Moral and Economic Reasons for Letting As Many Afghan Refugees As Possible into the United States

While the United States military was correct in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan this year, that still does not change the fact that Afghanistan is a bloody mess right now. Thousands are looking to leave the country. It is so bad that there were Afghan citizens swarming the airport, breaking through security to try to get on a plane. Some clung to military planes taking off and lamentably fell to their doom. Given the precarious situation in Afghanistan, an end to U.S. involvement was inevitable, as was the Taliban resurgence. The fate of thousands of Afghans, on the other hand, is not set in stone. 

President Ronald Reagan once called the United States a city on a shining hill. For many people seeking a better life, the United States has represented a land of freedom, opportunity, and a chance at a better life. As it says on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal, "Give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." Emma Lazarus' words have rung true over the decades as the United States has led the world in accepting refugees. While this has been an ideal set in the moral fabric of the United States, it has been less-than-ideal in practice. One of the reasons that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the worst presidents is because he turned away refugees fleeing from Nazi persecution. More recently, President Donald Trump enacted a refugee ban as part of a litany of anti-immigrant regulations, whether it was for undocumented workers or those who "arrived here legally." 

In spite of this imperfect enactment of laws pertaining to refugees, at least we can take some solace that 81 percent of Americans are in favor of letting Afghan who helped the U.S. military throughout the War in Afghanistan into the United States (CBS-YouGov). Let's think about the moral arguments that would create such a majority opinion. For one, accepting refugees is truly an issue of a right to life, which should make pro-lifers happy. Two, it is something that has defined the American Dream since its inception, which should make those on the Right happy that we are continuing with this tradition. Not only does it help the downtrodden, but it also contributes to the diversity of the United States, which should make the Left happy. I could quote Exodus 22:20 and point out that the Bible details how the the text lays out an obligation to help out refugees, which should make the religious in the U.S. happy. We are helping those fleeing from literal tyranny to make a better life for themselves. 

The moral arguments should cover every major part of the political spectrum in the country, and yet there are some that are still against it. Some might be worried about the national security of the United States, so let's look at historical terrorism data (Nowrasteh, 2019). There have been three attacks or attempted attacks from Afghan-born individuals in the United States. Those attacks resulted in zero deaths and 30 injuries. Recent criminal data has a similar outcome. Afghan-born immigrants were incarcerated at a rate of 127 out of 100,000 individuals. As for native-born U.S. citizens? At a rate of 1,477 out of 100,000, which is to say that Afghan immigrants are 11.6 times less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Furthermore, the Taliban doesn't have any ambitions beyond its own borders, which minimizes the likelihood of an attack on American soil. Also, let's keep in mind what happens on the next military endeavor (because odds are there will be one). If we abandon Afghans who helped the U.S. military during the War in Afghanistan, that tarnishes the United States' reputation. How likely would people be to help the U.S. military in future engagements knowing that translators and other supporters are hung out to dry?

Now that we have established that the threat from Afghan refugees to the American people is minimal, let's jump to the economic arguments. There are those on the Right, more specifically the anti-immigrant Right, that would like to portray refugees as an economic drain (e.g., Camarota, 2015). Some argue that greater welfare benefits are more likely to attract migrants. Earlier this month, political pundit Tucker Carlson blamed the housing crisis on refugees. He should be blaming land use regulations, but I digress. It might be politically convenient to blame refugees for being an economic burden, but refugees are in fact an economic boon. 

Let's start with the fact that refugees typically do not compete for the same jobs as native-born citizens (Mayda, 2017), a trend we see also see with immigrants. There is economic evidence showing that six years after arriving to their new country, refugees work at a higher rate than native citizens. This study also shows that the break-even point in terms of cost is around nine years. By the time the typical refugee has been in the United States for 20 years, that individual has paid $128,689 in taxes, which is $21,000 more paid in taxes than they received in benefits (Evans and Fitzgerald, 2017). Analysis from Western European data comes to a similar conclusion (D'Albis et al., 2018). Using a specific case study, Vietnamese refugees were able to become contributing members of society after so many fled Vietnam in the 1970s (Alperin and Batalova, 2018). You can read more from the Brookings Institution on the economic argument for accepting refugees (Bahar and Dooley, 2020).

