Response to Rick Horowitz in Wisc State Journal

Yes, Rick, you're right about one thing: Obama did indeed wage a campaign that included in its platform a promise to significantly escalate the war in Afghanistan. But you go too far in implying "we" were all clamoring for more intervention in that tormented, much-destroyed country. I, for one, was not. True, armchair imperialists and reflexively militaristic personalities behave as if they have the right, nay the "duty" to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries. They do so with or without cause, and whether or not they possess the constitutionally required declaration of war. Obviously, in the case of our current wars of aggression, they do not have such a mandate. They have lacked it since World War Two ended in 1945.

BTW, according to the official story released by the members of the 911 Commission, the group that crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon included 15 Saudi citizens. Should we have therefore bombed Riyadh in retaliation, Rick? I guess not, since they have "our" oil under that faraway sand, right?

And the sad fact remains, Barack Obama plans to send 30,000 more Americans, 30,000 more sacrificial soldiers, to Afghanistan. Don't say I failed to warn him, Congress, and the American people. This is a fiasco of historic dimensions! Going along with General McChrystal and his "strategic" plan is a recipe for disaster. McChrystal is a General annoyance and a fool who is doing a major dis-service to the United States. I guess the new Commander-in-Chief feels he has to act like one "ought to act." Whatever the Joint Chiefs of Staff want, they always get, right? Does it always have to be so? Of course not, if "we" try a different approach, one that isn't creating more enemies than "we" can kill. How about some humanitarian aid? Oh, that's right, such an idea is now unthinkable, given our current economic predicament. Yet we can waste another $30 billion at a crack trying to "pacify" a country populated by people who cannot stand us. "We" are illegal invaders and occupiers, after all.

Escalating this quagmire now is an affront to the entire global community. The unmanned aerial drone attacks are a reckless, cowardly way of waging a "war on the cheap." And as far as "our" troop commitments, the New York Times reported in November that it now costs $1,000,000 annually to put one US soldier on the ground over there. Would you care to pay that cost yourself, Rick? Such generosity on your part would spare the rest of us, or at least those of us opposed to America's permanent war economy, a big expense!