The Big Question: Will leaks push Congress to end war funding?


Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

The capture of U.S. soldiers is more likely to influence political positions than news of Pakistan effectively using U.S. funds to kill U.S. soldiers.  The only reason we are in Afghanistan now is because we have a liberal president trying to show he is tough.  There is no strategic purpose to shed blood or spend treasure in poppy land.  Of course as soon as we cut off Pakistan from money and weapons, China will move in and India will have a conniption fit.


Bill Press, host of the "Bill Press Show" and a contributor to the Pundits Blog, said:
Now that we all know the truth, maybe enough members of Congress will start exercising real oversight and pull the plug on war funding. Bill Press



Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:
We approach a crisis of confidence in both the naval presence in the east and the soldiers in the Punjab. It will come to a head in September. Obama can turn this nation around or he can continue the imperial presence begun by the British in these lands and waters several hundred years ago.


John F. McManus, President of The John Birch Society, said:      

The leaks about the Afghanistan War ought to be more than enough to have the entire operation canceled.  But there are behind-the-scenes purposes for this war that very few will discuss.  These include simply being at war in order to maintain support for the administration, increasing government power, supplying legitimacy to additional trashing of the U.S. Constitution, and even inviting future attacks on the U.S. by jihadists. While keeping in mind the Rahm Emanuel's assertion that no crisis should ever be wasted, let's expand on these purposes one-by-one.
 
When our nation is at war, the American people support leaders who control how it is being fought. Support for the troops gets transformed into support for the president. Yet without the war, the Obama administration's poll numbers would be even lower. 
 
War always leads to more government and additional government spending (today via indebtedness). Further, war stimulates moral decline and an excuse to impose additional government controls. 
 
This war was never declared by Congress, a flagrant disregarding of the Constitution's clear requirement for a formal declaration by Congress before troops are sent into battle.  While not the only unconstitutional act of this and previous administration's, the undeclared war gives further impetus to the ongoing disparagement of the document that all leaders solemnly swear an oath to uphold.
 
Hardly anyone denies that U.S. military presence and the continuing operations by its forces have stimulated a growth in the amount of militant opposition. Will this consequence of the swelling of hatred for our nation result in terrorist attacks within our borders?  Who can deny that such a possibility increases as this war drags on?  Wouldn't another attack result in more government controls and denials of freedom here at home?
 
The war started as an effort to capture Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. In fairly rapid succession, it became a war against terrorism in general, a campaign to eradicate opium production, a mission to impose "democracy" on a people who haven't the faintest idea of what that means, and the creation of a centralized government (known to be corrupt) in a nation where tribal rulers have long maintained their centuries-old domination over private fiefdoms.  A declared war would have an identifiable and unchanging goal.
 
It's long past the time to bring our troops home.  If the revealing leaks about how this war is being conducted help to end this ill-begotten adventure, Americans should express gratitude to those who published them.  


Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

I have been to war (WW II), so I don't think of war as some kind of video game. Many military secrets are important to the side that holds them, and many are not very important, but leakers, who are not warriors, ignore the difference. The release of information previously secret neither prolongs nor ends a war, but it does damage one side and help the other. Those who get their kicks by releasing information about one side are simply helping the other. During WW II we lost some secrets that cost us ships and men (I was in the Navy), prolonging the war. We penetrated some secrets held by the Germans and Japanese, and that shortened the war. Simply because we were on the winning side. So the answer to your question depends on who you want to win. People who release our secrets want the other side to win, and conversely. That is the fact of the matter, and I have contempt for the newspapers who went along with this. If you don't like a war (and no one does) the folks who express themselves by trying to make us lose disgust me.