This is not to say that taking in a large influx of refugees is not a huge undertaking because it is. At the same time, what I can say is this. It does not matter whether a migrant is leaving their country willingly (i.e., immigrant) or unwillingly (i.e., refugee). Much like with immigrants, refugees are a net positive contribution to the economy, especially in the long-term. Not only would it be good for the U.S. economy if we were to accept more refugees, it would be the morally right thing to do. It is my hope that the U.S. government expands the Special Immigrant Visa [SIV] program and raises the refugee cap to help alleviate the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. 

It Is About Time the United States Withdraws Its Troops From Afghanistan

On August 15, the Taliban took over the Afghan capital of Kabul and the Afghan President fled. A day later, President Biden stood by his decision that he made on April 14 to withdraw troops from Afghanistan (here is a timeline for the Afghanistan withdrawal for more details on the events leading up to now). Since then, the news cycle has been going on nonstop about Afghanistan.  

The Right has been merciless in blaming Biden for a messy withdrawal. Biden's exit strategy is worth criticizing, especially with regards to evacuating American personnel, leaving military materiel behind and in the hands of the Taliban, and helping the Afghans that assisted the U.S. military. At the same time, the Afghanistan debacle started long Biden chose to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Congress authorized the War in 2001 and President Bush led the charge on nation-building in Afghanistan. One could argue that Obama had inadequate resolve to fight in Afghanistan. We can blame Trump for entering peace talks with the Taliban or how he went about it. If you go through the Afghanistan Papers, which are assessments generated by a federal government project, there were also high-ranking officials who realized that the Afghanistan War was unwinnable while portraying the war with a rosy, Pollyannish view. There has been no shortage of imperfect actors in this war. 

That being said, criticizing Biden for how the troops were withdrawn does not mean the troops should not have been withdrawn. My criticism of the Afghanistan War dates back to 2009. U.S. involvement did not make sense in the 2000s, and it makes even less sense now. Afghanistan remains an exceptionally corrupt nation (Freedom House). The U.S. military still has not defeated the Taliban or reformed Afghan politics in a way where there is a democratic and stable government. What has been the cost of getting involved in another country's civil conflict? In terms of lives lost, there have been 65,000 Afghani soldiers, about 2,500 U.S. service members, over 3,800 U.S. contractors, and 47,245 civilians killed. The United States will probably have $2 trillion in war debts by 2030, which will creep up to $6 trillion by 2050 because of interest (Peltier, 2020). 

I am not going to hash out the entire history of the War in Afghanistan here, but I will assert the opinion that the war has been mismanaged. If you want a expert analysis on the matter, go with the the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction [SIGAR], which is the government's oversight authority for the country's reconstruction. In its August 2021 report, SIGAR detailed how the U.S. government "continuously struggled to develop and implement a coherent strategy for what it hoped to achieve." 

To continue quoting SIGAR: "The U.S. government consistently underestimated the amount of time required to rebuild Afghanistan, and created unrealistic timelines and expectations that prioritized spending quickly. These choices increased corruption and reduced the effectiveness of programs." Again, those are not my words, although I do concur. That is the conclusion of the oversight agency meant to monitor and evaluate how the U.S. military was performing in Afghanistan. In other words, the U.S. military had no long-term strategy on its military involvement in Afghanistan and had no exit strategy. 

Since the best military in the world is withdrawing, there is bound to be at least some effect on Afghanistan's internal affairs. At the same time, this was a civil war long before the U.S. entered Afghanistan for what was initially "a constrained counterterrorism operation in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks." The U.S. military went into Afghanistan to stop Al-Qaeda. As the think-tank Brookings Institution points out in its recent analysis, Al-Qaeda has a fraction of the power it had in 2001. At this point, terrorist groups from the Middle East and Africa are more of a threat to national security than Al-Qaeda, which diminishes the national security argument for staying in Afghanistan. 

Some situations are truly hopeless, much like Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. Afghanistan is a country plagued with tribal bickering, parochialism, corruption, lack of sound institutions, and a lack of willpower for actual reform. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and the Soviets had issues when they invaded Afghanistan. Given the history of volatility in that part of the world, not to mention the geopolitical, ethnic, and cultural complexities, it was inevitable that there would have been havoc and chaos when U.S. troops entered Afghanistan. However, the United States has been attempting nation-building for twenty years in Afghanistan without significant reform. As frustrating as it might be to put in so much effort so little reward, it is about time that the United States cuts its losses and withdraws from Afghanistan.

