Moonlight Graham

How much did you watch? Did you at least get past the introduction speaker (that guy is a bit of a loser) & into the actual lecture?

Never said the Cold War was a time of "relative peace". In the link you posted, spending shot up during Korea and Vietnam. yes there was a ton of spending during the entire cold war because of nukes etc. as you said, but the most spending was during actual major military engagements with lots of troops on the ground. My main point was just that most of the time, major ground war by the U.S. is waged for security reasons, whether physical security, resource security etc. However, the military industrial complex adds fuel to the fire, and adds major incentives to start/continue/escalate these major conflicts. As the topic states, war is big business.

Great points. I think the timetable has several goals. 1. it puts pressure on the Afghan gov't & tells them the US wont be there forever, 2. It lets the Afghan people know the US isn't there indefinitely, which is good for Afghans because they resent foreign occupation, 3. It lets the American people know the war isn't forever, providing the admin domestic political gains. I'm sure there are a myriad of other positive reasons the Obama admin sees for providing a timetable. They obviously weighed the decision against the pros/cons of not providing a timetable and concluded this was the better course of action. i guess we'll have to wait to see if they're right.

I didn't mean it by saying the taliban are completely winning the fight. But they are bringing it to the US/NATO, the fight is about even between the two sides. Both sides are really causing trouble for each other. The U.S./NATO did most of the damage to the Taliban at the beginning of the war when they ousted them from gov't and drove them out of areas, but since then NATO is having a real hard time making overall gains.

Obviously defense spending isn't going to be as high during times of relative peace than during times of large-scale war when the draft is brought it. But as you can see on the chart you linked, the GDP spending goes up during each time of major war. I agree with you on your point though. However, i think it works both ways. Wars are waged and create temporary violence to ensure long-term security & peace. However, it also makes it much easier to start wars & keep them going or escalate them when it can create enormous financial gains to those with political leverage. And unfortunately, in some cases the financial gains are the main motivator for certain conflicts or arms dealing, not security.

Its not really that long, you can skip the 5-minute introduction by that other annoying guy, and the last half of the video is a question period. The lecture itself is only about 30 minutes or so. But mainly the lecture argues that U.S. foreign policy should return to a "concert of power" system as was used after WWII during the Cold War. After the Cold War, the U.S. gov't thought that the best way to provide the most security to the U.S. and the world was to create a US hegemony, which still exists today obviously. The lecturer argues that hegemony isn't the best system of security for the international community, but concert of power is. He bases his argument on the original goals of the U.S. constitution, and uses quotes from many of America's great political thinkers (Washington, Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower etc.). He brings up many other fascinating points. Its not coming from a current neo-con perspective, or a lefty peace-lover argument, its very common sense & realpolitik. Just watch the first 5 minutes of the guy's speech and see if it hooks you.

That's a very dangerous plan. It could work if the military build-up would just prepare us to defend ourselves. But people are greedy. They don't just stop at a build-up, they want to start wars in order to produce even more arms. And they make foreign conflicts even worse by selling arms to foreign countries and groups. This has obviously happened in the U.S. at a huge level, i wouldn't want Canada trying to copy it.

This is an incredibly enlightening and thought-provoking lecture if you're interested in U.S. foreign policy, or even US political history. Check it out, the guy comes at the issue from a very bipartisan, non-ideological perspective.

Thank you very much.

Very interesting theory! Is Obama & co. this smart? But you forgot another scenario: what if the Taliban actually keeps kicking U.S. arse by the end of the 18 months? How do they declare victory then?

I sort of agree. It is ideological in a way. Really, how so? You are referring to "peace" in what way exactly? War to secure peace? Humanitarian action?

Regarding Obama's new strategy, i think its flawed. Publicly stating that the U.S. will withdraw troops in 18 months is idiotic, its gives the Taliban etc. the message of if they just hold out until then, then they win. And if the pullout is based on "the situation on the ground", then all the insurgents have to do is stop fighting for those 18 months, making it seems to the U.S. as if the situation is better, and then when they withdraw the Taliban can take down control of the country again. Also, what the HECK does Obama think the military can accomplish in 18 months? The troops will hardly be there by the time they may leave. Its all political in my view. I'm glad many others have expressed their displeasure about the 18 month drawdown. If NATO/U.S. wish to continue the military operations route, i think Obama should have ordered the troops without any drawdown date, and seen over the next 18-24 months if the situation improves or not. if it does, then they can keep at it, if it doesn't then think about ending the military operations.

