators brought us the sequel to their twisted buddy comedy, escalating the war in Afghanistan.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed yesterday, McCain and Lieberman urged the Obama administration to go all in after completing its policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "minimalist" or "reductionist" path would be, in their view, "dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it." As with the Iraq war, McCain and Lieberman believe it's in our national interest to win in Afghanistan at all cost, which they even define as establishing "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary."
How do McCain and his ideological Benedict Arnold of a sidekick propose achieving such a lofty goal? Well, that part they don't get into. No need to be bogged down with the specifics; suffice it to say our country needs a broad counterinsurgency and we need it now! The maximalist approach, which is ironic, considering McCain and Lieberman criticize and fear-monger about those who use "loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan." The thing is though, and I never ever thought I'd write these words, McCain and Lieberman are absolutely right.
There's no question Andrew Bacevich has been one of the staunchest critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In part one of Rethink Afghanistan, from which this clip is excerpted, Bacevich called the 17,000 additional troops President Obama has committed "a drop in the bucket." And in a recent conversation with me, Bacevich said Obama put the cart before the horse by escalating the war before finishing his policy review. So I was surprised when Bacevich, a Boston University International Relations professor and author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, told me we wouldn't see congressional oversight hearings anytime soon.
Bacevich's pragmatic assessment stemmed from the fact that Afghanistan is deemed part of the global war on terror that Defense Secretary Gates has called "the Long War." And Bacevich is certainly correct in the sense that we haven't seen much of an institutionalized effort to challenge the policymakers, monitor the military agencies involved, or inform the public. That said, I remain entirely optimistic about bringing about congressional oversight hearings (and I'll explain why in the extended post).
Where is the public outcry for congressional oversight hearings on the war in Afghanistan? Granted, the words "congressional oversight hearings" aren't particularly sexy--certainly not as alluring as "shock and awe," "insurgency," "counterinsirgency," "airstrikes," and "Hellfire missiles." But one thing that is always sexy is power, and Congress has the power to prevent these airstrikes and missiles from killing thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thereby removing some of the hostility toward our country and reasons for joining the Taliban's insurgency. As Tom Hayden wrote his week, Congress has the power to bring in experts to examine the overall goals for this war; costs and budgeting; skyrocketing casualty rates; use of private contractors; human rights violations and torture. If that kind of power isn't sexy, I don't know what is, but the fact of the matter is Congress won't call for oversight hearings until we make them.
Now there are some true leaders in Congress who have already shown a willingness to oppose the Obama administration, the Pentagon, and a corporate press that has remained largely uncritical of the administration's plans for military escalation. Senator Bernie Sanders is one of those leaders. Though he doesn't approve of President Obama's decision to send an additional 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, here's how he tactfully voiced his dissent:
The last thing in the world that I want to see is our new President -- who I have a lot of confidence in in many respects -- we don't want to see him bogged down the way LBJ was bogged down in Vietnam. We don't want to see another war in Iraq, which was so disastrous in so many respects.
Over the weekend, President Obama confirmed what many Get Afghanistan Right bloggers, myself included, have been saying for months: resolving the war in Afghanistan will require negotiating with elements of the Taliban. 17,000 more troops will be "a drop in the bucket," as Andrew Bacevich has said, if the US doesn't engage in regional diplomacy.
From The NY Times:
Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail last year that the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban "should be explored," an idea also considered by some military leaders. But now he has started a review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan intended to find a new strategy, and he signaled that reconciliation could emerge as an important initiative, mirroring the strategy used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq.
Granted, the Obama administration has acknowledged that it is far more complicated to reach out to moderate Taliban factions than it was to negotiate with nationalist Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq. Yet the fact that the Obama administration is pursuing this diplomatic strategy at all is a step in the right direction to Rethink Afghanistan. As The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss notes in his must-read piece on the Taliban, we should have been talking with them all along.
This is such an explosive headline, I couldn't resist using it, even though this post is about much more than military escalation. This is the title of part one of Brave New Foundation's new full-length documentary (think Uncovered: The War on Iraq and Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers), which they began releasing online for free today. Their documentary campaign, Rethink Afghanistan, tackles issues like the costs of war and troop buildup--the subject of part one--featuring experts like Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Kinzer, Anand Gopal, and Dr. Ramaza Bashardost, Afghanistan's Independent candidate in their upcoming Presidential Election. It's worth checking out to hear what those experts have to say alone, and the fact that it's free is always an incentive!
But what I want to talk about is the ultimate goal of the Rethink Afghanistan campaign, which is to push for congressional oversight hearings. As I wrote last week, oversight has been a cornerstone of government accountability throughout our country's history, particularly in wartime. And some of the best oversight has not only been bipartisan, but it's come when the President's own party is debating his policies. Take the joint committee investigations during the Civil War, Senator Truman's Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program during WWII, and the Fulbright hearings during Vietnam. The same oversight needs to be applied today, especially after we saw this system of checks and balances shattered during the Iraq war under the Bush administration.
ADVERTISEMENTS
