UWS vet not shocked by announcement
12/2/2009
By Laura Podgornik
Staff Writer
President Barack Obama announced Tuesday that 30,000 more troops will be sent to Afghanistan to aid in war efforts.
Although Obama said these troops would begin to return home in July 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recognized that troops may return later if all isn’t well.
Congress is apprehensive about the $30 billion cost this will bring, but leaders believe the President will receive the needed funding.
While various Democrats are favoring a “war tax,” it is speculated that the Federal government will increase their borrowing.
Since 2001, the U.S. has spent around $1 trillion dollars on the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
UW-Superior Iraq War Veteran, Andrew Clark, weighed in on this announcement with a statement. Clark served four active years in the Army and is a member of the UWS vets club.
Clark’s statement is as follows:
"I was not surprised at all when I heard about the President's decision to prolong the occupation of Afghanistan. I think that President Obama is being pressured by the military industrial complex special interest groups to prolong the occupation of Afghanistan for as long as possible because that means more profits for the military industrial complex corporations. If there is no war, there is no profit. Do I think 911 was horrible? Yes, of course, 3000 innocent people were killed. It is also interesting to note that roughly 40,000 Americans die every year as a result of our greed-ridden health care system, but you don't see Obama or any other of our leaders discussing productive measures to stop this sort of thing. All of the health care reform options that are being discussed are shaped by health care lobbyists that are directly responsible for the crisis. Our leaders serve big business, not the American people. Two thirds of Americans want us out of Afghanistan, so why did Obama decide to send 30,000 more troops? The truth is our politicians are using September 11th as a scapegoat to secure vital resources around the world. If we wanted to go after Al Qaeda, didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?"
Student Bill Cradick has served in the Marines for four years, and has done tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Here is his take on the situation:
"Afghanistan has very unforgiving terrain. It takes hours to get anywhere, and most of the time, the enemy has eyes on you from miles away. It may look small on a map, but the mountains make up for that deceiving size. More "troops" is more territory covered, which gives less breathing room for the enemy to operate. If one is against it because of a chance for higher casualties then hear this. The enemy is smart, and will not attack unless they have tactical superiority, which includes numbers. The more troops, the less likely a full-scale attack will occur; but allows the U.S. and coalition forces to move in on the enemy instead."
Although Obama said these troops would begin to return home in July 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recognized that troops may return later if all isn’t well.
Congress is apprehensive about the $30 billion cost this will bring, but leaders believe the President will receive the needed funding.
While various Democrats are favoring a “war tax,” it is speculated that the Federal government will increase their borrowing.
Since 2001, the U.S. has spent around $1 trillion dollars on the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
UW-Superior Iraq War Veteran, Andrew Clark, weighed in on this announcement with a statement. Clark served four active years in the Army and is a member of the UWS vets club.
Clark’s statement is as follows:
"I was not surprised at all when I heard about the President's decision to prolong the occupation of Afghanistan. I think that President Obama is being pressured by the military industrial complex special interest groups to prolong the occupation of Afghanistan for as long as possible because that means more profits for the military industrial complex corporations. If there is no war, there is no profit. Do I think 911 was horrible? Yes, of course, 3000 innocent people were killed. It is also interesting to note that roughly 40,000 Americans die every year as a result of our greed-ridden health care system, but you don't see Obama or any other of our leaders discussing productive measures to stop this sort of thing. All of the health care reform options that are being discussed are shaped by health care lobbyists that are directly responsible for the crisis. Our leaders serve big business, not the American people. Two thirds of Americans want us out of Afghanistan, so why did Obama decide to send 30,000 more troops? The truth is our politicians are using September 11th as a scapegoat to secure vital resources around the world. If we wanted to go after Al Qaeda, didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?"
Student Bill Cradick has served in the Marines for four years, and has done tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Here is his take on the situation:
"Afghanistan has very unforgiving terrain. It takes hours to get anywhere, and most of the time, the enemy has eyes on you from miles away. It may look small on a map, but the mountains make up for that deceiving size. More "troops" is more territory covered, which gives less breathing room for the enemy to operate. If one is against it because of a chance for higher casualties then hear this. The enemy is smart, and will not attack unless they have tactical superiority, which includes numbers. The more troops, the less likely a full-scale attack will occur; but allows the U.S. and coalition forces to move in on the enemy instead."
PHOTO OF THE DAY:::...
Art in the park. Photo by Alyssa Palmer
WEATHER:::...
Call the University Weather Hotline for campus closures and other weather updates 1-715-394-8400
FIND US ON:::...
