To President Obama--Prove you are worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize

So our President has now won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. This is amazing. I wasn't aware he was even up for the award. I keep thinking this is a joke, and I'll have to pull this post down. But this is an interesting achievement, and one that will get some play for the man from Chicago/Hawaii/Kansas/Indonesia/Kenya...well, let's just say from all over.

For starters, it really shows me how a simple move back to diplomacy, something most of our past Presidents have employed as part of their typical governing approach, could be so welcomed by the rest of the world. Simply addressing the rest of the world with an open hand, rather than a closed fist may sound simple naive, but it has already achieved much. The positive relationships with Russia, China, Europe, and even much of the Middle East have been so torn asunder by the events of the past decade (some done TO us, some done BY us), that a move back to civil discourse was the only alternative to complete polarization--which had been the path of foreign policy until this year.

In the last two election cycles, people finally realized that we were not a nation of bullies and fighters. We were a nation of listeners, and of leaders. A nation who used force when it HAD to, not when it CHOSE to. And we continue to have hope that we have a leader who understands this, and is moving to match the foreign policy agenda to the reality of the world landscape.

BUT

We shall see if that really happens. My hope is that a success in Health Care, coupled with this honor of the Nobel Peace Prize, will give the President the courage to do the right thing, and END the mission in Afghanistan. It is time.

We need to get our troops home from Afghanistan, and from Iraq. It's been far too long to spend our money and soldiers on a mission that is NOT achievable. Notice I did NOT use the cop-out language of "mission that is not defined". I think we all know why we're in Afghanistan. At least we know why we went originally. And I agreed with that decision...back then.

But we are no longer achieving the mission we set out to achieve. And we cannot achieve this mission, as long as we are seen as the occupying force in these countries--unable to ever fully root out this "evil" that our previous President kept referring to. And THAT, sadly, is not going to change, while we are still in these countries with 200,000+ forces and countless mercenaries, shooting at anyone that wears a "black hat".

We can't achieve the mission because it is unachievable. The best I can understand it is that we don't want the Taliban to rule Afghanistan because they will let al Qaeda back in, set up camps, and attack us again. So we shoot at the Taliban, and sometimes the locals, and hope that the people of this country will somehow rise up and take back their native lands, and do our bidding on our behalf--rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban, and ultimately, Bin Laden himself (remember him!?).

Sound like a plan? Somehow we've conflated this goal into the ultimate winning or losing struggle. "If we don't win this game, we're doomed". I don't understand why we should even be playing. Our odds of achieving this aim can't be better than 1 in 5. And for that long shot, we'll waste time, money and resources (lives!) so that, in a BEST case scenario, we only have to fight our enemies in 10 OTHER places around the globe. Sorry. This dog don't hunt no more. Time to pull the plug.

Here's hoping Obama has the guts to make the right call.

About-Face on Afghanistan

For a long time, I've been a supporter of the efforts in Afghanistan, to support a "fledgling democracy", to root out the Taliban, and to hunt for Osama bin Laden. But I think an "about-face" is not only preferable, it's needed.

I keep watching the news reports about General Stanley McChrystal's push for a renewed "surge" of sorts, in Afghanistan. But there's no good reason to be in Afghanistan. Let's look at the reasons to stay, and the reasons to go.

Reasons to stay:

1. Fighting al-Qaeda--really? I heard the common line of "fighting them there, so we don't fight them here..." I think it's a bunch of bull. Recent arrests in Denver, and numerous bombings around the world, from London and Spain, to a resurgence of al-Qaeda in Somalia and other North African and Arabian Peninsula countries would indicate that putting all of our troops in Afghanistan doesn't really serve our interests too well on this front.

2. Fighting the Taliban--again, REALLY? This is the group that gave Osama bin Laden refuge. So did the Sudan. Heck, we could make a case to remove a number of bad guys around the world for harboring terrorists. Not only that, but we can't force a country the size of Afghanistan to root out the Taliban on its own. This is a country that lived under Taliban rule for years, had it forcibly removed, and would allow itself to be re-occupied by the same group 9 years later? Seriously? Why are we going to spend decades and trillions of dollars to stop this from happening again?

3. Getting Osama bin Laden--This is actually a good rationale for going into Afghanistan. I do think that makes sense. This guy attacked us on our soil, and around the world for years before 2001. But that doesn't seem to be the strategy in Afghanistan today. He's kind of like an ancillary benefit of the war. "Fight the bad guys in Afghanistan, and by the way, if you find Osama, kill him too..." Not exactly a rallying cry the likes of Henry the Fifth at Agincourt.

4. "Can't back down, or the Terrorists win..."--Can we just end the schoolyard theatrics already? Are we really interested in spending our money and pride so foolishly? Since when did we sink, as a nation, down to the level of such jingoistic BS? I won't allow such foolish pride to cloud my judgement on this issue. Certainly, those who would oppose a pull out in Afghanistan, but support killing any domestic spending program "for budget reasons", isn't looking at the same world stage I am.

Reasons to Leave:

1. Money--The National Priorities Project puts the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at over $900B, or $150B a year roughly, that is spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Assuming Afghanistan is even 1/3rd of that outlay, a $50B a year, or $500B over 10 years reduction in our government spending could make up any public health care option shortfall. OR, it could certainly close the budget gap a lot quicker than John McCain's "War on Pork Barrel spending", which costs Americans a whopping...what....$8B a year? Glad to see McCain's got his priorities in order...

2. Lack of Objectives--What are we there for again? American pride? Fight the terrorists? Support the government in Afghanistan? Somebody make a case for this war (spare me the usual "you just don't get it..." BS rationales. And for Pete's sake, spare me the "...we were attacked on 9/11 because of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". I understand having vigilance, and perhaps an off-shore presence. What I don't understand is upwards of 50,000 troops there to shoot at ghosts, and get picked off by snipers on a regular basis. Don't confuse the objectives for the rallying cry.)

3. Rebuilding of relationships with our allies and diplomacy with our adversaries--Obama has started this in earnest. Have we not already seen what shooting first has done for us? We have a lot of damage to undo. I'm glad to see that America is leading the charge in respectful dialogue around the globe once again.

I am not conflicted in this issue any more. It's time to leave Afghanistan. Cut the funding, get the soldiers home, and let's call it a success (it wasn't, and isn't much of a "war", so I'm not sure Victory is really the right word for either side).