After 10 years in Afghanistan why are we still there ?

As of March, 2011, the United States has spent over $455.5 BILLION dollars on the war in Afghanistan. DoD tallies (which differ from independent sources) report that again, as of March, 2011, 1,412 soldiers (including the 11 CIA civilians) have been killed and 10,468 wounded during Afghan hostilities.

If you break it down, this translates out to 2-3 lives and $796,328,671.00 in taxpayer money wasted every week on a war that nobody wants. That’s right; a recent poll revealed that 2/3 of the American public no longer thinks that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting.

While the current official stance is that troops will begin being moved out of Afghanistan in July of 2011 (with all troops to be removed by 2014), there is talk of what a post 2014 US Presence in Afghanistan should look like, which doesn’t sound as if the US plans on ever leaving completely. This talk was corroborated by Defense Secretary Gates who observed that the transference of security to Afghani civilian forces (which are currently being trained by the US military) may very well take longer than the 2014 deadline. It is a statement that is not sitting at all well with the American people, nor is the fact that it has been pointed out by sources outside the government that even if the number of Afghans being trained to take over security (the number is over 300,000 at this point) can be trained in time, the cost to Afghanistan (a notoriously impoverished country) to keep them trained and paid and supplied would be greater than Afghanistan’s entire gross domestic product

In spite of President Obama’s assurances that troops will begin to be withdrawn in July of this year, General Patraeus was recently quoted as saying he will “provide options and a recommendation” to the President regarding the number of troops to remove from Afghanistan this year. That caution is needed, and he went on to say that while steps forward in Afghani security are real, that they are “fragile and reversible.”

But it isn’t just the idea of a continued US presence in Afghanistan that is sticking in the craw of the American public; it is also the suspicion that there has been an organized effort by the government to hoodwink the American public into support of the war. Everything from the supposed ‘wikileaks’ documents which reports ties between the Taliban and Pakistan, to the 2010 announcement by pentagon officials (backed up by American geologists) that over $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits have been ‘discovered’ in Afghanistan (a fact which has been known to geologists for decades) make it clear that the US government is doing everything within its power to stall the withdrawal of troops.

Is the reluctance on the part of the US government to withdraw from Afghanistan truly a result over the concern for the Afghani people or is it, as some claim, a reaction to the 2010 agreement between Iran and Pakistan to create the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline? (which would give Afghanistan – given its border with Iran – a strategic significance in the world oil market).

In short, what began eleven years ago as a commitment by the American Government to find and bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil (specifically Osama bin Laden, who was being harbored by the Islamic extremist Taliban government, headquartered in Afghanistan) has turned into a full-scale headache, complete with the responsibility of rebuilding Afghanistan (for whatever reason) within a democratic framework and maintaining an American presence in the country even after we have turned security over to the Afghanis.

Is it truly the security of America and Americans that is now at stake? Or is it something more?

Do you like the Color-coded threat system we have? It's getting replaced this week.

Say goodbye to the old Color-coded threat system, come tomorrow Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will introduce a new threat system. We have been using the Color-coded system for nine years now and it has come under a lot of criticism from both sides. Complaints have been that the old system was to broad of a threat alert, another words the system should of been more specific to certain areas or places with threats. The old Color-coded system was also accused of being used for political gains in order to scare citizens into rallying behind the President. The color coded system consist of five levels the lowest being green and then red for a severe alert.

The new system will have more specific threat alerts for exactly where the threat is thought to be. Not just a general threat for the entire country when they know it's in New york or else where. Republican Rep. Peter King from New york said

"Though the system served a valuable purpose in the terrible days and months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, it was clearly time for the current color-coded system to be replaced with a more targeted system," King said. "I know they have been working on this for a long time. It sounds to me like the changes they are proposing make sense. We will have to wait and see how they implement this new, more targeted system. I expect the biggest challenge for DHS will be balancing the need to provide useful and timely information with the need to protect sensitive information."

From Rep. Kings comments I would say that he is on board with changes and thinks they make sense in regards to being more specific. What do you think of the old threat system?

CNN - Color-coded threat system to be replaced in April

Senate Republicans say NO to helping 9/11 First Responders

Senate Republicans on Thursday Prevented a measure to provide extra funds to September 11th first responders who have become sick from working at the World Trade Center site. The Bill that was voted down was called the Zadroga Bill after a New York City police officer who died from respiratory disease. The vote came out to 57-42 which allowed the Senate Republicans to hold up the bill.

Republicans vowed not to pass any further legislation until The tax cut and Government funding Bill were passed first. They also had concerns about how the government was going to come up with the estimated $7.4 billion it would take to fund the 9/11 bill. Sadder then the fact that it has been ten years and this bill still has not passed next year with the change in power it's very unlikely the Zadroga Bill will even make it to the house floor.

New york state Sen. Kristen Gillinbrand said "Frankly, it's exactly whats wrong with Washington -- an example of politics put above the people". Sen. Chuck Schumer vowed "to pursue every possible route" before the end of the year to pass the bill. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it's “a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism,” and that Republicans should reconsider.

I just wrote a post about hypocrisy and here you again before the ink dries the Republicans seem to through up another example. I hate to keep on picking on Republicans but when you refuse to pass a $20 billion un employment bill or even worse a $7.4 billion 9/11 first responders bill in order to first pass a $900 billion two year tax extension things seem pretty clear to me. God forbid we have another attack I hope first responders don't second guess doing their jobs because of this lack of support.













BloomBerg - Senate Republicans Block 9/11 Bill


Government Excutive - Republicans block 9/11 health bill