We Should Pull Out of Afghanistan

I haven't been one to be bashful about my opinions on the War in Afghanistan.  Nearly two years ago, I had opined that being in Afghanistan was a bad idea, both from geopolitical and militaristic points of view.  There's one point that I had not mentioned prior to today: economic. 

According to Pew Center numbers, 60% of Americans believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have caused debt.  When you spend über amounts of money that you don't even have to begin with, and have no exit strategy in terms of being able to pay the money back, that would be a textbook example of debt. 

The American government spends comparably way more on defense spending than any other Western nation.  I don't really want to get into how the rest of the developed world should be putting their fair share in defense spending, or how America needs to stop acting like the world's policeman, but it makes me ask: Why are we still over there in the first place?  Are we trying to mollify our consciences by unwaveringly supporting a failed attempt at nation-building?

The majority of the American people, probably for the first time, want the troops to come home because they feel that the probability of a stable government being created in Afghanistan is unlikely.  Even if the primary objective was to get bin Laden (why that took the greatest military in the world a decade to do, I'll never know), Al Qaeda is going to replace him with some other stooge, and they'll continue to do the same terrorist acts that they have been doing.  If you want to stop Al Qaeda, stop focusing on nation-building and start looking at counter-terrorism.  You can create a smaller, but more effective defense strategy that is not only more economically salient, but also minimizes the possibility of putting troops in harm's way.  It sounds like a win-win, no-brainer suggestion, but for the 40% who cannot understand the overtly simple premise that wars cause debt, I guess they'll be the ones waving their flags with blind patriotism and pressuring politicians to support the war until the economic burden helps put America six feet under.

Arizona's Immigration Law: My Two Cents on the Whole Matter

One of the brouhahas in the news lately has been about a recent bill passed in Arizona (SB 1070), that states that Arizona police can question somebody about their immigration status upon “reasonable suspicion.” I would first like to state that the federal government already has such laws on the books. What Arizona has done is made it a crime on a state level, and what’s more, is that because Arizonians are fed up with illegal immigration, they’ll actually enforce the law. Second of all, Arizona is able to do so within the scope of Ninth and Tenth Amendments (i.e., since it’s not explicitly stated within the Article of the Constitution for the federal government to handle the matter, it goes to the states).  Plus, the law was supported by 70% of Arizonians.  For some reason, I would imagine that living on the border and having to deal with it day-by-day gives a little more credence than some putz on the Left by grossly offending people by erroneous analogizing this law with Nazi Germany, thereby diminishing the horrors that those in the Holocaust went through.  But I only digress.....slightly.....     

Personally, I am glad that somebody is saying ¡ya basta! to the fact there are millions of people who are here illegally. Yes, we’re still a nation of laws, and if you break a law, you are a criminal. Is it really any different if you’re pulled over by the police and you don’t have your driver’s license? I don’t think so!

I find a few issues with the approach of the whole immigration issue, and it has nothing to do with the state of Arizona actually deciding to actually confronting the issue rather than pretending as if one didn’t exist.

The biggest issue I have is with a lack of border enforcement. We’re worried about some non-existent enemy in Afghanistan while in the same breath, we cannot even defend ourselves when an even bigger problem sits right on our Southern border, especially in light of the narco-terrorism that is plaguing Mexico. Put up a huge fence and make sure that nobody crosses. If the defender in a soccer game is doing his job, there theoretically is no need for a goalie.  Or here's another way of saying this: if we had a fence up in the first place, none of this would have become an issue.

This, of course, is only a short-term solution.

Securing the border needs to be coupled with a temporary worker program. Why do I say that? Because the United States has had this issue in its recent memory—during the 1950s. During the mid-1950s, there was rampant illegal immigration. When border security was combined with a temporary worker program, illegal immigration dropped 95%. If we did this, we’d see a shrinking underground economy. Furthermore, by making the Mexicans citizens, it would force them to pay taxes, at least in theory.

