Joseph L. Galloway: Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life

[laststeamtrain]

Commentary: Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life
Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: September 04, 2009 09:49:25 AM

The debate over our creeping military mission in distant Afghanistan grows ever hotter, and before we march even deeper into trouble, perhaps it’s time to dig out the old Powell Doctrine and answer the eight questions it poses.

Gen. Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said these questions all must be answered with a loud YES before the United States takes military action. He listed his questions in the 1990 run-up to the Persian Gulf War, drawing heavily on the Weinberger Doctrine that was laid down by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger during the debate over America's ends and means in Lebanon.

* 1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

* 2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

* 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

* 4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted?

* 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

* 6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered?

* 7. Is the action supported by the American people?

* 8. Do we have broad international support?

Those questions weren't asked and answered before we invaded Afghanistan late in 2001, and by the time we invaded Iraq early in 2003, then-defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was declaring the Powell doctrine "outmoded" as he ran premature victory laps around a fleeting success in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration is gone, but both Iraq and Afghanistan are still with us, and now a new president is overseeing a slow-motion U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and a slow-motion U.S. escalation in Afghanistan.

It can fairly be argued that not a single affirmative answer can be given to Gen. Powell's eight questions with regard to the actions now planned or underway in Afghanistan. Had those questions been asked about Iraq in early 2003, not a single affirmative answer could have been given.

<more>

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/galloway/story/74876.html

[kenny blankenship]

1. I guess it depends on the value you assign to American lives.

It's pretty cheap, in some quarters.

[ixion]

2. it's not worth ANY OTHER human life, American or otherwise

I don't know why the hell country makes a difference.

[bhikkhu]

5. "Afghanistan: The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe"

http://www.afghan-web.com/

It is a beautiful country full of beautiful people, with a long and fascinating history, like most countries in the world. It has unfortunately served as a battlefield and tool for other power's proxy wars for decades, however.

[Tutankhamun]

8. Exactly, ixion. I don't understand why American lives are considered

infinitely more valuable than the lives of those who aren't American.

The same holds true in Iraq. The MSM frequetly reminds us that the Iraqi death toll is more than 4000 and counting, but rarely, if ever, mentions the more than 1 million Iraqi civilians who have died in Bush's war.

More than a million fucking people dead yet very few Americans have any idea that such an enormous amount of people have been slaughtered in their name.

Those "brown people" aren't real, actual humans so they don't really count in any important death toll.

[bhikkhu]

3. Its worth plenty of American lives

whether any purpose is served by continued military action is really the thrust of the article. If 10,000 American lives were lost to "save" Afghanistan that would certainly be worthwhile, but so far it looks quite the opposite - dying for no reason and saving nobody.

[msongs]

4. soon as any US presence leaves they will right back to the same ol way of living nt

[Democracyinkind]

7. depends on the commitment. With the mission as it is, you are certainly right.

[Democracyinkind]

6. It WOULD be worth many lives if we had a real plan and good intentions.

But sorry, under the current state of things nothing good can come of it. If we were there to actually better the lives of Afghans or if we were there to promote the emergence of a healthy state and society that is actually sought by its inhabitants it would be a different thing. Then maybe I would approve of risking american lives over there - given that the boys and girls we send over there actually consent to their mission and know what their in for and up against.