Comments on: Random Mormon Poll #14: What to do in Afghanistan?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:19:14 +0000

I think my point was that there are many costs and that some forget the longer term costs (say over a decade) in preference to just short term costs. I think cost/benefit analysis is great though. For instance is our relative pull out from the waters around China due to our other “adventures” thereby giving China more influence really that bad? Is having China rather than the US patrolling more of those waters horrible? Of course not. So I’m all for cost/benefit analysis and think there’s fear mongering on both sides. But I also think that there are real costs that some advocates for a pull out from being the world’s protector neglect.

By: Geoff B

Geoff B — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:29:03 +0000

Clark, there’s one big difference between our empire and the Brits’: The Brits made money off their empire, we just spend it, as you say, on free-loaders who don’t appreciate our efforts and make anti-Americanism a national sport.

I agree with you that quixotic political positions are tough to defend, but I think there is growing support for new attempts to take a tough look at our international obligations with an eye to cost. At least I hope there is.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:43:27 +0000

Mike, that assumes the reason for their existence is empire. I think the big problem is that we don’t see it as empire but that the rest of the world, especially Europe, is free loading off our tax dollar. (This isn’t just peace keeping missions either – I think Europe freeloads off of us on medicine as well) I’m all for ending the freeloading. But I think it is naive to assume it’s all about empire. I think that were we to totally pull out of say Korea, Japan, the middle east, Europe and Afghanistan a lot would go to total hell. It would be a huge destabilizing effect on the world. Now if you think that’s fine and that this is the only way to get others to step up that’s one thing. I’d hope you’d agree an abrupt pull out would have huge negative consequences. (And of course is basically a non-starter politically as well – so it’s kind of pointless as a real position)

By: JA Benson

JA Benson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:49:47 +0000

Sorry. My comment should read “interpret” rather than “interrupt” Dang fingers and spell check

By: Geoff B

Geoff B — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:38:33 +0000

I won’t go as far as Mike. I think there are reasons to keep our troops in Korea, for example. Germany? Why the heck are we still there? We could drastically reduce our troops in Japan. One of the good things about the Clinton administration (in retrospect) was that they actually did something to decrease costs, which helped lead to the 1990s economic boom.

I am reading a book about the Iraq invasion (“In the Company of Soldiers” by Rick Atkinson) and one of the things that strikes me is how incredibly EXPENSIVE these invasions are. There were absolutely no attempts to control costs in any way. This mindset continues today. We HAVE to do something to get the deficit under control, at least to 2 percent of GDP. The continued spending is absolutely insane behavior. I think Mike’s comparison to the British empire is an apt one. It took the Brits decades to realize they couldn’t afford the empire anymore.

By: JA Benson

JA Benson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:15:08 +0000

Maybe you are right Mike. I am leaning toward an all or nothing policy. Lukewarm actions do not work in war. If the US were to do what you purpose, the US would have to become a large scale Israel. Cause if we do pull out, our enemies will interrupt our action as weakness. They will then come at us full-tilt.

By: Mike Parker

Mike Parker — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:38:20 +0000

I’m late to the game, but we need to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible, and also bring home the vast majority of the other 570,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in hundreds of countries around the world. We can no longer afford to sustain the American empire any longer.

The British learned this lesson two generations ago—why are we still pretending it can or should be done?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:36:06 +0000

Mark, to be fair to Obama, he has gotten Pakistan to launch an all out offense against the Taliban. So I think he has attacked Al Queda in Pakistan stronger than Bush. But of course Bush wasn’t ignoring them there either.

While in the media this is being presented as either anti-insurgence vs. anti-terrorist I think that somewhat misleading. But certainly some say better intelligence and going after particular groups is wiser than a broader strategy. The problem is that if we pull out of Aghanistan it’s not clear to me we’ll have sufficient intelligence to do what Biden wants. Likewise if we increase the number of potential terrorists then our defensive strategies (including bombing camps and the like) simply can’t catch everyone.

I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t. But I think there are compelling arguments on both sides. Further, while Grand Strategy is important particular Strategies and Tactics are as well. I think it clear that even now there are huge problems in the military’s anti-insurgence strategy beyond the issue of troops.

By: Tex

Tex — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:29 +0000

Geoff B, I didn’t think you had anything against our troops. By pulling out it would make it allot safer on our troops and would bring them back to their families. I have nothing against someone wanting to pull out. I just think staying is worth the sacrifice.

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:27:41 +0000

I wanted to vote “either all in or all out”. The middle of the road is the last place to stay…