Its a Kristof article, so take it for what its worth, but the main point remains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/op...ref=columnists

 

Originally Posted by Kristof

It was reflexive for liberals to rail at President George W. Bush for jingoism. But it is President Obama who is now requesting 6.1 percent more in military spending than the peak of military spending under Mr. Bush. And it is Mr. Obama who has tripled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he took office. (A bill providing $37 billion to continue financing America’s two wars was approved by the House on Tuesday and is awaiting his signature.)

Under Mr. Obama, we are now spending more money on the military, after adjusting for inflation, than in the peak of the cold war, Vietnam War or Korean War. Our battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The intelligence apparatus is so bloated that, according to The Washington Post, the number of people with “top secret” clearance is 1.5 times the population of the District of Columbia.
Meanwhile, a sobering report from the College Board says that the United States, which used to lead the world in the proportion of young people with college degrees, has dropped to 12th.

What’s more, an unbalanced focus on weapons alone is often counterproductive, creating a nationalist backlash against foreign “invaders.” Over all, education has a rather better record than military power in neutralizing foreign extremism. And the trade-offs are staggering: For the cost of just one soldier in Afghanistan for one year, we could start about 20 schools there. Hawks retort that it’s impossible to run schools in Afghanistan unless there are American troops to protect them. But that’s incorrect.

CARE, a humanitarian organization, operates 300 schools in Afghanistan, and not one has been burned by the Taliban. Greg Mortenson, of “Three Cups of Tea” fame, has overseen the building of 145 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan and operates dozens more in tents or rented buildings — and he says that not one has been destroyed by the Taliban either.

Aid groups show that it is quite possible to run schools so long as there is respectful consultation with tribal elders and buy-in from them. And my hunch is that CARE and Mr. Mortenson are doing more to bring peace to Afghanistan than Mr. Obama’s surge of troops.
The American military has been eagerly reading “Three Cups of Tea” but hasn’t absorbed the central lesson: building schools is a better bet for peace than firing missiles (especially when one cruise missile costs about as much as building 11 schools).

Mr. Mortenson lamented to me that for the cost of just 246 soldiers posted for one year, America could pay for a higher education plan for all Afghanistan. That would help build an Afghan economy, civil society and future — all for one-quarter of 1 percent of our military spending in Afghanistan this year.

why isn't more focus put on fixing what causes the Taliban to be able to recruit soldiers, instead of simply killing poeple? Everyone knows that education is the best counterterrorism weapon there is. Schools have to be the most cost-effective way to fight the war on terror, yet we insist on spending hundreds of billions on weapons instead. How about taking even a small piece of that and actually fixing what's broken. This war is going nowhere as is, how is this still not a larger part of the strategy?

While I certainly do not discount the concept of enhancing our image through economic and educational efforts, how do you propose to build and operate these schools in the face Taliban opposition consisting of real weapons and real soldiers? Maybe Afghanistan is not the place for this kind of effort. I might add that I'm pretty sure we have major rebuilding efforts similar to this in Iraq and except for the missing $8.7 billion, it seems to be working fairly well, but again this is being accomplished in a relatively peaceful environment, unlike the Taliban recruiting grounds in Afghanistan.

 

Originally Posted by resilient

standard neeek idealism with no real world context, nothing new to see here....

Because someone would bomb said schools if they knew the money came from America. "(spits on ground) Down With A-mer-ic-a!"

For the cost of election day we could clean out congress and start over with more fiscally responsible people...posssibly. Sigh.

I wouldn't call you one-dimensional... you just espouse concepts that have no basis in reality, and which are practically untenable. Pretty standard for a lot of Democrats on this forum, as I have learned... but I think in your case, it's just a matter of never having been out of the classroom and had to make managerial judgments that require balancing pros and cons. Therefore a lot of your theories/complaints are fairly comical.

fair enough, I understand that... but we're really a long way from being able to implement such concepts. A big part of the problem is the support that Pakistan is covertly providing to the Taliban, while they are contemporaneously providing support and resources to our effort to defeat the enemy. If you can think about the difficulty that we have had in finally making strides in Iraq, realize that Afghanistan is immensely more difficult to penetrate the infrastructure and to implement such initiatives from a logistical standpoint.

But yes, I can agree that what you mention would be an ideal and hopefully eventual outcome. But it can't really be compared to the cost of a soldier now, as that is an impractical concept at this time.

I have to laugh at this, especially when so many people of your mindset (not you specifically, possibly UD tho) laugh at libertarians for being idealistic, unrealistic for not being willing to accept the existing structure, norms and behaviors. Weird.

