Comparing the Cost of the Afghanistan War Against Other Things We Need


AIDS vs Afghanistan.jpg
(An advertisement posted by on DC bus stop; photo credit: Matt Stoller)
— Steve Clemons


3 comments on “Comparing the Cost of the Afghanistan War Against Other Things We Need

  1. John Waring says:

    Here’s a pet peeve of mine. We have historic flooding of the Mississippi basin while the western USA is drying out to powder. The most threatening shortage in the 21st century won’t be oil, but water. Any plans for piping Mississippi water to the west? We can tolerate dismal unemployment rates, fail to invest in critical infrastructure, yet spend $1 trillion in Irag and $100 billion per year in Afghanistan. Our national priorities are just crazy. Here’s one American who severely doubts the benefits of our ongoing, and apparantly never ending, American empire project. Millions of American need protection against the poverty staring them in the face, not against some al Qaeda cracker half a world away.


  2. rc says:

    A must watch interview series imo
    War is Not About Truth, Justice and the American Way (Lawrence Wilkerson)


  3. DonS says:

    . . . the cost of the Afghanistan war for DECADES to come:
    From FDL, the Guardian, and other sources:
    “From the UK Guardian:
    American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades.”
    The disconnect — or let’s just calling it what it is — deception and lying by the Obama administration on multiple fronts, but particularly the sleight of hand political posturing about fiscal “responsibility” and “spending cuts” targeting domestic programs, and all the hand wringing and fear mongering about the “deficit” is staggering.
    Obama courts Wall Street, whose support is crucial since the progressive base has been abandoned. No wonder there is no railing against the true effects of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich on the structural deficit.
    But the point of the post linked to above is to, again, point to the hypocrisy of the administration in talking austerity overall but preserving defense spending, for decades, based on the outmoded, corrupt, wasteful, democracy- destroying huge American military footprint and it’s domestic legacies of security state apparatus.
    Going back to basics, just like with Obama’s economic tilt, one can say he is either pandering or a true Goldman Sachs believer. With defense posturing, one can say he is attempting to position himself to defend against charges of being “weak”, or he is a true believer captured by the MIC. Doesn’t really matter, does it? The outcome is the same.
    The disconnect between what the nation can afford, both financially and morally, and the direction the plutocratic juggernaut dictates seems to be widening.
    The assumptions underlying Bob Gates arrogant and tone deaf bitch-slapping of NATO — regardless of any of the internals of his “point” — says reams about the consensus reality in DC and among it’s plutocratic ilk. It’s not a reality aligned with a nation putting the well being of it’s people first.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *