On the one hand, we learn that our Administration is considering escalating the war in Afghanistan:

The classified assessment submitted Monday by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took over American and NATO forces in Afghanistan in June, did not request additional American troops, American officials said, but they added that it effectively laid the groundwork for such a request in coming weeks.

While details of the report remained secret, the revised strategy articulated by General McChrystal in recent public comments would invest the United States more extensively in Afghanistan than it has been since American forces helped topple the Taliban government following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Taking a page from the 2007 strategy shift in Iraq, he has emphasized protecting civilians over just engaging insurgents.

For Mr. Obama, who already ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan this year, the prospect of a still larger deployment would test his commitment to a war he did not launch even as it grows more violent by the month. [emphasis added]

On the other hand, the view of the Administration is that the federal budget is so squeezed that federal workers will not get pay increases (via The Wall Street Journal):

President Barack Obama blocked large pay raises slated for tens of thousands of federal employees Monday, overriding statutory formulas to hold pay increases to 2% in 2010.

  Let me make a few points here.

  First, every supporter of Barack Obama should be deeply concerned about the war in Afghanistan. This is a war without end, without "victory" and a tragic waste of money and lives–American and Afghani. The echoes to Vietnam are scary–a young president gets drawn into a conflict which is essentially a civil war, egged on by promises that the country can "win" the war if we just commit enough troops.

  Mr. President, your presidency, and your legacy, will not survive an involvement with another disastrous war. For those of us who want you to be a great president, please do not succumb to the false promises of victory in a war that we have no business fighting and which not only is not about "winning the war on terror" but, in fact, only increases the hostility to our country around the world and increases the threat of terrorism.

  Second, so that we understand the connection to what we are paying our federal workers, we are pouring an immoral amount of money into the twin mistakes called Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2010 House Defense Appropriations budget, which comes in at a staggering $636.3 billion (an immoral level on its own), includes $128.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate Defense Authorization bill for 2010 had a total of $679.8 billion for defense of which $130 billion is for war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  Third, I have argued for some time that the economic collapse that we are grappling with is a really the end result of a 30-year period in which most workers did not get the benefit of productivity gains and wages were flat, which led to an over-reliance on credit cards and inflated home prices.

  The only way out of this mess, long-term, is to re-inflate wages (which means broad unionization and demanding that the Federal Reserve Board pursue its other rarely-talked about mandate, FULL EMPLOYMENT).

  If tis is true, then, blocking pay raises for workers is not a good economic strategy.

  So, to sum up, let me tie these two points together:

  We have plenty of money.

  The question is what priorities should we pursue.

  We are throwing tens of billions of dollars into a war that will have no end and no victory–while we are denying our own workers basic wage increases.

  With respect, I dissent.