Education is always a good thing

 

Originally Posted by skisteve

Quite fair, actually. Some are more open minded than others but he said A LOT of dems, not ALL dems. More accurate would be ALL dems always think he is talking about THEM when he is not.
There is a severe selective reading comprehension issue amongst the academic set on here. Please continue tho.

what about dem jeans?

do girls get to go to those schools?

 

Originally Posted by Neeek

Why not move to something like this, which will end up being MUCH cheaper anyway?

Something like your OP suggests can definitely make a difference, but the Taliban needs to be fought vigorously even if they can't be eradicated. To simply phase out of there is going to embolden our enemy tremendously.

I think that Obama thought exactly the way you did before he took office. However, once he saw all of the intellegence that you and I will never see, he realized how dangerous it is over there. Obv I am just speculating.

Sadly, simply walking away is not an answer.

I would like to see more invested in education there (and in Iraq) because we are getting destroyed in the propaganda war over there.

 

Originally Posted by Neeek

For the reasons you are mentioning, the fact that the Taliban is virtually impossible to eradicate, etc. it is evident that our current strategy is NEVER going to work. Why not move to something like this, which will end up being MUCH cheaper anyway?

because what you describe is practically impossible.... such efforts would be militarily overrun by the Taliban. And if we only had soldiers in Afghanistan to defend such efforts, they would be systematically picked off. Which is why military tactics have to be offensive in nature.

 

Originally Posted by Neeek

this is my point. you are fine with spending billions on an unwinnable military campaign on the pretense of stabilizing the region. You then ask why we would do exactly what would stabilize the region, because we wont profit off of it economically. its so amazingly hypocritical.

the war on Afghanistan isn't about economic gain or delivering prosperity... it's about fighting the war on terrorism, post 9/11.

 

Originally Posted by resilient

because what you describe is practically impossible.... such efforts would be militarily overrun by the Taliban. And if we only had soldiers in Afghanistan to defend such efforts, they would be systematically picked off. Which is why military tactics have to be offensive in nature.

practically impossible is no excuse. Especially given that, with the current strategy, it IS impossible. I'm not saying a complete shift from one approach to the other, I'm talking about a move towards it, though.

 

Originally Posted by resilient

the war on Afghanistan isn't about economic gain or delivering prosperity... it's about fighting the war on terrorism, post 9/11.

agreed. the war on terrorism is, in a large part, really just a war on poverty. though military tactics are needed (cause there will always be crazy assholes), this is how you win it in the long run. I guarantee you the day Afghanistan has a functioning economy is the day the Taliban loses its power.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

do girls get to go to those schools?

if they keep their mouths shut and sit in the back.

 

Originally Posted by Neeek

practically impossible is no excuse. Especially given that, with the current strategy, it IS impossible. I'm not saying a complete shift from one approach to the other, I'm talking about a move towards it, though.



agreed. the war on terrorism is, in a large part, really just a war on poverty. though military tactics are needed (cause there will always be crazy assholes), this is how you win it in the long run. I guarantee you the day Afghanistan has a functioning economy is the day the Taliban loses its power.



if they keep their mouths shut and sit in the back.

Well if you are guaranteeing it that's good enough for me!
More likely if they had a thriving economy they would just be more dangerous, like Iran. Sureeee there wouldn't be any deception or dishonesty lollll.
Nobody said before we went there we would make them the next japan as a thank you for letting us crush your terrorists. God, get over it, we aren't there to build some new utopia. We are there to kill people who want to kill us.
Although I would have been happy to just kill osama and gone home tbh. How's that coming anyhow?

Nice college freshman change the world we invade idealism tho. Gl with that over the years, it's a sick world outside the classroom. Obama is learning on the job himself, pm him.

I have seen articles about it, but doesnt mean they are actually there or that we will actually profit from them.

Here is some of the money we have spent in Afg to help their country.

Estimated U.S. funds needed to support and upgrade Afghan forces for the next decade: $4 billion a year ("with a like sum for development") according to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West. (According to the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon, "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget.")

Afghan gross national product: $23 billion ("the size of Boise" Idaho's, writes columnist George Will) -- about $3 billion of it from opium production.
Annual budget of the Afghan government: $600 million.

Maintenance cost for the force of 450,000 Afghan soldiers and police U.S. generals dream of creating: Approximately 500 percent of the Afghan budget.
Amount spent on police "mentoring and training" since 2001: $10 billion.

Percentage of the more than 400 Afghan National Police units "still incapable of running their operations independently": 75 percent (2008 figures).

I def agree with that Seykota, but doesnt look like the government wants to do that. haha