This week, in accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama strenuouslythat "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation" he "cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people." I couldn't agree more. But what exactly are the threats to the American people coming from Afghanistan? The Taliban? Or thewho didn't get the "we're moving to Pakistan" memo? In his 2002 denunciation of the war in Iraq, Obama: "I don't oppose all wars...What I am opposed to is a dumb war." Well,to 100,000 and spending $30 billion a year to take on 100 terrorists -- that's 1,000 U.S. soldiers and $300 million for every one al-Qaeda fighter -- while the real threats lie elsewhere strikes me as the gold standard of a dumb, immoral war of choice.
|
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

This week, in accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama strenuously argued that "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation" he "cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people." I couldn't agree more. But what exactly are the threats to the American people coming from Afghanistan? The Taliban? Or the 100 al-Qaeda members who didn't get the "we're moving to Pakistan" memo? In his 2002 denunciation of the war in Iraq, Obama said: "I don't oppose all wars...What I am opposed to is a dumb war." Well, escalating troop levels to 100,000 and spending $30 billion a year to take on 100 terrorists -- that's 1,000 U.S. soldiers and $300 million for every one al-Qaeda fighter -- while the real threats lie elsewhere strikes me as the gold standard of a dumb, immoral war of choice.

Popular in the Community