Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan
Barack Obama has restated his phased withdrawal plan for Iraq in response to public questioning, but committed himself to expanding the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Any proposal to transfer American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan is sure to cause debate and questions among peace activists and rank-and-file Democrats. The proposal potentially represents a wider quagmire for the US government and military.
On Iraq, Obama said nothing especially new in his July 14 New York Times op-ed piece and his foreign policy speech in Washington today. In both, he forcefully restated his commitment to combat troop withdrawals after his recent statements suggesting that he would "refine" his views when he consults military commanders on the ground. He neglected to address how many American "residual forces" he would leave behind in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and "protect American service members," though he made additional US trainers conditional on the Iraqis making "political progress." It is a proposal that seems to promise a phased diminishing of the American military presence, not a complete withdrawal.
Many independent analysts question the wisdom of leaving some 50,000 American troops as advisers, trainers and counter-terrorism units in Iraq after the withdrawal of 140,000 by 2010. Those forces would be protecting a sectarian political regime that is linked to death squads, militias and a detention system now holding 50,000 Iraqis in violation of human rights standards.
It is quite possible that Obama's regional diplomacy, including hard bargaining with Iran, could facilitate a decent interval for American troop withdrawals and a more stabilized Iraq, as suggested by former CIA director John M. Deutch.
Obama smartly exploited the recent call by Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki for a US withdrawal deadline, although al-Maliki's timeline was twice as long as Obama's. In this face-saving scenario, the Pentagon would follow "the Philippine option," in which the client government formally requested that the United States close its bases. This option was advocated openly by the Marines' commander in Iraq in 2004. The United States withdrew only obsolete naval forces from the Philippines, however; today we spend hundreds of millions on a secret war against Islamic forces in the southern Philippines. Obama might do the same.
These public policy ambiguities are not simply Obama's problem; they are caused by a mainstream media that stubbornly refuses to ask any questions about those "residual forces." For example, how will "residual forces," tied to the regime the Americans put in power, be more successful on the battlefield than the departing 170,000 combat troops?
But Obama's proposals for Afghanistan and Pakistan are far more problematic. They can be described in everyday language as either out of the frying pan and into the fire or attacking needles by burning down haystacks.
The Pentagon paradigm is to defeat Al Qaeda militarily while refusing to address, and thereby worsening, the dire conditions that gave rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in the first place. In careful prose based on reputable sources, Ahmed Rashid's new Descent into Chaos (Viking, 2008) provides a horrific portrait of Afghanistan:
• It is estimated by RAND that $100 per capita is the minimum required to stabilize a country evolving out of war. Bosnia received $679 per capita, Kosovo $526, while Afghanistan received $57 per capita in the key years, 2001-2003.
• When the United States installed the Hamid Karzai government, Afghanistan ranked 172nd out of 178 nations on the United Nation's Human Development Index. It has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world, a life expectancy rate of 44-45 years, and the youngest population of any country. In 2005, 95 percent of Kabul's residents were living without electrical power.
• Seven hundred civilians were killed in the first five months of 2008 alone, according to the United Nations.
• Despite some gains in media and currency reform, plus a modest increase in the number of children in school, this was the path of least reconstruction. And despite images of Afghan democracy that made loya jirga tribal gatherings appear to be the birth of participatory democracy, a warlord state was entrenched by the CIA.
There are some 36,000 US troops stretched across Afghanistan, another 17,500 under NATO command, and 18,000 in counterinsurgency and training roles. They are so aggressively combat-oriented that the Afghan government itself continually objects to the rate of civilian casualties. It costs the Pentagon $2 billion per month to support 30,000 American troops. According to Rashid, "Afghanistan is not going to be able to pay for its own army for many years to come--perhaps never."
As of 2006, Afghanistan's economy still rested on producing 90 percent of the world's opium, an eerie narco-state parallel with the US counterinsurgency in Colombia, where most of America's supply of cocaine originates.
