Thursday, November 05, 2009

Bill Moyers on Afghanistan and Sacrifice

There has been a horrible shooting incident at Fort Hood in Texas. There isn't much to say about that, other than I hope and pray that the victims and the families (and the perpetrator) can find some peace.

The reports hint that the perpetrator was upset about an impending deployment to Iraq. Who knows whether or not this is true, but whether it is or not, I think it is inarguable that these two wars continue to take an enormous toll on the military and their families.

Bill Moyers on the war:

"Reporting on...attacks that killed eight Americans, CBS turned to animation to depict what no journalists were around to witness. This is about as close to real war as most of us ever get, safely removed from the blood, the mangled bodies, the screams and shouts.

October, as you know, was the bloodiest month for our troops in all eight years of the war. And beyond the human loss, the United States has spent more than 223 billion dollars there. In 2010 we will be spending roughly 65 billion dollars every year. 65 billion dollars a year.

The President is just about ready to send more troops. Maybe 44 thousand, that's the number General McChrystal wants, bringing the total to over 100 thousand. When I read speculation last weekend that the actual number needed might be 600 thousand, I winced.

I can still see President Lyndon Johnson's face when he asked his generals how many years and how many troops it would take to win in Vietnam. One of them answered, "Ten years and one million." He was right on the time and wrong on the number-- two and a half million American soldiers would serve in Vietnam, and we still lost.

Whatever the total for Afghanistan, every additional thousand troops will cost us about a billion dollars a year. At a time when foreclosures are rising, benefits for the unemployed are running out, cities are firing teachers, closing libraries and cutting essential maintenance and services. That sound you hear is the ripping of our social fabric.

Which makes even more perplexing an editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST last week. You'll remember the "Post" was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, often sounding like a megaphone for the Bush-Cheney propaganda machine. Now it's calling for escalating the war in Afghanistan. In a time of historic budget deficits, the paper said, Afghanistan has to take priority over universal health care for Americans. Fixing Afghanistan, it seems, is "a 'necessity'"; fixing America's social contract is not.

But listen to what an Afghan villager recently told a correspondent for the "Economist:" "We need security. But the Americans are just making trouble for us. They cannot bring peace, not if they stay for 50 years."

Listen, too, to Andrew Bacevich, the long-time professional soldier, graduate of West Point, veteran of Vietnam, and now a respected scholar of military and foreign affairs, who was on this program a year ago. He recently told "The Christian Science Monitor," "The notion that fixing Afghanistan will somehow drive a stake through the heart of jihadism is wrong. …If we give General McChrystal everything he wants, the jihadist threat will still exist."

This from a warrior who lost his own soldier son in Iraq, and who doesn't need animated graphics to know what the rest of us never see.

So here's a suggestion. In a week or so, when the president announces he is escalating the war, let's not hide the reality behind eloquence or animation. No more soaring rhetoric, please. No more video games. If our governing class wants more war, let's not allow them to fight it with young men and women who sign up because they don't have jobs here at home, or can't afford college or health care for their families.

Let's share the sacrifice. Spread the suffering. Let's bring back the draft.

Yes, bring back the draft -- for as long as it takes our politicians and pundits to "fix" Afghanistan to their satisfaction.

Bring back the draft, and then watch them dive for cover on Capitol Hill, in the watering holes and think tanks of the Beltway, and in the quiet little offices where editorial writers spin clever phrases justifying other people's sacrifice. Let's insist our governing class show the courage to make this long and dirty war our war, or the guts to end it. "

9 comments:

  1. I strongly disagree with most of these mischaracterizations from a man who often has no idea what he is talking about, and is a "welfare queen".... an individual who is quite rich from the misguided lavishing of taxpayer money on "official government news". He's a one-man argument for zeroing out the waste of taxpayer dollars on PBS, NPR, etc.

    But worst of all is his bad idea "Let's share the sacrifice. Spread the suffering. Let's bring back the draft."

    There are a lot of great arguments against the draft. And many are from the Left, actually. That Moyers wants to increase "suffering" shows rather ill intent. There's certainly no actual need for a draft unless current recruitment policies aren't getting enough soldiers. And that is not happening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://bit.ly/2INMuw

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting recieved $420 million dollars in FY 2010.

    http://bit.ly/t0Kux

    The Department of Defense recieved $617 billion.

    I'm not sure of much, but I'm damned sure the CPB has done more to enrich my life than the DOD has.

    And I don't think Moyers is advocating suffering-he's just suggesting we should all share it. A vanishingly small percentage of Americans are or have been veterans. If Afghanistan is critical to our nation's security, then the children of the Congressmen who vote to put them there and the columnists who cheer them on should have to feel the burden, too. It's awful easy to be brave when it's not you or your family's blood that's going to be shed.

    It's a provocative notion, not a realistic one. I don't think anyone is seriously considering it. What's more, from what I've read, the military doesn't want draftees-they are poor soldiers, as a rule.

    But is there anything so very wrong about suggesting that those who so forcefully advocate war have some skin in the game?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The CPB money was higher than I thought. Close to half a billion. All of it unnecessary, since the private sector readily provides all of the media we need.

    The armed forces are a Constitutionally-required function of the Federal government. Official government television programming (or any media of any kind) is not.

    "I'm not sure of much, but I'm damned sure the CPB has done more to enrich my life than the DOD has."

    Well, this saying comes to mind: "If You Value Your Freedom - Thank a Veteran". Big Bird may be nice and all, but I'd rather thank a veteran for enriching all of our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right-my comment was uncalled for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But Moyers' point remains-those who advocate for the war don't pay the price. The veterans do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. On second thought, no.

    There hasn't been a serious threat to American freedom (from overseas) since World War II.

    We still spend way, way too much on expensive weapons systems that are full of waste and graft and theft for defense contractors.

    Cut $500 million of waste from the DOD, and pay for CPB with that.

    CPB does enrich lives, without commercial interference, providing artistic programming that commercial broadcasters don't have the guts to show.

    I still think they've done more for me than the $600 billion of the DOD.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael said: "Cut $500 million of waste from the DOD, and pay for CPB with that. "

    I'm sure we could find some waste to cut in the DOD. However, simply don't need official government news. In fact, government interference in the free press this way might even go counter to the First Amendment.

    Vaccinate poor children with the money instead. Or something else really worthwhile. The "providing artistic programming that commercial broadcasters don't have the guts to show." argument might have worked in the 1970s (back when there was real media concentration and few choices), but now, cable channels do most anything PBS does. Besides, PBS and all that would exist fine if they were cut off the dole.

    -------

    "There hasn't been a serious threat to American freedom (from overseas) since World War II."

    Thanks again to the DOD.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Honestly, you're right.

    I do wish CPB would go to 100% viewer support, if only because it would give conservatives one less thing to complain about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But Moyers' point remains-those who advocate for the war don't pay the price. The veterans do."

    I don't buy the idea that having been a veteran or not determines ones qualifications for having views on these issues.

    If this were true, Obama would bow out of any defense/war policy situations, and leave them up to Senator McCain. Who actually happens to be a veteran, and who happens to be in favor of fighting back at the terrorists more than President Obama is.

    --------

    "I do wish CPB would go to 100% viewer support, if only because it would give conservatives one less thing to complain about."

    I would consider donating to them again. I used to donate, for several years in a row. Then I realized that I was being forced to donate against my will already. So why give anything extra?

    Yes, one less complete waste of money to complain about would be a good thing :)

    ReplyDelete

I apologize for making you sign in, but I'm trying to cut down on spam.