The reason why these two initiatives wouldn’t work in practice is because of how our already-burdensome tax system is set up. The lower half of Americans does not pay any taxes. If we absorb newly arrived Mexicans into our economy, they will expand upon the lower half because just about everybody who crosses the border to begin with is unskilled labor. At least with the immigrants that came into Ellis Island in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they were actually skilled labor, i.e., they were able to make positive contributions to the advancement of America. The reason why I make a distinction between skilled and unskilled labor is that skilled labor is more likely to advance upward [i.e., they won’t be stuck in poverty anymore].

Although a temporary worker program with secure borders sounds nice, it has to contend with one huge obstacle that they didn’t have back in the 1950s—dependency on government. Thanks to schmucks like LBJ, and more recently, Obama, we have created a society which is dependent on such “services,” if you can call them that, as Medicare, Social Security, welfare, free public education, the list goes on. Since these hypothetically absorbed workers would be lower-class because they are unskilled, the only thing they would do is expand the Nanny State’s already pervasive role, thereby causing further debt for America.

A temporary worker program with the status quo will only exacerbate the situation. Until more Americans get furious at a much higher furor about dependency on government, expanding deficits, and increasing invasiveness of the government, most Americans will view the Mexicans coming over to the United States as a socio-economic burden rather than people who just want a decent life for their families.

Israeli Hodgepodge for December 28

Apparently, there are some newsworthy items coming from Israel, so here they are:

First of all, the Israeli Defense Forces predict that Iran can build a nuclear bomb by 2011.  I truly wish that Obama would show some resolve on this issue rather than focusing on something as futile as Afghanistan. 

Second, Israel is continuing its settlement expansion by building 700 apartments.  Israelis love it, but as if it were a surprise, the Obama administration is not happy with it.  It makes no sense to chide a longtime ally while you are not dealing with the antagonism coming from east of Jerusalem. Again, the Obama administration lacks a sense of priority in foreign policy.

On a lighter note,  Israel is seeing a rising percentage of those making aliyah the first time this decade.  This particularly positive bit of news, particularly during a global recession, is a more positive note, something which will, G-d willing, hearld the Messiah soon. 

Obama's Quick Stop to Oslo

While Obama was in the area, he came by to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.  And I thought that his trip to Copenhagen was hypocritical enough!  Here we have a man who campaigned on an anti-war platform and ends up approving more troops for the war in Afghanistan. Obama stated that "[a] nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."  It sounds like the same argument Bush used to justify his war in Iraq.  I guess the reasoning only works if Obama uses it.  I'm not disputing that there are times for war and times for peace.  Nor will I dispute the fact that war is sometimes necessary to usher in peace.  However, I wish that he would be consistent in his thinking.  Rather than be in Afghanistan, we should occupy a country that is developing nukes and is threatening to throw off the balance of power, let's say, a country like Iran.  That sounds like a good blog post, but I guess I'll have to do that when my Hanukah vacation is over...  

Obama Needs a Clue on Afghanistan

Obama just finished giving his speech to West point cadets about why he approved a troop surge of 30,000.  After having watched the speech live, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or be infuriated with Obama's hypocrisy, particularly in light of the fact he promised during his campaign that he wouldn't do anything of the kind. 

The President was already off to a terrible start when he invoked 9-11 as the primary reason as to why we should be supportive.  For one, at the beginning of the decade, Al Qaeda did indeed have a stronghold in Afghanistan.  But since American troops came into Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has retreated into Pakistan and has enjoyed the protection of a relatively stable nation with over 176 million people and nuclear arms.  More important, a great majority of 9-11 was not planned in Afghanistan.  Most of the planning either happened in Germany and the United States, where they obtained a Western education and learned how to use our technology against us.  Using 9-11 to score political points is just dishonest.

My second main issue with his speech was the actual proposal--a 30,000 troop surge that will solve Afghanistan's problems within 18 months.  I can understand that setting a deadline will put pressure on the military to get goals done rather than putzing around, but at the same time, this is worse than Herbert Hoover trying to fix the stock market after Black Tuesday, i.e., "too little, too late."  30,000 troops isn't going to cut it!  You need way more than that.      

Third, Obama's prioritizations are less than reassuring.  First of all, if you're really set on eradicating Al Qaeda, why not go after Pakistan?  Why are we worrying about nation-building in Afghanistan when have to worry about building up our own nation, that's dealing with double-digit unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression?  If Obama were truly worried about national security, why doesn't he go after Iran with such zeal?  Rather than spend time and effort on a fool's errand, as Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) put it, we should just prepare for troop withdrawal and intelligently focus our efforts elsewhere.

