Trump Gets the Bear: Today's News for August 22nd

Read on to understand why...

Associated Press:

Trump says US can't afford quick Afghanistan withdrawal

President Donald Trump declared Monday night the United States must continue fighting in Afghanistan to avoid the "predictable and unacceptable" results of a rapid withdrawal from the country where the U.S. has been at war for 16 years.

In a prime-time address to the nation, Trump said his "original instinct was to pull out," alluding to his long-expressed view before becoming president that Afghanistan was a unsolvable quagmire requiring a fast U.S. withdrawal. Since taking office, Trump said, he'd determined that approach could create a vacuum that terrorists including al-Qaida and the Islamic State could "instantly fill."

In other words, the American generals lobbied him and got their way, like they have done with the last two presidents.

Continuing:

Though his speech was billed as an announcement of his updated Afghanistan policy, Trump offered few specifics about what it would entail. He did not provide a number of additional troops that will be sent to the war, though U.S. officials said ahead of the speech they expect him to go along with a Pentagon recommendation for nearly 4,000 new troops.

"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities," Trump said. "Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on."

There are roughly 8,400 American forces in Afghanistan now. At its peak, the U.S. had roughly 100,000 forces there, under the Obama administration in 2010-2011.

Trump said the American people are "weary of war without victory."

"I share the America people's frustration," Trump said at the Army's Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the White House. Still, he insisted that "in the end, we will win."

So how do we win? What is our definition?

Fox News:

Afghanistan speech: Trump rejects ‘timetables,’ ups pressure on Pakistan, 

refocuses on ‘killing terrorists’

President Trump outlined a comprehensive new strategy Monday night for achieving a “lasting peace” in Afghanistan – rejecting what he called “arbitrary timetables” for the U.S. troop presence, ratcheting up pressure on Pakistan to stop harboring militants and vowing to refocus the mission on “killing terrorists,” not nation-building.

“From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America,” Trump said, in a primetime address to the nation.

Have you noticed the flood of terrorists coming from Afghanistan? Of course not, because our forces have been there for 16 years, right? Well that would mean they were coming from there before, right? Actually, no, most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was the primary guy planning 9/11, and he was in Afghanistan at the time, although even he was originally from Saudi Arabia.

The general argument is that terrorists use Afghanistan as a place to stage attacks elsewhere. The problem with this argument is that terrorists move to other places and haven't stopped. Google "terrorist attacks since 9/11", and you can see plenty of charts that show how terrorism has increased. here is one from The Daily Mail:

If anything, it looks like the terrorists are thriving under our current "war on Islam" stance. If this were a stock chart, it would be called "bullish".

There is an economic theory which states that government subsidies of a good or service encourages more of it in the free market. So what happens when government subsidizes war?

Senator Rand Paul gets the last word on this:

The Hill:

OPINION | Sen. Rand Paul: 

16 years on, it's past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan

The Trump administration is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and, by doing so, keeping us involved even longer in a 16-year-old war that has long since gone past its time.

The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war. It’s time to come home now.

Our war in Afghanistan began in a proper fashion. We were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban, who then controlled Afghanistan, were harboring al Qaeda, and after being warned, and after an authorization from Congress, our military executed a plan to strike back. Had I been in Congress then, I would have voted to authorize this military action.

But as is typical, there was significant mission creep in Afghanistan. We went from striking back against those who attacked us, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. And we do it all now with an authorization that is flimsy at best, with the reason blurred, and the costs now known. We do it with an authorization that was debated and passed before some of our newest military personnel were out of diapers. This isn’t fair to them, to the American people, or to a rational foreign policy.

The Afghanistan war going beyond its original mission has an enormous cost. First and most important is the cost to our troops. Deaths, injuries and unnecessary deployments causing harm to families are certainly the most important reason as to why you don’t go to wars that aren’t necessary.

Then comes the taxpayer. We have spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan, and nearly $5 trillion on Middle East wars in the past 15 years. Would we not be better off with $5 trillion less in debt or using these funds in other, more productive ways?