Afghanistan is an unstable police state. By 2005, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission cited 800 cases of detainee abuse at some thirty US firebases. "The CIA operates its own secret detention centers, which were off limits to the US military." Ghost prisoners, known as Persons Under Control are held permanently without any public records of their existence. Warlords operate their own prisons with "unprecedented abuse, torture, and death of Taliban prisoners." And as the US lowered the number of prisoners at Guantánamo, it increased the numbers held at Bagram, near Kabul. As of January, 2008, there were 630 incarcerated at Bagram, "including some who had been there for five years and whom the ICRC had still not been given access to." After weeks of hunger strikes about detention conditions, the Taliban recently orchestrated a jailbreak of hundreds of Afghanis from the Kandahar prison, an inside job.
As in Iraq, the US contracted for police training in Afghanistan with DynCorp International. Between 2003 and 2005, the US spent $860 million to train 40,000 Afghan police, "but the results were totally useless," according to Rashid. Even Richard Holbrooke described the DynCorp training program as "an appalling joke...a complete shambles."
When the Taliban government was overthrown, the US installed a Westernized Pashtun, Hamid Karzai, a former lobbyist for Unocal, who had been out of the country during the jihad against the Soviet Union. But for the first time in 300 years, the Pashtun tribes themselves were violently displaced from power. At 42 percent of the population, they remain by far the largest Afghan minority, heavily concentrated in Kandahar and the southern provinces and across the federally administered tribal areas in western Pakistan. These are the areas that the Pentagon, the New York Times and Barack Obama (like John Kerry before him) designate as the central battlefront of the war on terrorism.
The question is not simply a moral one. Is an expanded war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fueled by troop transfers from Iraq, winnable? In what sense?
Transferring 10,000 American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, which Obama proposes, is symbolic, a potential down payment on the treadmill of further escalation. (In his statement, Obama supports "at least" two additional brigades for Afghanistan.) The future of the Pentagon's "rear" in Iraq will be questionable if fifteen combat brigades are withdrawn under Obama's plan, while the Pentagon's new "front" line cannot be secured with two brigades sent to southern and eastern Afghanistan. At best these might be holding actions until the next administration makes a decision about its ultimate strategy. Obama may be proposing an escalation simply in order not to lose, a pattern well-documented in Daniel Ellsberg's history of the Vietnam War.
But the US escalation policy already is deepening, with bipartisan support--or silence--so far. In keeping with counterinsurgency strategies going back to America's long wars against native tribes, the Pentagon has fostered the ascension of a new Pakistani general, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, whose background includes training at Fort Benning and Fort Leavenworth. An unnamed US military official praises Kayani "for embracing new counterinsurgency training and tactics that could be more effective in countering militants in the country's tribal areas. Over $400 million is being spent to recruit a "frontier corps" of to "turn local tribes against militants." CIA and Special Forces operatives already have invaded Pakistan to set up a secret base from which to hunt Osama bin Laden--before Mr. Bush leaves office--as well as fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the ground and from pilotless Predator drones.
All this constitutes yet another preventive war by the United States, this one in violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and against the stated policies of the newly elected Pakistani government, not to mention the overwhelming sentiment among Pakistan's people. On the Afghan front, the Taliban will be able to retreat in the face of greater US firepower, or attack like Lilliputians from multiple sides if the US concentrates its forces around the Pakistan border. Further violence and tides of anti-American sentiment could sweep across the region into Pakistan with unpredictable results.
Michael Scheuer, the former CIA official once charged with tracking down Osama bin Laden, suggests that the American delusion is that "by establishing a minority-dominated semi-secular, pro-Indian government [in Kabul], we would neither threaten the identity nor raise the ire of the Pashtun tribes nor endanger Pakistan's national security." In his recent book, Marching Towards Hell, Scheuer wrote that "for the United States, the war in Afghanistan has been lost. By failing to recognize that the only achievable US mission in Afghanistan was to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda and their leaders and get out, Washington is now faced with fighting a protracted and growing insurgency. The only upside of this coming defeat is that it is a debacle of our own making. We are not being defeated by our enemies; we are in the midst of defeating ourselves."
