An 89-year-old regular at presidential press conferences recently asked President Obama the right question at a session he was having with the press—more a speech than a traditional press conference.
Helen Thomas (at presidential press conferences with the writer as far back as the sixties!) got in one of the limited number of questions after President Obama had used up most of the time defending his reaction to the Gulf oil disaster. She asked:
“Mr. President when are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?”
President Obama attempted to defend the war—now the longest war in American history. It has not claimed the lives of many American soldiers, compared to past wars (just over 1,000).
So this relatively small-scale war is not ruining the families of enough Americans in this country of over 300 million to produce a major reaction against it. But even one more death in Afghanistan is too many. We don’t know what the final result of our (and NATO) invasion of this Muslim nation will be. More and more estimates are that we can’t pacify this country and eliminate the Taliban.
The death toll in nearby Iraq has reached 4,401.
There were over 54,000 deaths in the Korean war. At least giving up the lives of 54,000 Americans accomplished something, though historically, Korea is none of our business—and we still have troops stationed out there.
Vietnam was a tragic waste of major proportions and that war shattered more than 58,000 families—for nothing gained.
There is a possibility our Afghan war will also produce no permanent gain. Taliban forces reoccupy areas in Afghanistan after our occupation to end Taliban influence.
A recent picture on the front page of the nation’s major newspapers showed a young wife who had lost her husband, killed in Afghanistan, brought the real horror of war into perspective—she was kneeling at the tombstone of her dead husband, in tears.
That’s what should have been remembered more on the recent Memorial Day. But too much emphasis on Memorial Day was glamorization of military units, and bravery.
The suffering of survivors should get more attention, and cause more hesitation on wars such as the gamble in Afghanistan, where we now provide half the NATO force, not a fourth, as when we entered the war. Many European allies have pulled their troops out.
Weapons Economy
As the Obama Administration searches for ways to reduce skyrocketing deficits, which must be reduced if the country is not to become an economic disaster, some fail to see how much money can be saved in military spending.
The first step could be to get out of the Muslim Middle East.
U.S. military officials say we have managed to defeat Iraqi based terrorists organizations. Thus President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing many of the over 80,000 U.S. troops still stationed there should begin.
One hopes he will also begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan next year—whether or not the war against terrorists there is completely victorious. Many see that requiring many years.
There’s the question whether we should continue the deployment of so many troops in the Far East, especially the more than 40,000 in Japan where the prime minister has just resigned, in protest to the continued presence of American troops in his country.
Another sure method of reducing defense spending is in the field of weapons. The nation currently maintains a stockpile of nuclear bombs numbering over 5,000. Many estimates conclude that in any future war, if nuclear weapons are ever used, a big if, less than a hundred would likely be enough to accomplish whatever the goal is, to bring about peace.
The huge stockpile is a relic of our Cold War competition with Russia, but even if a war with Russia had erupted, most believe the use of several hundred nuclear bombs would have been sufficient to achieve victory. After that—if it was a mutual nuclear bomb war—they would have effectively wrecked both countries.
One recent estimate is that our nuclear bomb stockpile should be 311 bombs, or at most 500. Russia would have to agree to a mutual reduction—which some Russian leaders have already contemplated.
Many now believe we can’t justify current enormous spending on several new weapons, such as the F-35 fighter, estimated to cost over 500 billion dollars before the current procurement is completed!
There are suggestions that we equip a number of our submarines with D-5 Trident missiles, which carry a nuclear warhead. Deploying 24, which has been suggested, on each of 12 submarines would translate to 192 missiles which could be positioned all over the world.
Our B-2 Stealth bombers could also be equipped to carry a nuclear weapon. All this would enable us to reduce the maintenance costs of a 5,113 nuclear weapons arsenal by many millions of dollars, some estimating a total savings at billions annually.
Looking At Washington: The Right Question
Helen Thomas (at presidential press conferences with the writer as far back as the sixties!) got in one of the limited number of questions after President Obama had used up most of the time defending his reaction to the Gulf oil disaster. She asked:
“Mr. President when are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?”
President Obama attempted to defend the war—now the longest war in American history. It has not claimed the lives of many American soldiers, compared to past wars (just over 1,000).
So this relatively small-scale war is not ruining the families of enough Americans in this country of over 300 million to produce a major reaction against it. But even one more death in Afghanistan is too many. We don’t know what the final result of our (and NATO) invasion of this Muslim nation will be. More and more estimates are that we can’t pacify this country and eliminate the Taliban.
The death toll in nearby Iraq has reached 4,401.
There were over 54,000 deaths in the Korean war. At least giving up the lives of 54,000 Americans accomplished something, though historically, Korea is none of our business—and we still have troops stationed out there.
Vietnam was a tragic waste of major proportions and that war shattered more than 58,000 families—for nothing gained.
There is a possibility our Afghan war will also produce no permanent gain. Taliban forces reoccupy areas in Afghanistan after our occupation to end Taliban influence.
A recent picture on the front page of the nation’s major newspapers showed a young wife who had lost her husband, killed in Afghanistan, brought the real horror of war into perspective—she was kneeling at the tombstone of her dead husband, in tears.
That’s what should have been remembered more on the recent Memorial Day. But too much emphasis on Memorial Day was glamorization of military units, and bravery.
The suffering of survivors should get more attention, and cause more hesitation on wars such as the gamble in Afghanistan, where we now provide half the NATO force, not a fourth, as when we entered the war. Many European allies have pulled their troops out.
Weapons Economy
As the Obama Administration searches for ways to reduce skyrocketing deficits, which must be reduced if the country is not to become an economic disaster, some fail to see how much money can be saved in military spending.
The first step could be to get out of the Muslim Middle East.
U.S. military officials say we have managed to defeat Iraqi based terrorists organizations. Thus President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing many of the over 80,000 U.S. troops still stationed there should begin.
One hopes he will also begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan next year—whether or not the war against terrorists there is completely victorious. Many see that requiring many years.
There’s the question whether we should continue the deployment of so many troops in the Far East, especially the more than 40,000 in Japan where the prime minister has just resigned, in protest to the continued presence of American troops in his country.
Another sure method of reducing defense spending is in the field of weapons. The nation currently maintains a stockpile of nuclear bombs numbering over 5,000. Many estimates conclude that in any future war, if nuclear weapons are ever used, a big if, less than a hundred would likely be enough to accomplish whatever the goal is, to bring about peace.
The huge stockpile is a relic of our Cold War competition with Russia, but even if a war with Russia had erupted, most believe the use of several hundred nuclear bombs would have been sufficient to achieve victory. After that—if it was a mutual nuclear bomb war—they would have effectively wrecked both countries.
One recent estimate is that our nuclear bomb stockpile should be 311 bombs, or at most 500. Russia would have to agree to a mutual reduction—which some Russian leaders have already contemplated.
Many now believe we can’t justify current enormous spending on several new weapons, such as the F-35 fighter, estimated to cost over 500 billion dollars before the current procurement is completed!
There are suggestions that we equip a number of our submarines with D-5 Trident missiles, which carry a nuclear warhead. Deploying 24, which has been suggested, on each of 12 submarines would translate to 192 missiles which could be positioned all over the world.
Our B-2 Stealth bombers could also be equipped to carry a nuclear weapon. All this would enable us to reduce the maintenance costs of a 5,113 nuclear weapons arsenal by many millions of dollars, some estimating a total savings at billions annually.