And 'eyeball' will say whatever he pleases about your President, regardless of what you think. Yes Americans & their government can do whatever they want, but they will deal with the consequences of those actions also.

It's a very difficult problem to solve because 1. The general population doesn't care enough to educate themselves, therefore don't even know this issue even exists, and 2. even if they know about it, do they care enough to raise poop and try to stop. Once most people realize they are largely just puppets, maybe they'll want that to change.

That's a big pile of bologna. Just like there haven't been any "i told you so's" from the pro-war/pro-Bush crowd with the "success" of the troop surge in Iraq? Neither side in these debates can claim to be "taking the high road" over the other.

The report puts most of the blame of Rumsfeld actually. A different piece of poop, but the same toilet.

How exactly are we going to strengthen the Afghan military enough for NATO to be able to leave and protect its sovereignty from attacks from the Taliban if NATO itself, and the country with the most powerful military in the world leading the fight, cannot even defend Afghanistan adequately from the Taliban? The Afghan military has no air-force whatsoever. That should give us some idea of how far the Afghan military has to come before we can leave. It's going to take decades and trillions of dollars to get Afghanistan able to defend itself against the Taliban as well as we are now, which isn't very well at all! And at the same time, yes you are indirectly calling for a military dictatorship in Afghanistan because that is what more than likely gong to happen if we prop up this military and leave. Sooner or later, which has happened in other developing countries before, is that when we leave Afghanistan, giving them this powerful army to protect itself from the bad guys who will likely become the bad guys themselves. A military coup is initiated, goodbye democratic government we spent much lives/money/years fostering, and hello to yet another in the long list of corrupt and violent authoritarian regimes ruling a country in the "third world". There are other instances where the West has politically, financially, and militarily supported/assisted regimes, having it blow up in their faces years later. Here's one example. The problems in Afghanistan are vast. It is the second lowest ranking nation on the U.N.'s Human Development Index (HDI) for 2009. It is a very complex situation. For those of you who are saying that i'm just being a defeatist, that's B.S. I'm being realistic. I'm looking at the evidence, looking at the country, it's history/society/culture, what has occurred in other developing countries, and making an informed opinion. I believe this troop surge, in the long-term, is going to have a negative affect on Afghanistan and on Canada/NATO countries. You can "hope" all you want, but its better to deal in evidence than wishful thinking. I can hope all i want that the fat limping horse who lost 20 of its last 22 races is going to win the next race, but odds say its not likely gooing to happen.

Very interesting. Obviously there is an difference in regime change, and military invasion + regime change. I read the law you posted. It seems to support regime change in that the U.S. may help fund and assist democratic opposition parties in Iraq in replacing Saddam's regime. There is one part that mentions the U.S. military but it is slightly vague, maybe purposely so lol. But it clearly does not call for invasion as a means, but more or less a U.S.-backed coup. Wondering what you get out of the meaning of this law? Anyways, quite interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I certainly do hope the best for Afghans, much more than my hope to stroke my ego with an "i told u so".. If this works, and in 50 years Afghanistan is a better country for it, then that would be wonderful. But i'm not very optimistic about this based on the realities of situation in the country, and i'm not afraid to criticize this decision. I'd much rather us 'do what is best' than 'hope for the best'.

The fan is still moving, and s**t keeps hitting it. The article goes on further. link

This isn't just politics, its plain fraud. It's corrupt manipulation of data and research.

i was being sarcastic

Hey, it'll be neat to look back at this topic in 5 years when the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan in basically the same situation they're in now.

Made his decision obviously: Also of note, i found this in another article in the Guardian:

Not responding to you in particular, but China is not possible in Afghanistan, not in the next few decades or so at the very least. China & India were able to able to rise up economically because they had basic infrastructure in place and tons of cheap labour available before global manufacturers came calling. Afghanistan is not industrialized like China was a few decades ago. Countries can't just build a few factories and *POOF* we've got some cheap manufacturing going on in Afghanistan.