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?
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.