The beginning of an alternative may require unfreezing American diplomacy towards Iran and considering a "grand bargain" instead. Teheran is the single power, according to CIA director Deutch, that could destabilize the US withdrawal from Iraq. It happens that they were America's ally against Afghanistan not so long ago. The Iranians have lost thousands of police and soldiers themselves in a border war against Afghan drug lords. As William Polk wrote in Violent Politics, "ironically, the only effective deterrent to the trade is Iran." In exchange for security guarantees against a US-directed regime change, Iran may be willing to discuss cooperation with the "Great Satan" to stabilize its borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. Improbable? That depends on whether one thinks the alternative is unthinkable.
Only a short time ago, the United States was supporting the jihadists in the same tribal areas as they ventured to destroy the Soviet occupation. In the same years, the United States was hosting the Taliban for talks on a possible oil pipeline across Afghanistan. Since twists and turns seem to be the only pattern in divide-and-conquer strategies, it is possible that Obama thinks being tough towards Afghanistan and Pakistan is a defensive cover for withdrawing from Iraq, and he later will follow up with unspecified diplomacy after he takes office. But history shows that creeping escalations create a momentum and constituency of their own. Obama might get lucky, lower the level of the visible wars and embrace a diplomatic offensive. But North and South Waziristan could be his Bay of Pigs.
To borrow a popular phrase of the season, ending one war Iraq to start two more in Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to be a dumb idea.
Tom Hayden is the author of The Other Side (1966, with Staughton Lynd), The Love of Possession Is a Disease With Them (1972), Ending the War in Iraq (2007) and Writings for a Democratic Society: The Tom Hayden Reader (2008).
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
58 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Hayden,
Take back your endorsement of this right wing politician.
So then Tom, why remain a member of a Party that opts, again, for expanding war? When is enough, enough? When does the conscience hurt so much that the addiction is broken?
Run, Ralph,run!
Violence only makes matters worse, not better. Obama is just another militarist whose ultimate solutions come from the barrel of a gun.
During his puerile saber-rattling speech on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan Senator Obama vowed that as President he would use "all tools available to him" to prevent Iran from obtaining an atomic weapon. Quite aside from the fact that such language is hardly different from McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb Tehran" and clearly involves the threat of a nuclear first strike on Iran, the fundamental issue that Senator Obama always skirts when he talks about Iran and nuclear arms is at what stage will he act? What intelligence will he use to determine that his "line in the sand" has been crossed? An Iranian "Curveball?" Or a specific concentration of U235 in enriched uranium reported by the IAEA? Or the expulsion of inspectors? Or destruction by Iran of the electronic monitors now in place? Or a real nuclear test by Iran? He does not tell us because he does not know that himself. Instead he just blows more hot air trying to make me believe that he has bigger and harder cojones than McCain.
This Obama is a dangerously loose cannon, deeply fearful that McCain and the Republicans have him over a barrel of nuclear oil in the Middle East.
Can you imagine what obscenities the Obamaites would have yelled if Hillary Clinton had made these remarks during the primaries? Yet they still genuflect en masse before their leader which is why Obama can make such dangerous statements but never, never before his adulating crowds. These mindless groupies will continue to flock to his appearances by the tens of thousands and thereby seal the fate of our country for at least four years to come.
As we were preparing to invade Iraq, our military was pulled from Afghanistan. Only a few thousand of our military remained in Afghaniustan as we invaded Iraq. The word back then was that the Taliban was destroyed. Each year since then, the news of the Taliban is that they regrouped and regained power and influrnce. A year after our invasion of Iraq, the news was of the largest poppy harvest in the world, proceeds going to the Taliban. Each year brings news of record poppy harvests. If I remember correctly GW stated (as we prepared to invade Iraq) that "capturing/killing bin Laden was not important.....getting Saddam was important". So now...suddenly.....Afghan is important. Why? About a year ago, the head NATO dude said we had maybe six months to turn things around in Afghanistan or we would lose the Afghan people. Why was it not real important six months ago to build up our military to put down the Taliban and keep or create faith from the Afghan civilians towards our troops and the feeling that the USA cares? At this point we've all but lost any hope of truning things around in Afghanistan. We couldn't get the job done well in Iraq and Iraq was/is a weak country with little military power. At the time of our invasion they had no terrorist groups. We let them in when the borders were not protected post invasion. We couldn't win then, so what makes our government/military think they can win against a stronger terrorist group than Saddam's military, with a heck of a lot more sophistication and great knowledge of the terrain in Afghanistan & Pakistan?
