Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nation-Building in Afghanistan Instead of at Home Will Produce New 'Misery Index'
Congressional Democrats Beware: Unemployment at Home + Casualties Abroad = Defeat at the Polls in 2010
President Obama's decision to nation-build in Afghanistan in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression is likely to produce a new Misery Index for Americans: The escalating numbers of dead and wounded American soldiers in Afghanistan PLUS the likely high level of unemployed Americans at home. For Congressional Democrats, the Misery Index could add up to big trouble at the polls in November 2010.
Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan coined the term "misery index" as a very effective way to focus attention on the Carter administration's double barrel headache in 1980: rising unemployment and inflation. President Obama's decision to double down on a failing Afghanistan strategy by ordering an immediate military escalation is likely to present Democratic Congressional candidates with a Misery Index of their own in 2010.
President Obama wants to rush the troops that General McCrystal has requested for Afghanistan as soon as possible so that they can be in place for the so-called spring "fighting season". The significantly larger military footprint of foreign forces will, inevitably, swell the ranks of Taliban fighters who have been successfully using the presence of these forces as their most potent recruitment weapon. The result is not hard to predict: a significant spike in US casualties in Afghanistan in the summer and fall of 2010 at precisely the time that Members of Congress are facing voters in the 2010 elections.
The dreadful reports of these escalating numbers of American casualties abroad will be in addition to the number of local news stories of the casualties of escalating unemployment at home. The numbers of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed - not to mention those who are worried that they will soon join the ranks of both - are increasing steadily. So is the view of voters that the nation is on the wrong track. While Wall Street is basking in profits and brokers are getting well publicized bonuses, workers are getting pink slips. It begs the question: what are the priorities of those we elect to represent us in Washington?
Political leadership is about setting priorities and making choices. Those who support the president's military escalation in Afghanistan will be charged with being more interested in nation building abroad than in nation building at home. And, the nation building policy that they have chosen to support abroad is not only generating new levels of casualties to Americans in uniform, it is producing absolutely no discernable progress in making America safer.
To make it worse, Democratic Congressional candidates who support the President's Afghanistan policy will likely be hit with another political misery indicator: declining support from the political base that was so critical to their success in 2006 and 2008. There is real danger that the hope and enthusiasm that drove so many progressive Democrats in those election cycles will be transformed into cynicism and apathy in 2010. That is bad news for any incumbent Democrat running in 2010.
I hope that Congressional Democrats will do the right thing and oppose the president's military escalation in Afghanistan because it's the right thing to do. But, if they need more of an inducement, they may want to consider the electoral misery index that may await them in 2010.
6 Comments so far
Show AllNear the end of the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" it was suggested that the US blew the endgame in Afghanistan by not putting money and effort into rebuilding Afghanistan after the Russians had been driven out of the country. At that point half of the Alfgan population was under 15 and they needed schools. Movies are not good sources of history, but the point of the movie seems valid. The Americans can find the money for the weapons to make change but not for the less expensive method of schools and reconstruction.
I do not know that nation building in Afghanistan back in the 1980s would have changed things enough that the illegal invasion of the country by George Bush after 911 did not occur, but if there were a time for the US to involve itself in nation building that was the time, and building up the country with schools and helping rebuild the damages from the previous 10 years likely would have left the world with a more stable Afghanistan. Instead the warlords were allowed to run amuck, the communist government fell after three years, and it then fell to the Taliban to try to bring some order to the country. The world failed to help rebuild Afghanistan.
A quarter century after the first world war the world's leaders had learned that it was better to rebuild nations devastated by war. A half century later that lesson from history had been forgotten by the world's leaders.
What's the diff.? It's a unitary DEMiserepublican party against US. Re-select NO incumbent.
Americans will always choose war over education. They have the mentality of any military Junta and are just as corrupt. Republicans and democrats are both believers in the rightousness of the American Empire and argue only over the degree of killings and tortures needed to convince the world to submit. This why so many people elsewhere will be happy to see them defeated in Afghanistan as in Vietnam because it slows down the pace of their interference and aggression.
The MISERY Index is probably as good a description there is to quantify failed US policy on multiple fronts.
You can be reasonably certain that the "MI" will only increase, even if a brief respite occurs that suggests things are getting back to 'normal.'
Sadly, what passes for normal for the majority of Americans, essentially sheeple, is anathema to our very existence, in addition to the well-being of millions of souls across the globe.
If/ when such a time comes that average Americans become disenchanted with reality, they can take (dis)comfort in knowing that while we slept, the apparati was put in place to ensure that we are kept in ours.
Obama is for a new world order. And a One World Government. To be governed not only by the most powerful in America but also of other countries. His speech in Berlin, Germany before he was elected President confirms this : Tear down the borders. No immigrants.
Kissinger backs Obama as to the 'New World Order' (search 'Kissinger Obama'). And we all know that it is often said : a person is known by the company he keeps.
It is too hard to see clearly through the murkey waters the 'end goal' of America and the other most powerful countries, other than to form a government that rules over all. For good or ill. There will be no 'nation building', as we shall all be the one nation... and there will be no electing, by the 'world citizens'. as to which of the 'elite' will be a part of that government.
Mark my words. Come June or July of 2010 no matter what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan, General McCrystalmeth will be back demanding more troops and OBomber and the Dumdocrats will think this is the best way of getting reelected. It's sad, but we have all seen this movie before!