11/27 Hodgepodge

It's the day after Thanksgiving, and surprisingly enough, there's sufficient news to pull off a hodgepodge:

-The Jerusalem Post puts out a great editorial outlining why this Israeli-Palestinian conflict has never had anything to do with land claims, but about the Arabs not recognizing Israeli as a legitimate state.

-I don't agree with a troop surge in Afghanistan because this is the most inefficient war we have seen in a long while.  It will end up being "Obama's quagmire."  However, I do think it's hilarious that liberals are "vowing to 'spank' Obama if he approves a troop surge."  

- Dubai's debt issues caused a bit of a drop in the stock market.  Experts are perplexed as to how it could affect the economy so much.  Here's a clue--oil money!  If America could become more energy independent, such as, I don't know, try drilling on our own shores, or better yet, nuclear power.  If only our politicians had a brain amongst them....

-Finally, my prayers go out to Tiger Woods.  May he have a speedy recovery!

Responding to Obama's Speech in front of the UN General Assembly

After reading the transcript of Obama's UN General Assembly speech, I can shockingly say that I was actually impressed with a couple of things he brought up. He didn't apologize for defending American interests, he stressed the importance of mutual, global interest, and most amazing, he stated that "this cannot be solely America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone.....[N]ow is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." A call for other nations to pitch in, now that's a novel idea!
However, I do keep in mind that this was still the 44th President of the United States talking, so naturally, I had issues with what he had to say. He mentioned four pillars that are fundamental to the global problems at hand. Let's take a look at them.
1) International nuclear disarmament. He mentioned that he is working with Russia to reduce production of nuclear warheads. This sounds very nice if we were making a feel-good film where the world becomes a better place, but it's not. Without delving into Jewish notions of Messianic thought, it is safe to say that we do not live in a world where all nations would honor an NPT.
First, we are in an age where we're discussing alternative energy sources. Based on waning oil supplies and the harmful effects of coal production, we very well might be heading towards an age of nuclear power.
Second, historically speaking, Russia hasn't honored such an agreement. Sure, you had SALT I and SALT II, but diplomatic negotiations didn't bring the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Not only do you have to overcome Russian political corruptness, but you have to deal with the fact that the wounds of the aforementioned collapse are still fresh. Russia was once a great world power, and if they're motivated by shame and finding an opportunity to regain their honor in the global sphere, they'll take it. Russia isn't the only issue. Iran is developing nukes, as is North Korea. Both of these are rogue states, and neither one are going to relinquish their change to gain better favor in regional geo-politics. When everyone is on the same page, we can discuss disarmament. In the interim, let's be realistic about other nation's intents.
2a) The Pillar of Pursuit of Peace. Issue #1 I had with this pillar is his take on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The naïveté on the issue is something I have posted on lately. Obama is ordering our troops to nation-build in Afghanistan, but at the same time, he said today that "[D]emocracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside." Defeat al-Qaeda by nation-building in Afghanistan, not exert democracy on other nations--sounds like to conflicting ideas to me.
2b) "We will work with the UN and other partners to support an enduring peace." Since when has the UN ever had the militaristic muscle to bring about peace? As soon as Egyptian troops approached the border in the Sinai Peninsula, the UN troops skedaddled, and Israel had to fend for itself in the Six Day War. The UN also didn't do anything to help those in Rwanda. And as for Kosovo, that was primarily the power of NATO that resolved that conflict. The reason that nobody takes the UN seriously is because they don't have the hard power to coerce their will on others. This won't occur because there are way too many nation-states with way too many conflicting self-interests. Plus, the notion just reeks of elitist authoritarianism on a global scale.
2c) Obama discusses building a lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. It's nice that Obama wasn't shaking his finger solely at Israel this time. But at the same time, how is natural settlement development just as morally egregious as blowing up innocent civilians? And stating that the Israelis have been occupying Palestinian land since 1967? I'm no historian (although I do my fair share of reading), but Palestinian nationalism didn't even exist until the 1970s. The man has chutzpah to state that Israel is occupying land, implying they have no right to it. If the issue were land, I might accept the argument. But since land has been offered to these people since the Balfour Declaration, history tells us that it's anything but. Also, why hasn't Saudi Arabia or Jordan helped an Arab brother out? I guess it's more amusing for them to be a wedge to help eradicate the "evil" Zionist entity.
3) Preserve our planet. The primary issue brought up in this pillar is cutting back on CO2 emissions. As the article below attests from Reason Magazine, a libertarian entity, the probability of cutting emissions that low is essentially nil. The sad part is that Obama is not mentioning nuclear power. It’s. only type of energy that acts as a “baseload resource” (i.e., being able to meet bulk-power demands) without emitting CO2. This is one of the few areas where I admire the French because they’re 80% nuclear, and their country hasn’t had any meltdowns.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/136257.html

