Cost of Afghanistan War and Transparency
By N4life
@N4life (851)
United States
August 9, 2009 6:32am CST
Having just read a rather disconcerting piece on MSNBC.com about the potential cost of the war in Afghanistan I thought it would be interesting to gauge others' reactions. As most who frequent mylot politics know I voted for Obama and am mostly supportive of the administration's plans for "change" and long term revitilization of the economy. This news, however, if true certainly rubs me the wrong way considering Obama's insistent talk of lack of transparency about the amount of money that had been spent by the Bush administration on the war in Iraq. One of the main issues I have with the Iraq war is it seems we are footing most of the bill for the rebuilding of an entire nation and there was no clear end game. While I have always seen our troops presence in Afghanistan as more necessary than Iraq, I was never under the impresssion that we would be embarking on a similar mission in that country. The piece points out that NATO countries are building roads, police stations, drug eradication programs, etc. A Brooking's Institute military expert is quoted as saying it could mean "...two decades of supplying a few billion a year to Afghanistan." He goes on to explain this is about half of the Afghan budget. There seems to be no clear end game here either.
I have not seen or heard much about this massive undertaking from the administration and agree that is seems American's have been left in the dark about this. What do you think about the degree of transparency about this issue? It seems it may be more of the same, exactly what Obama was promising not to be. I think we deserve a more robust statement about this from the President. Does this sour any Obama supporters about this administration?
The next logical question is do you see this massive of an effort as being necessary for our national security?
1 person likes this
1 response
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
9 Aug 09
I will go as far as to say that a stable, productive and economicly secure Afghanistan is essential to long term security. But I will also say that the stability and productivity achieved is probably not going to look like anything we in the west would call a westernized democratic country and people. People in afghanistan, though mostly desiring of piece and security, are who they are. They live how they wish to live, mostly in their old traditions, tribal sects and customs, still very much an old world, yesteryear lifestyle and that is just what they want.
I think we should only go as far as it takes to insure we don't see a reimergence of the Taliban or some other sort of barbaric iron fisted rule, ensure that it does not ever again become a breeding ground for groups like AlQieda, do what we can to make sure there is some semblence of stable infastructure, stable government and give them what ever tools are nessesary for them to create a prosperous economy for themselves, secure a good diplomatic repose with them, and then come on home.
Though I don't believe we should be informed of every military operation or action, obviously in the interest of strategy and security, they cannot do this, I think we the american people who's pocketbooks and wallets this is all comming ut of, have a right to know what is the end game and our goals, what is the basic road we take to get there, and what is our exit strategy and equally as important, how much will it cost and how are we going to pay for it.
2 people like this
@N4life (851)
• United States
9 Aug 09
Thanks for the response. I tend to agree that at least a semi-stable Afghanistan is essential, as this really does seem to be a great breeding ground for terrorists, and terrorist thinking. Having the region run by warlords may not be good for anyone. This is a very tall order with the domestic agenda right now and perhaps we should be getting other NATO countries to pay for most of this. I'm not liking the way the funds needed for this war seem to be going under the radar.
