Ron Paul: Saving Face in Afghanistan 10/12/09

http://www.house.gov/paul
http://CampaignForLiberty.com

This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.

The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000? Why not 500,000 just to be safe? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58% are now against it?

I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? Weve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives for what?

The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.

Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.

The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• congressman
• ron
• paul
• texas
• straight
• talk
• saving
• face
• in
• afghanistan
• pakistan
• iraq
• middle
• east
• war
• troops
• military
• nonintervention
• peace
• foreign
• policy
• obama
• bush

[GRIMTICK]

He's the man. as always he seems the only sane voice in washington.

[waterse]

history repeats itself unfortunately

[VitaminsAndPiss]

Good man.

[kaikincaid96]

@ffrank345 Your right to a degree. I don't deny that what you say (to a degree) is incorrect that is indeed what the constitution says. I can personally point the provision minnesotachris. However this presidential power is limited to our defense. This provision doesn't give the president the power to start a war only the congress can do this. for example: The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional. A invasion of another country is an act of war and not defense. The Afghan war was declared.

[zotopec]

Yup ... he is the kind of guy who makes your heart beat faster because in every sentence he would be voicing your inner thoughts as if he were reading them. He would be putting his fingers on the sore spots like some medieval learned egyptian physician without any contraceptive ... perfect recipes of a true leader. He can clear a lot of mess not just in america but in the whole of world. If I were american ... I would vote for him without giving it a second thought.

[skyfrog696969]

the patriot act gave the president the power to do so

[wunderbeast]

Certainly beats a non-religious politician who supports corporatism. When I said that him not believing in evolution is disappointed, it was a gut reaction because it was my first time hearing about it.

[wunderbeast]

You're absolutely right. It only took about a couple of minutes to "sleep on it" but I'd absolutely support him over someone else. I just saw Rally for the Republic and in his opening he talked about how his campaign got donations from all religious spectrums including atheists and non-believers. Ron Paul accepts agnostics like me, I accept him and his creationist beliefs wholeheartedly.

[wunderbeast]

I agree. I'd rather support him than a non-religious/agnostic/atheist (which is what I am) who doesn't raise questions about the Fed, what we're doing in the Middle East, and whether we have enough money to spend.

[LLCoolPass]

ehhh only if we are invaded or have insurrection, but that's what the president used to semi justify afghanistan, but the congress did authorize that, not so much iraq