4) A Global Economy that advances the opportunity for all people. I only suggest that Obama read “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg because Lomborg discusses prioritizing global issues by focusing on what’s most economically pragmatic while at the same time resolving most problems. Knowing how Obama has treated issues domestically, he will throw money at the problem, just on an international level.

Conclusion: Tackling all of these problems sounds dandy, but the truth is that the UN is ineffective at preserving human rights. I thought the ineptness of the Oil-for-Food Programme would have been sufficient evidence. The fact that 30% of U.N. resolutions have been against Israel should also tell you something about its anti-Semitism. Since its inception, it has been incapable of fostering any national, let alone global, peace. As long as other nation-states act as separate, distinct nation-states, the UN cannot act with any real authority.

One More Reason to Pull Out of Afghanistan, An Addendum to 9/2 Article

On September 2nd, I adequately pointed out why, from a right-winged point of view, the American troops should pull out of Afghanistan:

http://libertarianjew.blogspot.com/2009/09/operation-enduring-freedom-should-no.html

If that wasn't convincing enough, I have come up with yet another reason to pull out.The Heritage Foundation recently put out a statement stating why we should support Afghanistan:

https://www.heritage.org/node/14105/print-display

Aside from the fact that they don't address any of the self-evident issues with being over there, it forced me to do a little bit of math. As they point out, there are only 173,000 men in their army and police, where as Iraq has 600,000. This is as startling contrast, considering the fact that Afghanistan is three times the size of Iraq. Last time I checked, if the Afghani government wanted to be comparable to Iraq, 600,000 x 3 = 1.8 million. On top of that, my other reasearch told me that 160,000 soldiers were in Iraq for its moderate levels of success, so 160,000 x 3 = 480,000 soldiers, and right now there are only about 110,000. So just some basic math here, which will be me subtracting the amount of necessary forces that are currently lacking in Afghanistan:

• 1.8 million - 173,000 = 1,627,000 Afghani soldiers and policemen short
• 480,000 - 110,000 = 370,000 American, NATO, and other foreign soldiers short

In total, we're a little bit shy of 2 million men short of being able to pull of such an operation.  If Heritage is stipulating that we cannot do "minimalist, off-shore tactics" and need to go in there "head-on," can somebody explain to me where this large quantity of men is going to come from?  Since WWII, most operations such as these have primary backing from the US.  Where is the US going to get 370,000 men?!  We have so many domestic issues to deal with right now, and the support for the war is already low, which kills morale.  Also, how are we going to train over 1.6 million Afghanis?  Better question, why should we even train them in the first place?  We have crime in America--let's use it for our police forces, or better yet, guarding the US-Mexican border from narco-terrorism.  Heck, it can be used to get Al Qaeda in Pakistan.  There are so many other things that this money could be used for.  Just because it's erroneously gift-wrapped in the ruse of "national security" doesn't make it any less of pork than building an Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere."  No matter where you are on the political spectrum, one thing should be clear by now--we're wasting valuable resources on something that cannot be won.

