Obama Touts the Money We'll Save with Health Reforms, While We Quietly Spend Billions on Bush's Wars

The debates over health care reform and the war in Afghanistan are dogged by the same questions: What is the cost to us? How have our priorities changed?

By Byard Duncan, AlterNet

That President Barack Obama's most important domestic policy speech of 2009 coincides almost exactly with the eighth anniversary of 9/11 should not be ignored.
This is because the debates surrounding both health care reform and the war in Afghanistan are dogged by the same questions: What is the cost to the American people? How have our priorities changed? How long can we afford to place political dogma above human life before we are overwhelmed by the consequences?
In Wednesday's speech, Obama did his best to bounce between bipartisanship and big-stick politics. He called out the right's "demagoguery and distortion," only after first mentioning his "Republican friends." He sprinkled assurances of cost-cutting into a critique of the previous administration's fiscal policy. His words about the public option -- easily one of the health care debate's most ferociously contested issues -- were essentially sanded down and smoothed out, docile.
"The public option is only a means to that end," Obama said. "And we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."
The word "Afghanistan" was only uttered once, when Obama pointed out that the cost of health care over the next 10 years would fall short of the total spent by the United States thus far on its two wars.
The numbers were supposed to be good news -- they meant that one policy priority (seemingly, the more immediate and important one, the one that directly affects 50 million Americans) would not strangle the U.S.'s ability to continue our "good war." Subtly, Obama was assuring Americans that they could win on both fronts.
The subtlety, though, is deceptive. Yes, health care will only cost $900 billion over the next 10 years. But thanks to Obama's decidedly hawkish stance on Afghanistan -- a war nearing its eighth year and conjuring comparisons to Vietnam -- the United States stands to foot a serious bill abroad.
According to the Center for Defense Information, the total cost of the war in Afghanistan will reach $439.8 billion by the end of 2009.
The United States, which spent exactly 10 times more on Afghanistan in 2008 ($140 billion) than it spent in 2002 ($14 billion), increased such efforts by $33 billion in just the last year. Obama's escalation, largely overshadowed by the health reform's incendiary spectacle, has been swift and significant.
It's also showing no signs of slowing down. On Thursday, a Senate subcommittee approved 2010's $636.3 billion defense appropriations bill. Of this, $128.2 billion has been set aside for "overseas contingency operations."
Simple multiplication tells us that the cost of maintaining this rate of defense spending for the next decade would eventually make Afghanistan $300 billion more expensive than the health care overhaul's projected cost.
And that's just dollars and cents. The more implicit (and insidious) cost to maintaining a presence in Afghanistan is ideological.
The U.S.'s approach to war -- one that rationalizes poverty and civilian casualties through flimsy rhetorical attempts at "stabilizing" or "helping" the culture that is being bombed and crippled -- is a mind-set that provokes, not prevents, acts of terrorism.

To read more HERE.

We Can't Afford to Wait
MoveOn.org members and R.E.M. speak out for health care reform. We need a public option now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GoFj8Fc9iM

A Movement to Make Obama Bring an End to War

Time to answer Obama's call and "make him do it."

Posted by Robert Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Brave New Foundation .

AlterNet

Co-authored by Jane Hamsher.

In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge. They would never again vote to fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal.
Republican critics accused them of demagoguing the war. Of using our soldiers as a political pawns, of not meaning what they said.
Those who signed that pledge need to cast their vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act on Tuesday and prove them wrong.
We may agree or disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq, but a promise is a promise. Anti-war activists have supported these members of Congress because of that 2007 pledge. They knocked on doors and distributed leaflets and donated to their campaigns. They and marched side by side with them as they sought to bring an end to the war that still lingers in Iraq and escalates in Afghanistan, as the new film Rethink Afghanistan documents.

When Barack Obama declared his presidential candidacy, he said “Start leaving we must. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.” But Obama’s 2008 victory was only half the battle for those who want to bring an end the war.
Obama was once asked about how he planned to solve the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. He responded by telling a story about Franklin Roosevelt who, when asked if he could address the plight of African Americans, said:
You know, Mr. Randolph, I’ve heard everything you’ve said tonight, and I couldn’t agree with you more. I agree with everything that you’ve said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit….But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it.
It’s the president’s job to make the best decisions he can and keep the country governable at the same time. When it comes to highly divisive issues like the war, he’s got to consider many factors — including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on the situation. It’s the public’s job to create the political space for him to move in. For those who supported his candidacy because we wanted to bring an end to the war, it means we have to answer his call to go out and “make him do it.”
We’re working with state blogs from across the country to sound the call to action:
Square State (Colorado)
Turn Maine Blue (Maine)
Michigan Liberal (Michigan)
Burnt Orange Report (Texas)
Green Mountain Daily (Vermont)
Not Larry Sabato (Virginia)
My Left Nutmeg (Connecticut)
Blue Mass Group (Massachusetts)
Calitics (California)
The Albany Project (New York)
Blog for Arizona (Arizona)
There is a movement growing now to create the climate for change to occur. If progressives will stand together, we can have a real voice in working with President Obama to shape our nation’s future.
AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Campaign to stop IMF and war funding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTxa6hlu3k

Why Isn't This on CNN? Afghan Refugee Describes Recent US Bombings

Exclusive footage inside a refugee camp in Afghanistan following US airstrikes.

Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Foundation , Alternet.

Why isn't this footage on CNN or MSNBC? Why can't the American public have easy access to it? Those are questions we should be asking ourselves as we watch the powerful images of Abdullah Khan, a refugee from Afghanistan's Helmland province forced to seek shelter in an IDP camp outside Kabul.

Innocent people who lost loved ones and limbs, homes and all possessions during recent US airstrikes are now living in tents, unable to provide food or water for themselves or their children. It's no wonder Khan, who lost two or three family members himself, resents the US military presence so deeply. "Americans don't do us any good," he says. "When the Americans came these atrocities happened. When the Americans were not here, things were calm; there was the same earth and sky. When the Russians came, they bombarded us, and also now the Americans are bombarding us. What benefit did the Americans bring us?"
This exclusive footage is from the soon-to-be-released fourth segment of Rethink Afghanistan, which focuses on civilian casualties. Brave New Foundation is releasing it in the hopes that others use it to raise awareness about the dire situation on the ground in Afghanistan right now, but thus far, it appears the corporate media is not doing their job in covering this war accurately. When US airstrikes killed up to 143 civilians in Farah province last month -- an attack that was the direct result of military error -- FireDogLake blogger Siun discovered CNN was merely repeating the Department of Defense's spin on the story.
I guarantee if footage like this ever found its way onto major news networks, public opinion about the war in Afghanistan would be dramatically different. Congress wouldn't be on the verge of approving $96.7 billion in supplemental wartime funding, the President and military leaders wouldn't be able to call for tens of thousands more troops so easily, and there would be a public outcry for the Pentagon to provide an exit strategy.
You can also help make sure a wider audience sees this video with a few clicks on the following networking sites: digg, current, stumbleupon, and reddit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxFRhCkjWDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duTqOf7u6yI

Obama to Bring More Mercenaries to Afghanistan -- Sound Familiar?

As Obama begins winding down the war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. Like Bush, he will depend on private military contractors.

By Jim Hightower, Creators Syndicate.

AlterNet

Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to war we go!
As President Barack Obama begins winding down the Bush war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. We're told that it will be a new, expanded, extra-special American adventure in Afghanistan, involving a vigorous surge strategy to "stabilize" this perpetually unstable land.
The initial surge will add 17,000 troops to the 36,000 already there. Then, later this year, there is to be a second troop surge of another 17,000 or so. This mass of soldiers is expected to be deployed to a series of new garrisons to be built in far-flung regions of this impoverished, rural, mostly illiterate warlord state that is ruled by hundreds of fractious, heavily armed tribal leaders. We're not told how much this escalation will cost, but it will at least double the $2 billion a month that American taxpayers are already shelling out for the Afghan war.
The extra-special part of this effort is to come from a simultaneous "civilian surge" of hundreds of U.S. economic development experts. "What we can't do," said Obama in an interview last Sunday, "is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems." To win the hearts (and cooperation) of the Afghan people, this development leg of the operation will try to build infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.), create new crop alternatives to lure hardscrabble farmers out of poppy production and generally lift the country's bare-subsistence living standard.
What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors. Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America's good name.
Already, there are 71,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan, and many more are preparing to deploy as Pentagon spending ramps up for Obama's war. The military is now offering new contracts to security firms to provide armed employees (aka, mercenaries) to guard U.S. bases and convoys. Despite the widespread contractor abuses in Iraq, Pentagon chief Robert Gates defends the ongoing privatization push: "The use of contractor security personnel is vital to supporting the forward-operating bases in certain parts of the country," he declared in a February letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
What the gentle war secretary is really saying is this: "We don't have a draft, and I don't see a lot of senators' kinfolks volunteering to put their butts on the line in Afghanistan, so I've gotta pay through the nose to find enough privateers to guard America's Army in this forbidding place."

Meanwhile, here's an interesting twist to Obama's contractor surge: the for-hire guards protecting our bases and convoys will not likely be Americans. The Associated Press has reported that of the 3,847 security contractors in Afghanistan, only nine are U.S. firms.
Actually, being an American contractor is not a plus in the eyes of the Afghan people, for they've had bitter experiences with them. They point to DynCorp, a Virginia-based contractor that got nearly a billion dollars in 2006 to train Afghan police. The bumbling "Inspector Clouseau" of comic fame could've done a better job. At least he might have amused the people.
What they got from DynCorp was a bunch of highly paid American "advisors" who were unqualified and knew nothing about the country. Some 70,000 police were to be trained, but less than half that number actually went through the ridiculous eight-week program, which included no field training.
A 2006 U.S. report on the DynCorp trainees deemed them to be "incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work." Meanwhile, no one knows how many of the trainees ever reported for duty, or what happened to thousands of missing trucks and other pieces of police equipment that had been issued for the training.
The punch line of this joke is that DynCorp got another contract ($317 million) last August to "continue training civilian police forces in Afghanistan."
Excuse me for saying it, but Obama is about to sink us -- and his presidency -- into a mess.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.