A few years back, there was talk of an oil pipe line that would go through Afghanistan to Asia. I wonder if the idea of building that pipe line is real....and if so, how much influence our good friend(sic) China has with the Taliban? China & Iran are "buddies" in a capatalist sort of way......How much influence does Iran have in Afghanistan with the Taliban? I don't know what is going on, but there are some "backdoor" reasons that Afganistan has become important.....way more important than they were six months ago.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Jesse Ventura said he probably would not vote at all. Good example for everyone. "Change you can believe in?" Crap.
Tom Haydn, I wish you would just come out and admit that you've gone from being a political radical to a DPAer ("Democratic Party Apologist).
You supported Gore in 2000. You supported Kerry in 2004. And now you're supporting Barack Obama.
Still! ... Even after Obama has cynically and opportunistically lurched to the right.
Tom, there *is* an alternative. And you know it. Nothing that follow should come as news to you ...
People who badmouth the candidacy of Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or any other left-wing presidential candidate invariably get hung up on the idea that "they can't win."
But that's not the point; at least not in terms of the near future.
The point is to *build* a genuinely progressive third party movement in the United States — and that takes time.
That time-line could have started in 1968. Or perhaps 1972. Or perhaps 1976. Or perhaps 1980. ...Get the picture?
(That Tom Haydn is unwilling to be part of such a movement, well, what can one say? ... You will know them by their allegiances.)
Tom Haydn's apologist comments aside, let's say that instead of receiving 2.7% of the vote in 2000, Ralph Nader instead received 5% of the vote. (Certainly not an impossible number to imagine.)
Then, let's say, he tallied 7% to 8% in 2004.
And then let's say that this year Nader, McKinney and all other similar-minded left-wing candidates, combined, got 10-12% of the presidential vote.
Do you think 10% of the electorate voting for genuinely leftist presidential candidates wouldn't be a political force to be reckoned with NO MATTER WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
You better believe that 10-12% would be a political force to be reckoned with!
QUESTION: What's pulling Obama to the left? ANSWER: At this point, very little. Why do you think he has so cynically and so calculatingly moved to the right in recent days? An Obama victory would be a triumph of form over substance, hype over action, corporate influence over democratic values.
In short, if Obama wins, democracy loses.
As far as Corporate America and the economic elite are concerned, an Obama victory would represent a triumph for business as usual. … Do you know how happy they would be, how *delighted* they would be with Obama's "happy face" out there shucking and jiving while exploitation, domestic as well as international, continues unabated?
Or, put another way — democracy doesn't thrive when evil prevails, lesser or greater.
Because clearly, *that* is what you're voting for if you pull the lever for Obama — a lesser evil.
Instead, your vote can go towards building a real alternative in American politics.
Let me make my point another way, by posing the following question to commondreams.org posters. … Would you rather have a *right-leaning* Barack Obama in the White House or, by contrast, John McCain in the White House BUT with Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and all other truly left-wing candidates garnering 10% to 12% of the November vote?
If leftists candidates this November — McKinney and Nader chief among them — were to garner 10-12% of the vote, McCain or Obama or any other corporate-controlled candidate would *HAVE* to pay attention to their progressive agenda.
Of course that 10-12% tally is made difficult by the fact that the building of a progressive alternative to corporate-controlled politics is way overdue. It should have started *years* ago.
As it is now, Corporate America and their dutiful politcal mouthpieces (a.k.a. the Republican and Democratic Party) smugly turn their back on the (complicit) DPAers –the "Democratic Party Apologists."
At some point the DRAers will wake up to their complicit. Hopefully, sooner rather than later.
If they do, one imagines Tom Haydn will be right there "on the correct side" -- opportunistically buying into the momentum, if not the movement.
Sorry to see you leave, Tom.
Vote Green. It does make a difference. It gets ballot access for future elections. It might even get federal matching money if they got to 5% nationally. Its much better than not voting, or writing in a name.