Operation Enduring Freedom Should No Longer Endure

"War, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing!  Say it again...."  It's a lousy song, not to mention the fact that the conlcusion Edwin Starr comes to is incorrect, but it does make one wonder about the costs and benefits of what's going on in Afghanistan.  Like everything else in life, everything should be a cost-benefit analysis.  If the benefits outweights the cost, do it!  And vice versa if it's not the case.  After taking a look, it seems as if we should cease operations in Afghanistan, but for argument's sake, let's take a look at what is going on:

• Current state of Afghanistan: After nearly eight years of occupation, I am sorry to say that Afghanistan is the failed state that it was beforehand.  There's no centralized government, the political corruption there makes Mexico look wholesome, it still has a highly illiterate, uneducated, rural, and decentralized population, and the only real industry they have is opium.  This nation sacrificed nearly 800 American soldiers in a failed attempt to turn Afghanistan into a democracy, which has lead to the unintended result of preserving the status quo over there.  This brings me to another point.....
• Nation-building: Why is it America's job to partake in nation-building?  A better question is "Why Afghanistan?"  In terms of geo-political status, Central Asia gives the American military no strategic advantage.  Even if you don't agree with that conclusion, let's analyze the initial reason to go over there in the first place: capturing those responsible for 9-11 and bring them to justice.  We couldn't even capture Bin Laden and his cohorts because they went over the Pakistani border, and now are enjoying the protection of the Pakistani government.  The Pakistanis, our supposed allies, aren't going to help us.  As a matter of fact, the turmoil caused by the Taliban is better for the Pakistanis because it levels out the balance of power with India in that region of the world.  And then you want to throw nation-building on top of that failure?!  If you're just left with nation-building and "those poor Afghanis," what about Darfur?  You've been hearing about that for years.  Or what about Somalia or Sierra Leone?  If we over-extend ourselves to help transform every nation into a democracy, America's soldier would be overburdened, foreign aid would inveitably have to be rationed, and our grandchildren would have to pay for it.  Funny how that sounds like the same argument used against ObamaCare!
• America Looking Weak: This, I'm sure, is an argument that many of my conservative friends use to support it.  "We need to stay the course and support our troops because if we don't stay, we'll look like we chickened out and that we're too weak to handle a puny nation like that."  Wait a moment!  American military, weak?  Did you just use those two words in the same sentence?  Even with Obama in office, America has a military that parallels no other.  We are responsible for approximately half of the world's military spending, we could knock out an entire nation-state with the click of a button if we wanted to, and with our military prowess, we have a strong influence over the four corners of the globe.  America won't look weak--it'll actually look quite intelligent because the world will realize that America is actually thinking with its head rather than with right-winged emotionalism of fervent patriotism (yes, conservatives can be guilty of emotionalism, but it's just that liberals do it a lot more often).  
• War on Terror:  Many neo-conservative friends I have will tell me that by relinquishing Afghanistan, we lose face with the terrorists.  Let's face it, most Americans could not succinctly tell you what the War on Terror is about.  And even if they could, they're focused on domestic issues, such as unemployment, health care, and the recession.  If the American people and government want to fight "terrorists," three things have to occur: 

1. Stop calling the problem "terrorism."  Call it out for what it is--Islamist radicals perpetuating jihadism throughout the world.  By identifying the enemy, we already have part of the problem solved.
2. Prioritize!  Afghanistan is a lost cause, move on.  Plus, they're no longer (if they were in the first place) in this "War on Terror."  Two enemies (out of a myriad of enemies) that could use some emphasizing are Pakistan and Iran.  Pakistan is protecting Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, not to mention supporting the Taliban.  Obviously, the big problem is that they have nuclear arms, and odds are that Obama isn't going to tackle that anytime soon.  But let's look at an enemy that doesn't quite have nuclear arms--Iran.  Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe of Israel off the map, but surprisingly enough, Israel isn't the only one worried about Iran.  Many of the Sunni countries, including Iraq, Morroco, and much of the Arab world is worried about Shi'ite retaliation.  Or if we really want to prioritize our foreign policy, let's worry about the growth of China, because if they succeed, America in deep.
3. This war against Islamists will not merely be won with military might.  It ultimately needs to be fought and won internally.  This is one arena that a Jew such as myself cannot enter.  It has to be done by moderate and traditionalist, non-violent Muslims who realize that the very essence of Islam is at stake, and if they don't win, Islam will always be a reactionary, antagonistic force in American foreign policy.

These fundamentalists won't disappear with wishful thinking.  I'm sure that's a lesson Neville Chamberlin realized sometime after the "peace in his time."  But to be stubborn about something that cannot be done or won is nothing more than a malignant form of obstinate pride that would make America look foolish and idiotic in the history books.  That's precisely why if we're going to have any hope of eradicating this kind of evil in the world, we need to learn how to prioritize in such a way that the benefits greatly outweigh the cost.