What to do in Afghanistan

U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan have already exceeded the number from all of last year. In fact, the numbers for August are the highest since the U.S. invaded after 9/11 attacks. Currently, there are about 70,000 American troops in the country and Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is expected to ask for another 20,000 soldiers to be deployed. Three years ago, the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country.

The U.S. is currently in the 8th year of the war there. Many would argue that the early success of toppling the Taliban government and chasing al Qaeda out of the country has given way to a resurgence of Taliban strength in many areas and control of large swaths of the countryside. These same critics would point to the historical record of failure on the part of those who have tried to tame Afghanistan including the British and the Russians.

One blogger has even suggested that Afghanistan is another Vietnam:

The US, meanwhile, is identified as an occupier and as the sole
support of a corrupt regime of drug lords, thieves and charlatans.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It is a replay of what
America did in Vietnam.

Now a new president, Obama, like Johnson before him, is telling Americans
that a war half a world away is "necessary for American security." This is a
ludicrous assertion on its face. If Afghanistan, one of the poorest
countries in the world, and really hardly a country at all, is a threat to
US national security, so is Malawi, Burundi and Fiji.

Let¹s be rational for a moment. The Taliban, whatever their irrational
Islamic fanaticism and their misogyny, have no interest in America, other
than to drive our troops out of their country. When they were in charge in
Kabul back in 2001, they had their hands full just trying to hang on in the
face of the war lords and drug kingpins who held (and still hold) sway in
various parts of the country, and when they eventually win and drive the US
and its NATO allies out of Afghanistan, they will have their hands full
again, just clinging to power.

American national security is not to the slightest degree threatened by the
Taliban.



That said, the case for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan counters that by suggesting that simply letting the Afghans alone would likely lead to greater instability in the region.

The United States has two primary national interests in this conflict: that Afghanistan never again become a haven for terrorism against the United States, and that chaos in Afghanistan not destabilize its neighbors, especially Pakistan.

The more important U.S. interest is indirect: to prevent chaos in Afghanistan from destabilizing Pakistan. With a population of 173 million (five times Afghanistan’s), a GDP of more than $160 billion (more than ten times Afghanistan’s) and a functional nuclear arsenal of perhaps twenty to fifty warheads, Pakistan is a much more dangerous prospective state sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Furthermore, the likelihood of government collapse in Pakistan, which would enable the establishment of such a sanctuary, may be in the same ballpark as Afghanistan, at least in the medium to long term. Pakistan is already at war with internal Islamist insurgents allied to al-Qaeda, and that war is not going well. Should the Pakistani insurgency succeed in collapsing the state or even just in toppling the current civilian government, the risk of nuclear weapons falling into al-Qaeda’s hands would rise sharply. In fact, given the difficulties terrorists face in acquiring usable nuclear weapons, Pakistani state collapse may be the likeliest scenario leading to a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda.



If you were an adviser to President Obama, what would you recommend? Should the U.S. increase it's troop strength by 20,000 or should the U.S. reassess it's options in Afghanistan? Should there be a timetable for success? If the U.S. finds itself in essentially the same place in a year or so as it is now, should it pursue a policy of drawing down?

As Congress and the nation debate the merits of various health care reform proposals, one of the key questions we, as a society, must decide is whether health care is a right to all citizens or just a privilege? There are clearly people on either side os this question.

Senator Bernie Sanders believes it is a right:

Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.

At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees - rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.

On the other hand, South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis takes a different view:

Health care is not a right. I have no right to health care, to food or to shelter. I do have a right to work though. And I have an obligation as a member of Judeo-Christian society to make provision for these things, for 'the least of these,' in the things of food, shelter and health care. One of the best ways to be my brother's keeper is to keep free enterprise flourishing so that he has a job."

From the Heritage Foundation:

The problem is that Sen. Kennedy is wrong; there is no fundamental right to healthcare. When the founders wrote of our “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they were referring to natural rights, things that we can enjoy on our own, without depending on government. They exist by nature—they are not entitlements to things produced by others. The rights to life and liberty are individual rights that I can pursue or neglect as I wish. Governments are instituted merely to secure these rights by providing the necessary infrastructure for their flourishing—this involves instituting a rule of law and order, providing for the public defense, and so on.

Where do you find yourself on this question?