5 ms·

in a nutshell. . - We went after the Taliban and failed to extinguish its power and reach. - We attempted to equip and train afghan forces to defend and maint

in a nutshell. . - We went after the Taliban and failed to extinguish its power and reach. - We attempted to equip and train afghan forces to defend and maintain peace in their own country and failed. I have several family members who have done numerous tours in the Middle East and they've referred to the Afghan "trainees" as "clowns" who don't care at all about what they've been tasked with doing. All they care about is getting a few extra dollars to give to their family. - We spent a ton of money of economic development but most of it was siphoned off because of corruption. - We spent a ton of money of additional reconstruction programs but most of that money was wasted because of poor planning and corruption. - And we spent a few trillions taking care of the vets who fought in the war. Not sure why this on the list, since you would think we should take care of our veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in. Despite all this money. . . Still, life has improved, particularly in the country’s cities, where opportunities for education have grown. Many more girls are now in school. And democratic institutions have been built — although they are shaky at best. To conclude, it would seem the Afghan people are just fine living under an oppressive regime in the Taliban, delight in taking the US money and siphon it off to their tribal leaders or families who are in positions of power and have no desire to be free or to even fight for their own freedom. The middle east has become a bottomless money pit and its time we get out and let these people fight their own wars and secure their own freedom on their own.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
In 2004 and 2008, our involvement in and withdrawal from Middle Eastern wars was a divisive political campaign issue that decided the vote for some significant number of voters. Today we are still militarily involved in the same countries (and then some) and neither politicians nor voters seem to even care enough to report on. The time to leave the Middle East was well over a decade ago but no one in the mainstream challenges the state of engaging in perpetual military aggression.
magduf 7y ago
>- And we spent a few trillions taking care of the vets who fought in the war. Not sure why this on the list, since you would think we should take care of our veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in. No, not exactly: in an alternate timeline where we never invaded Afghanistan, the actual costs of taking care of vets would be much, much lower. We wouldn't have had nearly as many vets in the first place (recruiting goes way up when there's a conflict), plus the actual costs to take care of them go way up with a conflict because of all the damage they suffer (injuries, PTSD, etc.). Sure, we should take care of our vets, but the cost to do this is a small fraction when there was active conflict. The costs of taking care of our vets who served in the 1980s, for instance, is probably relatively puny, and the costs for taking care of our vets who served in the late 1990s is probably next to nothing.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  >> taking care of our vets who served in the late 1990s is probably next to nothing. No, not really. Have you forgotten about the Gulf War Illness? In the 25 years since Desert Storm, about 250,000 of the almost 700,000 involved in the Gulf War 1 theater have suffered from some version of the complex of symptoms now called Gulf War Illness. This illness was discussed in a recent symposium co-hosted by the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University Medical Center. While Desert Storm battle casualties were light, military personnel were exposed to various chemical and biological agents. These included Pyridostigmine Bromide, to prevent the effects of nerve gases which had been used previously by Iraq; organophosphate pesticides (such as DEET) which were embedded in clothing; particulate airborne matter from oil fires; and, possibly sarin exposure from a plume arising from an Iraqi munitions depot at Khamasiyah. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160804.056038/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160804.05603... There's also new studies claiming Gulf War vets are aging faster as well: “Gulf War veterans are showing accelerated aging patterns resulting in more and earlier chronic medical conditions than the general population of civilians,” says study senior author Kimberly Sullivan, research assistant professor of environmental health. “There is precedent for this type of toxicant-induced disorder in veterans from other wars. For instance, many Vietnam veterans developed chronic conditions of high blood pressure, diabetes, and many types of cancers that were related to exposure to Agent Orange.” https://www.bu.edu/sph/2019/03/18/gulf-war-veterans-aging-faster/ https://www.bu.edu/sph/2019/03/18/gulf-war-veterans-aging-fa...
  - magduf 7y ago
    >No, not really. Have you forgotten about the Gulf War Illness? No, I didn't forget, but I disagree that it cost much to deal with. As I remember, the VA just completely ignored it, so it probably didn't cost the taxpayer much at all. Sure, it was terrible for the vets who suffered with it, but that's a different matter.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

In 2004 and 2008, our involvement in and withdrawal from Middle Eastern wars was a divisive political campaign issue that decided the vote for some significant number of voters. Today we are still militarily involved in the same countries (and then some) and neither politicians nor voters seem to even care enough to report on. The time to leave the Middle East was well over a decade ago but no one in the mainstream challenges the state of engaging in perpetual military aggression.

magduf 7y ago

>- And we spent a few trillions taking care of the vets who fought in the war. Not sure why this on the list, since you would think we should take care of our veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in. No, not exactly: in an alternate timeline where we never invaded Afghanistan, the actual costs of taking care of vets would be much, much lower. We wouldn't have had nearly as many vets in the first place (recruiting goes way up when there's a conflict), plus the actual costs to take care of them go way up with a conflict because of all the damage they suffer (injuries, PTSD, etc.). Sure, we should take care of our vets, but the cost to do this is a small fraction when there was active conflict. The costs of taking care of our vets who served in the 1980s, for instance, is probably relatively puny, and the costs for taking care of our vets who served in the late 1990s is probably next to nothing.

at-fates-hands 7y ago
>> taking care of our vets who served in the late 1990s is probably next to nothing. No, not really. Have you forgotten about the Gulf War Illness? In the 25 years since Desert Storm, about 250,000 of the almost 700,000 involved in the Gulf War 1 theater have suffered from some version of the complex of symptoms now called Gulf War Illness. This illness was discussed in a recent symposium co-hosted by the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University Medical Center. While Desert Storm battle casualties were light, military personnel were exposed to various chemical and biological agents. These included Pyridostigmine Bromide, to prevent the effects of nerve gases which had been used previously by Iraq; organophosphate pesticides (such as DEET) which were embedded in clothing; particulate airborne matter from oil fires; and, possibly sarin exposure from a plume arising from an Iraqi munitions depot at Khamasiyah. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160804.056038/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160804.05603... There's also new studies claiming Gulf War vets are aging faster as well: “Gulf War veterans are showing accelerated aging patterns resulting in more and earlier chronic medical conditions than the general population of civilians,” says study senior author Kimberly Sullivan, research assistant professor of environmental health. “There is precedent for this type of toxicant-induced disorder in veterans from other wars. For instance, many Vietnam veterans developed chronic conditions of high blood pressure, diabetes, and many types of cancers that were related to exposure to Agent Orange.” https://www.bu.edu/sph/2019/03/18/gulf-war-veterans-aging-faster/ https://www.bu.edu/sph/2019/03/18/gulf-war-veterans-aging-fa...
- magduf 7y ago
  >No, not really. Have you forgotten about the Gulf War Illness? No, I didn't forget, but I disagree that it cost much to deal with. As I remember, the VA just completely ignored it, so it probably didn't cost the taxpayer much at all. Sure, it was terrible for the vets who suffered with it, but that's a different matter.