“As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!…The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagement let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
George Washington made these observations in his farewell address of 1796. How well they apply to our current predicament where our nation is fighting two wars it cannot afford or obtain outright victory. President Obama campaigned on the notion that he would immediately begin executing plans to vacate Iraq and change strategies to defeat a revitalized Afghanistan insurgency. So far, I have seen neither of these promises go even remotely fulfilled. We’ve now been in combat for over 8 years in Afghanistan and over 6 years in Iraq. Both of these efforts have already eclipsed the length of WW1, WW2 and Civil War. While there should not be a timeline in instances of war, eventually one must ask the question of what we’re trying to accomplish.
I believe both wars started with the intent of eliminating a credible terrorist threat and making the world safer for Americans at home and abroad. On that front, I believe both efforts have been successful. After 9/11, it was clear our foreign policy must change to prevention rather than sole reliance on deterrence. In an era where enemy combatants can infiltrate society and intend to cause harm to civilians, a defensive posture is a losing proposition. The question remains how a more offensive strategy can be maximized to fulfill its goals but not interrupt other critical aspects of society.
As it currently stands, the US is spending approximately $1 trillion dollars on defense related expenditures. At the same time, budget deficits are over $1 trillion and rising. When the government must inevitably look for ways to trim these deficits, they’re simply not going to make much impact in cost cutting without looking at entitlement and defense spending. I’m not suggesting a cut in vital military services, intelligence, or technology. The stakes are simply too high to begin arbitrary cost cutting measures without seriously think it through. My call is simple, however. We need to examine our defense priorities and make strategic cuts to provide a lean and efficient military. This isn’t political but economic… we cannot afford these expenditure levels forever. Fighting two wars and asserting a credible defense against additional threats has become too expensive to be sustained indefinitely. Imagine a world where the US Treasury cannot fund its debt. This would be devastating economically, but we need to prepare for its impact on national security. I’d rather practice fiscal prudence and makes these difficult decisions now.
President Obama has a very difficult choice to make on whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. On one hand, he should do everything in his power to win in wartime. On the other hand, a commitment like this is very difficult to justify in the absence of true progress since our invasion. Then there is always that lingering cost issue of an unlimited commitment…
Upper-Bracket Tax May Be Needed for Afghan War Cost, Levin Says
Higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for more troops sent to Afghanistan and NATO should provide half of the new soldiers, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000” a year, could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
As much as I don’t like any tax increases, I think we should start thinking about how ordinary Americans are prepared to sacrifice for this effort. If it is vitally important to see an Afghan troop surge, I think Americans should be prepared to sacrifice something. Maybe it is taxes or maybe it is cut services elsewhere in the budget. The key point is we cannot keep pretending we can indefinitely expand military spending from deficit funds. Without a clear plan to begin repaying these deficits, we are being incredibly irresponsible whether the new expenditure is military, health care, stimulus, or anything else.
We can debate all we want about whether the correct military decision is to increase troop levels or not. That is not my area of expertise and I won’t comment on it from that perspective. Like I said before, however, we need to strategically examine these two wars and develop some sort of exit strategy. We are approaching a full decade in Afghanistan and still see untrained troops, rampant corruption, crime, and a persistent opposition. If we have made no progress on any of these issues in 8 years, I want answers as to where we went wrong before and how we will solve these problems going forward. If these questions cannot be answered, we have lost all tangible objectives for a continued military presence.
Ideally, I’d like to see us set a private timeline with both the Afghan and Iraqi government for gradual withdrawal. The objective would be full training of police and military services within a set timeline (say 1 year). Upon this timetable, the US would maintain a presence but rely on locals for combat activities. Within a separate timeline, I’d like to see full troop withdrawal to bases outside the borders. Within this time, shift reliance to air operations and economic development. Security operations, however, should eventually be fully provided by their own military.
Many cite arguments that we must stay there to ensure the enemy doesn’t reclaim the country. I don’t advocate an abrupt exit and sending everyone back home. If we get credible intelligence of Taliban troops, by all means bomb them. This enemy cannot compete with our aerial assaults and can only go into hiding. In addition, keep troops on the border prepared to enter combat situations as necessary. We can maintain our presence to further our security interests but it doesn’t necessary require several hundred thousand troops in the line of fire.
