Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: see clearly now who wrote (112432)	6/16/2010 9:00:04 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

In other words, in a far wealthier country, another set of leaders, having watched the Soviet Union implode, decisively embarked on the Soviet path to disaster. The difference is that the US was attacked, and the Soviet Union was not. The Soviets invaded in response to coup attempts against their proxy Marxist allies in Kabul. The US defeated and removed from power, the enemy and the government that provided them sanctuary (Taliban). That deposed government is now fighting an insurgency from an adjacent country. Now.. the question is not whether the war is winnable, but whether Afghanistan, as a country, is defensible. Does it actually have what is necessary to be a unified country, or is it to be carved up into smaller entities and forever under the thumb of it's bigger neighbors? As for whether Afghanistan will ultimately "do us in" economically, I don't think so since most of it is paid for under current budget, which is well within traditional norms for DOD spending (20% of Fed Budget versa 50's spending of 69%). But, that said, there certainly is far more room for reapproaching DOD spending and enforcing cost controls. What WILL "do us in" is the prolific increase in entitlement spending, as well as growing roles of unemployed drawing Welfare (extended unemployment benefits), and food stamps. Increasing government control over healthcare, WITHOUT focusing on cost controls. All of the entitlement spending has FAR EXCEEDED any increases in DOD spending and that's what's CRUSHING our Federal Budget. Now.. to address some of the other issues: Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials. Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year." When it comes right down to it, SpecOps and intelligence operations are the ONLY REAL way to handle these terrorist networks. Even in Iraq, with 150,000 soldiers there, it was the SpecOps guys who were bringing down the terrorist networks. They were launching missions each and every night tracking down leadership, bomb makers, and those with knowledge of the netorks. And ultimately, it will be their efforts that bring around the countries in which they operate to quash these terrorist cells within their own countries. But it's also going to take USAID and State Department cooperation to foster nation building opportunities to alleviate the conditions that lead to religious radicalization. Let's face it.. we don't want to apply the "heavy hammer" of the conventional military. We're supposed to save that capability as a deterrent response to war with a major power. Therefore, we need to provide the support, assistance, and when necessary, spine stiffening, for these nations to do it themselves. But definitely SpecOps and Intel ops are the preferable manner to deal with this. Use the host countries troops and our specialized personnel to deal with these cells. Hawk