We're never leaving Afghanistan because it's too good for business

If the Wikileaks disclosure of classified documents concerning the mangled mess that is Afghanistan changes any of the granite-minds of centrist Democrats (read Rockefeller Republicans) and wing nut, asshole, reactionary Republicans then Pfc Bradley Manning and Julian Assange should receive the Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize respectively.

Unfortunately it will not. And they will not.
 
A Christian Science Monitor headline tells the tale:Congress's response to WikiLeaks: shoot the messenger. There's really no need to read further. With the exception of a handful of enlightened Democrats and one socialist, most of Congress is ready, willing and quite capable of throwing more troops, more treasure and time into the sewer that is Afghanistan.
If I have said this once I shall continue saying a thousand times: Since Vietnam, winning a war, any war, was and never has been the objective government of the United States, both on the elective Constitutional side and the career management side. And as we should know from the recent events that led up to and subsequent to George Dubya Bush-Hank Paulson engineered TARP bailout, the upper echelons of career federal management and high seniority elected officials take their marching orders from the Wall Street Investor Class. The Investor Class has no incentive to end America's military adventurism. It's good for business.

The primary goal of what President Dwight D. Eisenhower aptly named the military-industrial complex is to keep the fight, any fight, going as long as possible to keep the the real engine of our creaky domestic economy humming along. In many respects the military-intelligence-industrial complex is the last bastion of American technological expertise, organized labor in the private sector and heavy manufacturing.

I mean, just look around your own home. How many made-in-America products can you find, aside from perhaps the furnace and central air conditioning unit? Even traditionally domestic-manufactured items as washing machines and refrigerators and furniture are increasingly being imported from China. But the United States can still make one helluva air superiority jet fighter!

The another thing the military-intelligence-industrial complex successfully did to keep it deeply embedded in the US economy was the shifting of pension funds from traditional "defined-benefits" pension plans, whereby employee retirement compensation is funded totally by the employer, to "defined-contribution" pension plans, the 401k for example, whereby the employee is responsible for contributing towards his own retirement. But from my own experience with the federal employees version of the 401k, the Thrift Savings Plan, the individual employee is never let in on the secret of where his hard-earned money is being invested. The same can be said of Individual Retirement Accounts, IRA, which I also have. I receive a prospectus once a quarter but reading through it is tedious and the names of many of corporations which the fund held stock in meant nothing. I had no idea what Halliburton did, even though my IRA held its stock, until 2000. Suffice it to say that if you own any investment vehicles for retirement, IRAs or 401k, you are investing in the American way of war. By the collusion of Wall Street and Congress in legislating our we fund our retirement the military-industrial-intelligence complex has made us all accomplices in their crimes.

The most curious thing that keeps the American-way-of-war going is the bleeding heart anti-war movement. Because our oh-so-sensitive Pentagon does not want to upset the bleeding heart anti-war movement the American-way-of-war tries its darnest to limit civilian casualties. I do not support the Bush wars, yet from Troy to Korea wars were never won by worrying about civilian casualties. Look at all the German and Japanese civilians we, the United States the ostensible good-guys, slaughtered in World War II! Sorry to sound like a contrarian but if killing civilians brings an end to a war then so be it. The only realistic way of limiting civilian casualties is to not get militarily involved in the first place!

The only way out of the Afghan morass is: One, our troops on the ground in Afghanistan are defeated in detail, ie massive casualties and surrender of entire elements of army and Marine units to Taliban forces; two, a country-wide mutiny of a majority of American military units in Afghanistan; three, a systemic economic collapse on the home front. The first two scenarios are unlikely, the third almost happened in 2008 but thanks to the Bush-Paulson TARP bailout the military-intelligence-industrial complex shuttered, sputtered but did not fail.

But never fear, good and gentle readers, the next theater of operations in "the war on terror" is on the horizon: Somalia.

So remember, gentle reader, war may not be good for children or other living beings but it is positively wonderful for the Investor Class and its running dog lackeys in the coordinator classes and the union men and women hard at work in the factories that churn out our military weapons of mass destruction.

McCain must not know about the Internet

Either Arizona Senator John McCain hasn't learned about the existence of the Internet yet or he thinks, and perhaps rightly so, Americans have the memory span of a gnat. Or, to be generous, perhaps the good Senator is exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimer's' disease for there must be a reason for this:

McCain: big troop buildup needed in Afghanistan
By CHARLES BABINGTON (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama will make a huge error if he does not substantially increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan

McCain said he did not think the United States can win in Afghanistan unless Obama sends at least 40,000 more troops to augment the 68,000 now there. He agreed with those who see 40,000 new troops as the desire of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, although McChrystal gave Obama a range of options.
October 11, 2009

Here's why Senator McCain's position on sending more troops to Afghanistan is rather puzzling: back in the Nineties the Arizona senator as something akin to a pacifist.