This is a very simplistic way of looking at a very complex situation. The truth is, however, we need to eventually ask whether Iraq and Afghanistan want a secure democracy. If they do, they need to step up and prove it. If not, we will never accomplish our objectives and the whole effort is futile. I’m not comfortable putting our brave troops in harm’s way and spending money on endeavors we cannot afford for something doomed to failure. If my solution is not ideal, fine. Figure out a strategy that is offensive in nature and can win the war. Sitting idly waiting for something that has not happened in 8 years is the worst strategy. Scratch that; adding more resources to this type of effort is the worst strategy.
George Washington was right… avoiding foreign entanglements was wise in 1796, was wise in 1970, and is wise in 2009. He spoke that war in certain instances is necessary, just as I believe a war on terror was necessary in 2001. These threats have not gone away and we have done an excellent job of combating these threats from entering American soil since 9/11. Part of our strategy has been a failure, however, and needs to be reconfigured to react to changing strategies. Our enemy would love nothing more to see us sacrifice our most precious resources, while bankrupting our country. They know they’ll never defeat us on a military level. It has been widely publicized that they would prefer extending our commitment indefinitely until public sentiment turns against these efforts. We have to confront this strategy and do something different. This means rethinking almost every topic: the wars, our response to North Korea and Iran, stationing troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere. Like I said, the stakes are too high to treat this any differently.
The Economist ran a good briefing this week on the US fiscal deficit that made a lot of the same points you made here: namely, the need for increased taxes, if there’s not political will to reduce spending. The status quo is clearly unsustainable, but if history is a guide, it probably won’t get better until the markets start to push up the US’s cost of borrowing, which is bound to happen eventually.
Interesting, I didn’t see that and need to check it out. I wish I had a stable address because I love that magazine and want a subscription. Anyway, I just don’t see the borrowing costs going up anytime soon. In the absence of better alternatives, the world will continue supporting the dollar as its reserve currency. As long as we maintain trade deficits, there is mathematically going to be demand for Treasuries. Considering our structural economy isn’t shifting toward production, I don’t see those trade deficits going anywhere. Likewise, US debt is still viewed as the safest investment there is. Once the next crisis blows its lid and the investor becomes more risk averse, there will be even more demand. Did you see that the yield on short term US debt went negative this week? It amazes me but seems likely to continue on and on until the world grows tired of the dollar and realizes Treasuries are actually incredibly risky due to exchange rate risk (indirect default) and reinvestment risk (no other way to diversify its dollar holdings).
First off, and this may shock you and particularly dr. p, but I agree with BHO’s dithering strategy. In my mind he wants to back off on our direct troop committment in Afghanistan but wants to do it with minimal political damage….just get on with it man. Down deep (which is very scary territory in this guy) he is against neocon nation building (who are we to say democracy is for everyone?)and I completely agree with that. Most Americans could care less whether those countries have an active democracy or their women have to cover their faces and wear burkas. George W. was right. This really is a much more complicated geo-political security issue though: beyond the normal scope of this blog and my ability and George W.’s for that matter to understand. I know one thing for sure though, our enemies must be neutralized or completely destroyed…..that makes me a right winger under the Olberman/Madow definition.
A containment strategy, which it seems you would support, is to build a military fence around that part of the world and surgically strike inside whenever necessary. Further, in my opinion, we should build a similar intelligence fence around the US……track whoever comes in…….there are thousands of mid eastern types in the US whose temporary visa’s have expired and are here illegally. It’s time we start being smart about profiling “visitors” to the US and those that have a tendency to want to do harm (eg. Ft. Hood shooter. 9/11 criminals, radical Islamist mosques)……ACLU be damned. Cut back on big ticket defense spending and refocus that spending on intelligence.
Now, I won’t let any Muwabi post suggesting possible tax increases as a solution go unchallenged. I’m so tired of tax increases on the “rich” being the answer to democratic spending (health reform,non-stimulus stimulus,union bail outs just to name a few). It is a divisive strategy, but then again consistent with the Saul Alinsky community organizer play book. What idiot would suggest that someone making over $200 thousand is rich and that increasing taxes in a recession is prudent economics? After just income taxes, $200 thousand is probably more like $150 thousand……..college tuition is $20-$30 thousand,housing is $3 thousand per month, new cars are $40 thousand and I could go on. Let’s do something new for a change and cut entitlement programs….oh, I forgot, that is not consistent with a share the wealth big government strategy of BHO that dr. p and you sometime root to succeed. Why not require entitlement recipients to have a drug test, or to speak english, or to be citizens for that matter. You want to cut health care entitlement costs,require a modest co-pay for every doctor office visit….and stand back. Say, here is another novel idea, how about refocus efforts on enforcing our current tax laws…income and sales tax. And not only on the newly defined “rich”.
