I admit it…I am an economic and political geek…and I am always looking for ways to link the two together…. I may have found my connection……
In economics, the Law of Diminishing Returns relates to….. The more you have, the smaller is the extra benefit you get from having even more. Or after a certain point each additional unit will yield less and less of a positive result.
I know…I know…just what in Hell does that have to do with Afghanistan?
I will attempt to explain……the Prez is struggling with the request for more troops, about 40,000, to be deployed to Afghanistan or face the possibility of a failure in the country. As I have said before, this was the argument made by Westmoreland to Johnson in the mid 60’s concerning Vietnam. And how did that work out for the US?
If the troops are sent to Afghanistan, how long will it be before more troops are needed? And on and on…….if we apply the Law of Diminishing Returns there will come a point that no matter how many troops are in the country the outcome will begin to diminish, meaning that the result will be a bust and a possible failure anyway. The addition of troops will do little to change that, just postpone it for awhile.
Now the argument will be that a “surge” in troops in Iraq worked wonders and the same will be true in Afghanistan. First of all, two completely different situations….because bad guys are shooting at the troops does not make it the same situation with the same solution. Second, Iraq we had 2 distinct factions to deal with and in Afghanistan there are somewhere in the neighborhood of twent factions. Third, the more Americans in the country the more chances of civilian deaths and with each one any support we have will lessen. It is hard to win hearts and minds when killing women and children.
The generals will most likely get their troops, but I suggest that the Prez spend a little time thinking about the Law of Diminishing Returns….it will apply!
Sorry – for once I TOTALLY disagree. You may be right, but even if you are, you’re still wrong – work that one out 🙂
Firstly, you and I and all of America and Britain in particular don’t have the MORAL RIGHT to say that! WE went in and, having done so, WE should have the strength and the balls to stand by the Afghan people and do it RIGHT!
Secondly, if we supplied enough troops and equipment in the first place, then it could well be that it would be largely over by now. It’s the one time I think that it’s a case of the more the merrier – we should FLOOD afghanistan with troops and then spend WHATEVER money is required to properly train and PAY the Afghan army and police to do the job properly for themselves. If the Generals are asking for 100,000 troops – send 200,000.
Thirdly, the reason women and children are being killed is largely because we’re still making the same stupid mistake that was made in Vietnam (and this is the ONE AND ONLY thing that is similar), we think we can go in with fighting machinery and high tech and win a guerilla war – bullshit – can’t be done – men, troops, that’s what’s required … well equipped and protected and backed up by high tech certainly, but properly trained men on the ground nevertheless.
Fourthly, if Rumsfeld had not stubbornly and arrogantly refused to believe that 200,000 or 300,000 more troops were required and that he was advised were needed in Iraq at the beginning and all through, THAT would have worked out a whole lot better, quicker and in the long run cheaper in terms of both money and lives lost on both sides.
If you’re an economist, then you KNOW FULL WELL that doing ANYTHING on the cheap rarely works and almost always costs far more in the long run. The old UK saying of, “if you pay peanuts, you get monkies” applies to all types of purchases including military action. In this world, you don’t always get what you pay for, but you almost NEVER get what you DON’T pay for! (something the chancers who brought down the world economies would have done well to remember).
Apart from that, I expect I agree with you 🙂
Hi Quin…this day just had to come….where we would disagree……I agree with you on some of the points, but I was a victim of the Vietnam War and have heard all the arguments before…….they did not work in Viet and I do not think they will work in Afghanistan….we could have done a much better job in 2001 but I believe that it has gone to crap in a hand basket and all the money and troops can only be wasted.
There was a point when we could have been more successful, but all those darn pesky non-existent WMD in Iraq took precedent. I think to keep increasing troop levels now would just be pissing on a forest fire.
Never fear I enjoy a good civil debate and I thank you for that…..
“…enjoy a good debate” – me too 🙂
One thing though, well two actually, because I don’t see a connection with Vietnam, although many Americans do – it’s always going to haunt you.
The thing I wanted to say, though, is not actually solely about Afghanistan, it’s as much about Iraq. Yes there was a point where it would have been much easier in Afghanistan, but the same might be said of Iraq if it had been handled properly and with the sort of resources that America has at it’s disposal.
If you want to be really devious minded, you could say that the very best opportunity to sort out Iraq was in 1992 and it would have been just as legal (illegal) as it was in this latest debacle. I think I might have mentioned that in my opinion Bush Jr was simply doing what Bush Sr maybe should have done or even wishes he had done.
But then I love conspiracy theories too, even though I don’t believe most of them 🙂
I have been a political junkie most of my life and just about every argument to pump men and money into Afghanistan was said almost word for word……..yep…Jr. is just finishing what daddy did not….but beyond that a lot of the same people were involved with both Iraq excursions…Cheney, Rumsfeld and a couple of others……
I also think that the US has gone past the deadline for the Afghans to be on our side ….the deeper we get into the war the more we will be resented……
Then there is Karzai a corrupt little toad that is not working well with others……his gig is power after that he cares little for what is happening…..about the only answer for Karzai is what they did to Diem in Vietnam, who was another corrupt little toad, the CIA had him put to sleep…..
We could debate this for ever about the only thing we can really say is….to wait and see…after all Patreus and the “surge” did succeed, maybe we will get lucky one more time…….
“…his gig is power after that he cares little for what is happening…..” Yeah, I agree with that – it’s a bit like Washington and London, isn’t it? 🙂
Uh huh…the two are almost inseparable at times…I will say that I like your way of elections over ours….the US spends way too much time on elections and the money….OMG! Would you spend $100 million for a $400,000 a year job?…..that is why we get the government money can buy……