Afghanistan War: The Take Away

13 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day 

The Afghanistan War is finally over at least in the sense that there will no more US combat missions for the time being. The take away from this ordeal is trillions of dollars (US) have been used and 2,356 American soldiers have died.  This is not to mention other nations service members that that died in combat. And it does not include the thousands of service members that commit suicide every year, an average of 22 per month in the US. These numbers do not include the medical costs to injured troops and the care they receive after injury. This does not include the pensions and retirements received by service members either. 

In September of this year (2014) a Bilateral Security Agreement was signed by the US and Afghan Governments allowing the US to continue funding, arming and training the Afghan Security Forces for another 10 years. 

"The deal stipulates long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and access to numerous bases and installations in the country, including facilities located in Bagram, home to the notorious U.S. military prison. The pact does not detail the exact number of U.S. troops to remain, but Obama has previously stated he plans to cut U.S. troops down to 9,800 by the beginning of 2015, then cut that number by half at the end of next year, with further cuts slated for the end of 2016. As of earlier this year, there were approximately 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 34,000 of which were American." Writes Sarah Lazare, staff writer for CommonDreams.org

Also from that article.

According to Peter Lems, Program Officer at the American Friends Service Committee, "That's one of the biggest problems with the War on Terror since September 11: these wars don't end," said Lems. "We have this crazy situation where we have undeclared wars and, perhaps because of the nature of undeclared conflicts, it's easy to look at them as dissipating but never-ending."

The deal also allows the U.S. to pursue "counter-terrorism" missions as long as they "complement" those of the Afghan military and "authorizes United States government aircraft and civil aircraft that are operated by or exclusively for United States forces to enter, exit, overfly, land, take off, conduct aerial refueling, and move within the territory of Afghanistan." Critics warn that the stipulation is likely to allow the U.S. to continue its covert drone wars against the region, including neighboring Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the U.S. is to play a critical role in "advising, training, equipping, supporting, and sustaining" the Afghan military, as well as "developing intelligence sharing capabilities; strengthening Afghanistan’s Air Force capabilities; conducting combined military exercises." Many warn that "training" is in fact cover for holding onto bases and other geopolitical footholds.

According to Lems, this provision sets the conditions for long-term U.S. domination. "To have the U.S. fully fund that apparatus will lead to dependence, but also encourage Afghan officials to use force and violence the way the U.S. has," he said."

So while the US has decided to pull out a large proportion of the troops in the country, this deal allows more to stay and the continuation of the funding and arming of this foreign army. It also allows immunity to US forces still in the country. This is a hotly contested aspect of the US presence in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of Afghan campaigns US service personnel were granted a certain immunity to crimes against Afghan civilians, including murder. With an estimated 21,000 civilians killed since operations began it seems immunity is getting it's use. Sadly.

So the take away on Afghanistan is this.

The US has put it's citizens into deeper debt with it's central bankers. It has made millionaires of designers and builders of machines that maim and kill. It has subjected it's citizens to death in the name of war. And it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. 

The Best Sandwich for Everyone by Dan Pratt

The Best Sandwich for Everyone

A modest proposal for Election Day

NOVEMBER 03, 2014 by DAN PRATT

Filed Under : Democracy

Do you have a favorite sandwich? If so, then it must be the best sandwich in the world. No other sandwich can satisfy like your sandwich can, right? Everyone should enjoy the best sandwich in the world, and no one should be exempt. By golly, we have to make sure everyone gets that awesome sandwich because otherwise there would be no justice in the world. We had better get the word out.

You should find like-minded people who like the same sandwich that you do. Luckily, there are two major national sandwich parties that each advocate a certain sandwich. There is the Ham and Cheese Party and the Peanut Butter and Jelly Party. Simply find the sandwich party that most closely approximates your favorite sandwich. What's that you say? Neither of those two sandwiches are even close to your favorite sandwich? Nonsense! If your favorite sandwich has meat, you belong to the Ham and Cheese Party. If your favorite sandwich has no meat, you belong to the Peanut Butter and Jelly Party. It's that simple. Don't confuse the situation with nuances. Don't try to tell me you're allergic to any of those things. You will adapt. Don't bother me about allegedly low-quality ingredients. It all tastes the same anyway. Just pick one of the two sandwich parties.

There is another thing you should know. There are alternative sandwich parties that advocate some really ridiculous sandwiches like BLTs, patty melts, or grilled cheese. Do not be tempted by those alternative sandwich parties. Sure, you might find a third party that advocates your exact sandwich, but those sandwiches will never win a majority vote, so don't even try. Oh, and most important of all: Never, EVER, try to tell me that you don't like sandwiches. If you know anyone who claims they don't like sandwiches, tell them what will happen if they don't advocate a national sandwich: no one will get any sandwiches and everyone will die. Some people will try to push the issue by saying that people could potentially choose any sandwich regardless of what everyone else is doing. Or they will say that people should be able to choose whether to have a sandwich at all. If you meet someone like this, attack them personally and publicly ridicule them for suggesting that people are actually capable of being responsible for their own lunches.

Now that you're a member of a major sandwich party, you need to get out there and convince people that your party's sandwich is totally awesome and way better than the other sandwiches. You should be prepared to donate a significant amount of money to your sandwich party at the local, state, and national levels. Put a sandwich sign on your lawn. Start conversations at work so you can make sure your coworkers will support the same sandwich as you. Make sure to avoid conversations with those who are not on board with your sandwich. On social media, make sure to attack the opposing sandwich party. Blame their sandwich for all of society's ills. Explain how your party's sandwich is the best thing that could ever happen to the nation.