If you have to tax, then let’s implement a national sales tax on non food and non essential items …..the more you spend, the more you pay. I can’t believe I just suggested a tax increase.
“I agree with BHO’s dithering strategy”- That quote belongs right next to Washington’s… wow
I’m not sure I’d phrase this as building a military fence. I think we should just finally implement our long-time process to turn control back to their autonomous government. Since a resurgent enemy is always a concern, you just leave significant troop levels in the region to combat such a threat. The last thing we need is to leave Afghanistan and have the Taliban march right back into power. I’d phrase it similar to what we do in Pakistan right now… they operate independently but it doesn’t stop us from these surgical air strikes or special forces activity.
In terms of border/immigration profiling, I think this type of thing is already silently being done. Although they claim to do random searches, I’ve talked to plenty of people from that area of the world that say they are always “randomly selected”. Border guards have even admitted “this is just the way things are these days”. I do agree our immigration and border security situation can be greatly enhanced (although they were thorough, even openly hostile when I crossed the border from Canada to the US a few months ago).
Finally, regarding taxes. You will never hear me advocate higher taxes. If I was running the show, there would cuts across the board: taxes, entitlement spending, military spending, and plenty of other things. My whole point is that if you openly advocate anything from higher military spending to national health care, you should be prepared to sacrifice personally for it. I’m getting really tired of people asking for everything under the sun but complaining profusely the minute their own taxes are increased or services cut. Far too many people have lived under a free lunch environment for far too long and have forgot that there is a price to pay for deficit spending. The trend has been to put the burden on the shoulders of the “wealthy” or kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with. These trends cannot continue forever and are much closer to a breaking point than people think. When it comes to higher military spending, Republicans are typically the ones advocating it. Since the majority of wealthy people tend to be Republicans, I don’t think they should be complaining if this requires their taxes to increase. Likewise, in my health care plan I said this should be paid for with a tax on everyone. Since the wealthy are probably already satisfied with their health coverage, I think it’s unfair to ask them to pay more and receive less. In health care, I think everyone should pay their share, the same way they do with Social Security and Medicare. You were definitely on to something when you said, “people will soon realize they can vote themselves a paycheck”. This has already been occurring at every level of government for the last 20 years, although it’s not always a paycheck.
my god…….i think we have turned dr. p from the dark side…….a victory, but who is keeping score?
oops……..i thought that previous post was dr. p……not danny. well, here’s hoping dr. p reads it and agrees completely with Muwabi.
i support a consumption tax and dont nearly write as well as dan. i find this situation ironic in the fact that the hawks in our society endorse increase in troop levels and decreased taxation HELLOOOO! nobody wants to pay more taxes. if we need more brave men and woman as determained by our leadership then something has to give. dr p proposes a 1$ tax on gasoline….40% for existing troop level costs( i agree lets get the hell out of there)…40% deficit reduction….20% new energy research and incentives. green can be our next microsoft etc. we as a nation can then thumb our nose a middle east dependence. our country is still the most innovative place to grow fresh ideas and solutions. if our polititions continue to hold our nation hostage to strict party line…….gridlock. obama supporters hoped that a man with such intellect and communication skills could somehow transend the bickering. my dissapointment is that our nation of lawyers at the top have frozen the ability for our nation to dream big. china’s leadership consists of engineers…..nuf said
Well said dr. p. although your ideas won’t buy the votes BHO and his dems need to implement their socialistic takeover of our society. One correction: Most Americans want lower taxes combined though with lower wasteful entitlement spending and less big government…….unfortunately, lower entitlement spending and smaller government is not in the community organizer’s Saul Alinsky playbook. “a man with such intellect”…….that has got to be your biggest dissappointment…..this guy has questionable intellect only surpassed by his galactic-sized poor judgment. He can read a teleprompter well though. I will give him that.
Bickering you say……i would not call efforts to thwart the socialistic takeover of our society as bickering. Nor would I have considered the Patriots “bickering” with King George at Lexington and Concord.
The Soviet Union was brought to it’s knees by trying to outspend the United States for defense. We should learn from that lesson. It happened not to long ago.
lrc
welcome mr. c……it’s good to have another BHO voter join the site.
sigh……we have endured an intellectual wasteland for 8 years with bush 2. how can any citizen look themselves in the mirror without accepting the promise of obama(rhodes does not mean potholes).Jae needs a sarah palin comfort session. maybe she will slightly cause you enough discomfort to pull your head out of the elephants $*@. i’m sorry; that area is much more textured than the republican mantra. can u sit and squat!