Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

"AfPak": time to cut the losses « Previous | |Next »
November 1, 2009

There are now three epicentres of the US's 'long war' - Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and the US is not winning in Afghanistan as the Taliban insurgency spreads the country.

It's time to cut the losses and pull out of Afghanistan. However, as Tom Engelhardt observes:

All we do know, based on the last year, is that "more" in whatever form is likely to prove a nightmare, and yet anything less than escalation of some sort is not in the cards. No one in Washington is truly going to cut U.S. losses anytime soon. In the Vietnam era, there was a shorthand word for this: "quagmire." ...If the Afghan War is already too big to fail, what in the world will it be after the escalations to come? As with Vietnam, so now with Afghanistan, the thick layers of mythology and fervent prediction and projection that pass for realism in Washington make clear thinking on the war impossible. They prevent the serious consideration of any options labeled "less" or "none." They inflate projections of disaster based on withdrawal, even though similar lurid predictions during the Vietnam era proved hopelessly off-base.

This is happening in the context of waning American power in the world, a decline that has been hastened by the global financial crisis.

America's global preeminence will gradually disappear over the next 15 years -- in conjunction with the rise of new global powerhouses, especially China and India.There will also be unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future. The days of America's unquestioned global dominance have probably

Michael Klare asks: What is the point of expanding America's military commitments abroad at a time when its global preeminence is waning? How long before the Americans realize that they can continue to afford to subsidize a global role that includes garrisoning much of the planet and fighting distant wars in the name of global security, when the American economy is losing so much ground to its competitors?

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:51 AM | | Comments (2)


We were warned... if South Vietnam fell, it was inevitable that the Commies would conquer Cairns. Now we're being told that the Taliban will take Tamworth.

Isn't there a theory abroad, that America is happy with the current configuration of global influence, based on its ability to produce advanced weapons for its clients to buy off of it for wars oftened contributed to in their commencement by it, anyway?
We have built in obsolescence,institutionalised debt for clients and an artificially created market, whilst the tech remains in the USA.