Ron Paul on Afghanistan: "failed policy, purposeless war"

Looks like the Prez isn't going to end the American invasion in Afghanistan before he leaves office after all. Another promise broken. But hey, that was then, this is now. Who could have guessed that if the US military left the armpit of the world, the Taliban would come out from behind the rocks to fill the void? Who could have guessed that the Afghan National Army would be a fighting force in theory only? Who could have guessed that a new Afghan government would be just as feckless and corrupt as the old government of Mohammed Krazai?

Apparently Barack Hussein Obama never guessed those things. Neither did the Secretary of State who now aspire to fill the void left by President 0's departure from the Oval Office. The whole Afghanistan adventure didn't turn out well, did it. But rather than admit defeat, the Prez has decided to ramp up the war again. He announced last week that the US will keep 3000 more troops than planned over there in the sandpit. And the USA (and its NATO camp followers) will also continue funding the ineffectual Afghan security forces until 2020.

Why, I hear you ask, are we pouring more blood and treasure down the rathole of a chunk of barrenness that's hardly worth fighting for? According to Mr Obama, "It is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we"ve invested over the years, that we give our partners in Afghanistan the best chance to succeed."

He's kidding, right? But it's not funny. In "Fool’s Errand: NATO Pledges Four More Years of War in Afghanistan", Ron Paul says the real reason for wading back into the morass "is obvious: the mission has failed and Washington cannot bear to admit it." Mr Paul continues:

This is how irrational Washington’s logic is. Where else but in government would you see it argued that you cannot stop spending on a project because you have already spent so much to no avail? In the real world, people who invest their own hard-earned money in a failed scheme do something called "cut your losses". Government never does that. Isn't 15 years of US "blood and treasure" enough of a "best chance" to succeed?...

When I suggested in a recent interview that the only sensible US policy in Afghanistan would be to bring all the troops home, the host asked whether I was worried the Taliban would rush in to fill the vacuum. That’s what has already happened, I said. The Taliban are stronger than ever in Afghanistan. They control more territory than at any time since the original US invasion in 2001. Despite 15 years of US interventionism, nearly 2,500 dead US soldiers, and well over a trillion dollars, Afghanistan is no closer to being a model democracy than it was before 9/11. It’s a failed policy. It’s a purposeless war. It is a failed program.

The neocons argue that Iraq, Libya, and other US interventions fell apart because the US did not stay long enough. As usual they are wrong. They failed and they will continue to fail because they cannot succeed. You cannot invade a country, overthrow its government, and build a new country from the ground up. It is a fool’s errand and Washington has turned most Americans into fools. It’s time to end this game and get back to the wise foreign policy of the founders: non-intervention in the affairs of others.