Saturday, June 25, 2011

More Jobs And Less War


CNN reported:

On Wednesday night, President Obama announced plans to bring home 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by fall 2012. In a prime-time speech, President Obama outlined a plan for what is being called the 'beginning of the end' of the longest war in U.S. history.

Reviewing our multi-war engagement and global troop deployment - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (and who knows where else) - it's hard not to think what is the cost and whose interest are we fighting for or against.

Clearly, if we are fighting the never ending war on terrorism our approach is very flawed and problematic.

First, terrorism is a moving target thus, we need to utilize special opps - Deltas, Rangers, Navy Seals etc - to combat this element.

They are highly trained, strategically flexible and specifically calibrated for these types of missions. A conventional military presence appears to be (after 10 years in Afghanistan) ineffective and antiquated.

Second, what are or what were the mission objectives in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

Humanitarian or peace keeping missions? (talk about oxymoron)
Over throw the tyrant mission?
Nation building?
Terrorist hunting?
Let's grab the oil mission?

I don't have a clue (but I have my suspicions).

But I do know this: they cost a grip and we ain't got the same grip we used to have. Matter of fact, we are overdrawn (rich folks and corporations decided they don't want to chip in anymore).

I also know, we can't afford to support a corporate imperial America (the real mission objective) - and ain't that about blip, not only do they skip out on their tab, they want us to fight and pay while they (Haliburton) profit.

Talk about a mack move!

One other thing, notice how nations with tyrants but without oil rarely need our peace keeping troops.

All this brings to mind the warning issued by former WWII general Dwight D Eisenhower in his presidential farewell address:
Beware of the Military Industrial Complex.


How crystal ball right he was because instead of jobs we get war - one after another.

4 comments:

  1. The military is a big employer. Not just the troops, but all the supporting staff and agencies etc. Then there's the military industrial complex who employ thousands in manufacturing and admininstrative positions. There are undoubtedly millions of people who's employment is military related. There have been presidents in the past who used war to solve their economic problems.



    We fight wars for economic reasons, period. We get attacked very rarely on our own grounds. The president doesn't want to see an uptick in the unemployment rate. But that could easily be a consequence of ending a war that spends more than one hundred billion dollars a year. That money is mostly spent on the American economy. But you didn't hear that from me. LOL!!
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. ebonytruth tellerJune 26, 2011 at 10:18 AM

    Don't be a RIGHT WING "YES-MAN(WOMAN)....We all KNOW now, that ALL OVER THE NATION the RIGHT is using an OLD RACIST TECHNIQUE,and PROMOTINGN"SOCIALLY BLACKS (especially those BLACKS who they KNOW have a FINANCIAL NEED or JUST PLAIN GREEDY....The OBAMA is STALLING JOBS THING is a LIE twisted so as to PREVENT the PUBLIC fromn SEEING THE TRUTH that is the SAME MONEY that would be SPREAD "UNDR-THE-TABLE" to PAY-OFF smear campaigns is the SAME MONEY that has INVESTED OVERSEAS and HIRES ILLEGALS BEFORE HIRING AMERICANS..YOU PEOPLE NEED TO QUIT LYING IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAVER ! ..

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Ronald. You write:

    There have been presidents in the past who used war to solve their economic problems. The president doesn't want to see an uptick in the unemployment rate. But that could easily be a consequence of ending a war that spends more than one hundred billion dollars a year. That money is mostly spent on the American economy



    What a sad reality if you are correct. We have to kill and put our young men/women in harms way not achieve moral objectives but we have to kill to maintain a high standard of living. Doesn't sound very Christian nor moral. It sound very avarice and materialistic. Additionally, it is only a short term fix and like an addict we are continually looking for our next fix.

    I guess that's why great empires of the past have fallen because eventually that tactic or economic policy - war to sustain superiority - ends up bankrupting economies.



    If you look at the emergence of BRICS nations (Brasil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) the driving force of their economy is not the military industrial complex - the former USSR learned this the hard way...I guess we are destined to learn the hardway as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ebonytruthteller I do not follow your point nor what you are implying. My politics are progressive and my critique is not of Obama but of the USA policy of using war as an energy policy - over the last 15 yrs Minister Farrakhan has frequently criticized this flawed energy dependent approach. The greatest irony of the continued implementation of this policy is that it is a right wing and neo-conservative creation since the 1950's - Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Afghan War, Iraq War and now Libya War.

    ReplyDelete