It Is Time to Move Out Of Afghanistan.

 

Why are we still fighting in Afghanistan?   I know the present administration set a date to leave in 2014, but the costs are too high economically, militarily, politically and in human life to wait that long.   Some recent tragedies just highlight some of those costs.  An army sergeant was recently charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder in connection with a March 11^th attack on Afghan civilians.   Looking at this case, I believe this was caused by the continuous stress and enormous pressure placed on our military by our government in the longest war in our history.  It is surprising that the Afghan war has been going since October 2001 so we have been fighting there longer than in the Vietnam War.  Then on March 26^th we hear of another case of an American soldier killed by a member of the Afghan security/police force.  This is a growing problem that is undermining the trust between the two countries.   I read that nearly 80 American soldiers have been killed by Afghan security forces since 2007 with the most it happening since 2009.

So now is a good time to move out, not in 2014 or later as many political timelines go.  Most Americans thought that the main mission there was to find and/or kill Bin Laden.  This has been accomplished.   So I guess now we are there to support the United Nations, who wants us there for the security of Afghanistan and its government.  But besides the incompetence and poor record of the U.N. in country building there are many other reasons we should leave.  We are over our heads in debt and the war is very costly, so we cannot afford it any longer.  The government of Afghanistan from all accounts seems to be unreliable.  President Karzai has been linked to taking our money and stuffing his and his relative’s pockets.  Our military is being used to keep stability or hold down the fort for the Afghanistan President, while he desires to make agreements with the Taliban and other tribal war lords.  Even the Afghan people do not seem to be very supportive or appreciative of our efforts.  If we look at the history Afghanistan, it never had much peace and we cannot bring it to them.  They are a country of tribal warfare and feuding which has been one of their chief occupations throughout the years.  The Soviet Union could not even control them with their harsher methods and aggressive fighting.  It was the Soviet Union’s Vietnam and a major failure for them.

I am not alone on my thoughts.  According to a  New York Times/ CBS survey more than two-thirds or 69 percent felt the United States should not be in Afghanistan.  This is not a party issue either since a majority of citizens of both parties have misgivings about the war.  It is now time for President Obama to move us out and let the Afghan people to solve their own ageless problems   Afghanistan is not worth the cost no matter how you measure it.

Our Debt, Not Our Children’s

In his article " Our Debt, Not Our Children’s ", Deroy Murdock indicates that we need to address the increasing national debt issue now and not later.  In the article he points out that when explaining the dangers of a massive national debt we should not stress the harm it can cause to future generations but how it harms adults now.  In his opinion, by linking the debt to future generations it will change the focus to fixing the problem later and delay actions until later.  Mr. Murdock also thinks that this type of message will not affect the many Americans that do not have children.  He is talking to people that are interested in economic issues, fiscal conservatives and others worried about economic stability of the United States.  Mr. Murdock later explains the reasons for addressing the national debt now and how the current political environment is not addressing it. 

I can agree with Mr. Murdock that we need to address the national debt issue now.  The policy now from the President, his cabinet members, Congress, the Federal Reserve and most of the news media is to kick the can down the road.  There seems to be no rush to address the national debt issue now.  Mr. Murdock states some facts that are alarming.  The fact is that the national debt is increasing greatly and that economic growth is weakened when debt to gross domestic product (GDP) is above 90% should alarm some.  Especially since America’s debt/GDP is now 105%.  Our interest payments alone are troubling because the interest rates are so low now.  What will happen if interest rates go higher?  Mr. Murdock also talks about how higher debt can affect businesses, national policy and households.  The article ends with a discussion about how the Democratic policy is not to address the issue.   They have not even placed much emphasis on debt reduction or even a budget.  He indicates the Democratic Senate has not passed a budget since April 2009. 

As I stated above, I basically agree with much of what Mr. Murdock has written.  But I think that people who are not interested or worried about the national debt or economic issues would be influenced by it.   I do have a little disagreement with him though.   I think that there needs to be a greater emphasis on how the national debt will affect our children and future generations.   If we continue to kick the can down the road and not address this issue now, the future economic conditions could possibly be much worse than it is for us now.   By not caring about it now,  the politicians and other contributors to that policy are putting up a fake facade that makes the economy look better than its and setting up failure for those in the future.

16 is Too Young to Quit school in New Economy

I found this editorial from "USA Today, 16 is too young to quit school in new economy"  is very interesting. Its general theme is focusing on the unemployment situation in the United States economy and would be of interest to anyone worried about our economy and labor workforce troubles. The main idea of the article is that we need to keep our students in school so they have a good chance in not being just a statistic in the unemployment rate.

 The article is sort of agreeing with the President’s urging that every state should require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18. Noting that President Obama mentioned in his State of the Union address that, "When students don't walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma.” The editorial points out that this is not a fix to the unemployment problem but would help greatly in some states where a student is allowed to dropout when they are 16-year-olds. The article does a good job providing evidences for its opinion and does bring up opponents questions.


I basically agree with much of the editorial. I agree that students should stay in school to get at least a high school diploma. Facts and statistics show that people without a high school degree are more prone to financial difficulties as well as other social troubles. But just raising the age one is allowed to dropout from school is not a solution. Forcing people to stay in school that do not want to stay in school may not help them, the economy or the workforce. Students in high school may not like school for many different reasons. Besides boredom, supporting families and other issues mentioned in the articles as reasons for dropout there are many others not mentioned. The environment in the school can be uncomfortable to many students. Bullying, poor teachers, public humiliation, troublemakers…the list can go on. We will need other ways to build and help our workforce. More options for schools, developing more and earlier workforce alternatives to learn good paying job skills (electricians, plumbers, and craftsmen), school work programs, creating a better environment at school and home are better solutions. But all these solutions are complex, more so than just forcing students to stay in school until they are 18.

Unemployment Rate Hinges on More than Job Gains

Since the big news last week was that the unemployment rate has dropped again to 8.3%, everyone from Wall Street to the politicians have been celebrating. It is welcome news and shows us that the economical health of the United States is improving. In fact, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in three years. That is great news! But this news article states that the “unemployment rate hinges on more than just job gains”. Wait a minute. I thought since the unemployment rate went down that means we were gaining jobs every day. Doesn’t this mean that the people who lost jobs during the recession are getting their jobs back or getting new employment opportunities? Well this news article explains some things I did not know or understand fully. The article begins by telling us that “the unemployment rate can rise or fall even when no jobs are created or lost”. This is because the employment rate only counts the number of people who don’t have a job and are actively looking for work. But many people have quit looking for work so now the labor force participation rate is at record lows. According to the article, that is one reason why the unemployment rate is dropping. So if the economy keeps on improving those people may return to the labor force and therefore keep the unemployment rate high or even make it rise higher in the future. I would recommend this article to others so they would be more informed about the economic situation and unemployment rates in the U.S.


  http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/story/2012-02-03/behind-jobless-rate-data/52951342/1