You see back during Bill Clinton's presidency after the Blackhawk down incident in Mogadishu, Somalia, the ex-Naval aviator and POW said things like, "The longer we stay the more difficult it will be to leave. The loss of American lives is not only tragic, it is needless." and "Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly, and as promptly, and as safely as possible."

A few months later, when Clinton sent troops to Haiti peace-dove McCain was for getting them right back out.

Then when Clinton decided it was time that US forces intervene in Bosnia, hippie-boy Johnny said something like this , "I think you can draw a parallel to the military challenge in Bosnia with what the Russians faced in Afghanistan. Even with ground forces and with overwhelming air superiority, they were unable to defeat a motivated, very capable enemy."

So what could cause this most pacifistic of US Senators from the Nineties into a saber-rattling war monger he is today? Politics. The nature of today's Republican Party is to be contrarian on anything and everything which any Democratic politician proposes. It's just all a shadow-puppet show for the masses anyway. The real power is on Wall Street so who cares what an aging senator sliding into senility says or how many kids in the All Volunteer Force get ground up into so much hamburger.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam

Let us be very clear: Afghanistan is not Vietnam.

Aside from the obvious geographical and climatic and ethnic differences our Afghan foe, the Taliban, does not enjoy of support and aid of powerful and nuclear armed allies as did North Vietnam in the Soviet Union and China. This is assuming, of course, that the government of our ally Pakistan, Afghanistan's next door neighbor to the east, does not fall the influence of religious fundamentalists, then Katy bar the door.

And, in light of Afghan theater NATO commander US Army General Stanley McChrystal's call for more "boots on the ground" or all is lost, we must keep in mind that most generals have what I call "McClellan's disease." For like the U.S. Civil War's most magnificently incompetent field commander, George B. McClellan, regardless the true size of the enemy arraigned before them our generals will always say they never have enough troops to complete the "job."

Yet to my way of thinking, the biggest difference between the current Afghan conflict and the Vietnam war is in the composition of the US army and Marine Corps this is, after all, an all volunteer force.

In an Associated Press news story on the ninth anniversary of the al Qaida attacks on the United States, reporter Heidi Vogt writes:

Many of the troops now fighting here were high school students at the time. Some saw the attacks on TV during class, and vowed to sign up when they were old enough.

Army Sgt. Joshua Applegate of Springfield, Mississippi, was in high school when the planes hit the towers, and enlisted two years later, though he said he had wanted to do it right away.

"I like my country too much not to," said Applegate, who arrived in Afghanistan in April

Many troops called Friday's anniversary a galvanizing event, and said marking the day reminds them that the U.S. mission here is important.

"It's still one of the reasons why we're here. Sept. 11 is part of it. For those of us who see the repercussions of fighting, it's still there every day," said Air Force Capt. Christopher Dupuis, 26, of Lacey, Washington.

"I feel that a lot of people have forgotten. I would have them replay the video from that day," said Air Force Technical Sgt. Shawn Merchant, 33, of Ellsworth, Maine.

"It became what Pearl Harbor was in World War II: Now we step up," Merchant said.

I am afraid that even though we here safe and secure in the United States desire a speedy withdrawal of US forces from a seemingly unwinnable situation in Afghanistan, there may be little support for a stateside peace initiative among the troops over there. Unlike the conscripted army and to a lesser extent Marine Corps in Vietnam, this is an all volunteer force. And while war may not be healthy for children and other living things is it positively wonderful for the career militarist. As a Vietnam era Marine Corps vet friend of mine relates, "My sergeant said, 'Boys when this war's over you better tattoo those strips on your shoulder. That rating's not going anywhere until Washington gets us into another one.'"

For the career militarist combat is the quickest route to promotion and in the AVF promotion means more than advancement in rank and medals. Not asking questions and following orders is the surest path of advancement in the AVF. As the late Col. David Hackworth observed:"Volunteers tend to go with the flow and seldom blow the whistle on military stupidity, flawed tactics and self-serving leadership. And draftees don't hesitate to make waves and tell the truth."

Quite frankly, the conduct of whatever one chooses to call the situation in Afghanistan it is clearly out of the control of the civilian leadership in the United States. The Democratic Congress at this time may say it opposes more troops for the Afghan theater and the president may demure but General McChrystal will in the end prove persuasive. Meekly, and under cover of darkness, the general's request for more troops will be approved.

The Frankenstein's monster which the late neoclassical economist and "free market-Jesus" Milton J. Freidman created at the behest of the crafty Richard M. Nixon, who out manoeuvred and manipulated the effete suburban, coordinator class anti-Vietnam war activists at every turn, is clearly in the driver's seat in Afghanistan. And we, the American people, had better "click it, or ticket it!" for we are along for a very bumpy ride.