When it's voting time, get out there and vote! And make sure everyone in your sandwich party votes as well! This is your time to tell the world that everyone, whether they like it or not, should enjoy your party's preferred sandwich, whether that is ham and cheese or peanut butter and jelly. Of course, no matter which major sandwich party wins the election, everyone will get old tuna sandwiches.

But that means that next time, you should vote even harder!

A version of this article appeared on ComprehensiveLiberty.com.

Taken from The Foundation for Economic Education website. 

ABOUT

DAN PRATT

Dan Pratt is a financial educator with World Financial Group and teaches mathematics at Primavera Online High School. On his blog at www.comprehensiveliberty.com Dan advocates the principles of liberty. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Music and Master of Education in Secondary Education from Arizona State University. Dan lives in Mesa, Arizona with his wife, Elizabeth, and their three sons.

Why America Doesn't have a "Free Market Capitalist" Economic System

I say quite often that America does not have a Free Market Capitalist economic system and sometimes the befuddled looks I get from those that hear this provokes them to question what I mean by it. The answer is simple and can be broken down into two parts, the two definitions of what is being asked.

"What is a Free Market?" and "What is Capitalism?"

The answers to these two questions together with an understanding of the current mode of economic activity gives a clear indication that the statement, "America does not have a Free Market economic system" is true.

So what is a free market economic system?
Free Market principles point to an economic system where business are unfettered by regulation, licensing, special fees and taxation, a system where all manner of salable goods are on the market without prohibition or exclusion. It is a system where the buying habits of those consumers would drive the manufacturers and distributors to produce or stock items that were valued by customers and discontinue or remove goods that have lost favor or marketability and sales numbers. This provides that customers are able to actually drive the economy by their buying habits and wants, without the interference of an outside entity.

This would of course be in contrast to the current system of high regulation, increasing taxation, special licencing, educational requirements and so on the American system is plagued by. Economists who advocate this idea of unfettered markets, also see that allowing prices and wages to form naturally and the availability and manufacture of goods to lie in the interest of those who have the capability to produce and the want to produce in trade for profit is a nearly unfailing concept in the ways of maximum efficiency of producers as well as maximum favorable market conditions for consumers.

With this some may say that the deregulation of businesses will (could/would) lead to businesses being able to skirt environmental concerns, livable wages, price gouging, and so on. In response to this one can argue on the case of environmental concerns that the information that a retailer or manufacturer was damaging the environment, the consumers voice could be heard by lowering or altogether abandoning or boycotting the product, manufacturer and retailers and distributors. When profits and sales decrease a signal is sent that certain practices are not favorable or condoned. This is the aspect of "market self regulation".

On the issue of wages. Wages should be set by employer and employee. If in the scenario an employer is offering too little pay the potential employee can ask for more or refuse. By no means should the wage of any person be determined by anyone other than the laborer and the job provider. In the system we have now wages are set by government decree, in an attempt to make a fair wage government actually provides yet another hurdle for a prospective employee to jump in order to gain employment. If the set wage is too high for the business, they will refuse to hire. Minimum wage laws also hinder the ability of these businesses to adjust wages based on experience of each employee, there is always a floor that they cannot overcome. Again a control on the level of wages offered by businesses is not a Free Market principle. It is a system of control.

Pricing controls work similar to wage controls, being that wages are prices and vice-versa, it stands that any interference in the marketable value being set by someone other than the seller negates the definition of free market practice.

So what is Capitalism?

Capitalism is defined many ways depending on the social structure lense those defining it look through. To make this easier we can go with two differing opinions, one from Wikipedia (which I use because of it's high use of editing from other editors) and then a definition from the website WorldSocialism.org (including this one because it highlights the idea that the word has different meanings depending on who you ask and how they define it).
According to Wikipedia Capitalism is "is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.  In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."  This is the definition, or close to it, that most non socialists agree upon.

With this definition in mind we can see that there are a large number of businesses and services that are not privately owned, ran, or funded but are so called public services and are controlled by government, whether county, state, or federal, and are funded through taxation instead of consumerism. This leads me, to say that we may define America as a mixed economy, but definitely not a pure Capitalist economy.

According to the website WorldSocialism.org though Capitalism is something to be feared and abhorred based on their claim of worker exploitation. The definition they detail is,"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)"

They go on to say,"The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money by selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labor market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."

And with this in mind we can ask the socialist this question, "isn't the worker also a capitalist, as they value their time and effort less than the wage they are paid? If they did not value the wage more than the time or effort they would not work, as in a socialist society, goods are given freely based upon need and taken based upon production, or better said by their economic muse Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This proclaims that no matter how productive you are, your effort is only for the benefit for the others who wish not to work or do not perform as you do. What incentive does that leave to work hard, or even harder? What incentive does that leave to work at all? What incentive does that leave to create, to innovate, or to improve upon goods? If there is no benefit for someone to excel at a good or service it will be done at a minimum speed and quality.


With that being said we can look at the American economy as a partial capitalist economy and a partial socialist economy. There are many areas that the State has complete control over production or service. Roads, Schools, Protection Services, Old Age Insurance are a few of the largest and easiest to see. In that the capitalist is still beholden to government entities in order to start or continue in their business. We can also see THAT is in no way a "free market" system.

On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")