And best of all, voting Green really pisses off the Democrats
The Prez is dead, long live the Prez.
Alas - from one chimp to another.
Maybe the Dems may yet awake from their stupor and choose a yet to be announced candidate at the convention.
If not, Cynthia looking pretty good from here.
I was awed by her brief but powerful speech at the May Day strike rally in SF.
Quoting from the following article, "Obama's Swing to Right Sparks Warnings From 'Left' Backers." --
"Among the left liberals who have assiduously promoted illusions in Obama, there are those who are deluding themselves and those who work quite consciously to deceive others. (Tom) Hayden clearly falls into the second category.
"He supports Obama not because of any misunderstanding of his own about the Democratic candidate's program, but because of candidate's ability to generate illusions in others. Rather than seeking to clear up these misconceptions, Hayden works to deepen them in the name of building a movement that can 'pressure' a right-wing big business politician from the left.
"Nothing could more clearly define the politics of cynical opportunism that characterizes the great majority of the so-called left in America. Worshipers of the accomplished fact, they are mesmerized by the supposed immutability of the two-party system and seek to paint the Democratic Party as some vehicle for effecting progressive social change, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.
"As an antidote to Obama's turn rightward, Hayden proposes 'a demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.'
"This pathetic proposal is based on the false conception that Obama is merely being pushed to the right by advisers and can be brought back around with a good pep talk from the protesters. What a fraud!
"Obama's campaign itself is a creature of these supposed advisers. His presidential candidacy has been engineered by a section of the political establishment that sees it as an ideal means of putting a new face on discredited American imperialism and carrying out real but quite limited adjustments in American policy after eight years of the Bush administration. His brief though meteoric political career represents for these forces an empty vessel into which policies are being poured that have nothing to do with peace.
"The entire thrust of the politics pursued by the likes of Hayden is to tie those forces seeking a means of fighting against war and social inequality to the Democratic Party and thereby prevent the emergence of a genuine political alternative. In Hayden's view, fighting for such an alternative based on the political independence of the working class and the struggle for socialism means 'falling into the Republican divide and conquer traps.'
"Obama's rhetoric about 'change you can believe in,' his invocations of Martin Luther King's 'fierce urgency of now' and phony concern for the poor have always served to mask a right-wing capitalist program.
"When the candidate insists that he has not shifted on Iraq, he is essentially correct. His promise to 'end the war' always envisioned the continuation of the US occupation and the pursuit of the war's original predatory aims. His essential difference with McCain is over whether more troops should be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan to escalate the US war there and potentially extend it into Pakistan.
"As for domestic policy, the money that has poured into his campaign coffers from Wall Street, *nearly twice* the amount donated to his Republican rival John McCain, is based on the clear understanding that an Obama administration will faithfully serve America's financial oligarchy. (Asterisks added.)
"If the candidate is more openly promoting his right-wing agenda now, it is not in interests of gaining votes. Over two-thirds of the American people want an end to the war and the overwhelming majority is hostile to the Bush administration; he does not have to appeal to some vast right-wing constituency. On the contrary, Obama is making his pitch to the ruling elite, attempting to cast himself as 'presidential,' i.e., someone who is prepared to do whatever it takes to defend the interests of American capitalism, both at home and abroad."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j09.shtml
poopdeck July 15th, 2008 5:58 pm-good post.
The fact that Obama, who we all thought would get us out of Iraq-not another mess, is now sounding like McCain demonstrates how powerful the "support the troops", "anti war is pro-terrorist" mantras created by Bush still touches a nerve in America's sick pshychie. Any of the Generals who are in Iraq now that would give an honest assessment of the war have been fired or put on the sidelines by Bush, Obama is going to talk to these people to make an assessment of what needs to be done in Iraq?
poopdeck July 15th, 2008 5:58 pm
I thought genuflection... was only on one knee...
As a tactical analysis of Obama's plans, this article is pretty good. But Hayden doesn't mention that the twin occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal and immoral. He doesn't mention that Obama is decidedly against the idea that international law should limit the US use of force. And he doesn't mention that Obama has committed war crimes already by threatening Iran with attacks by saying "all options are on the table" and by threatening to attack Pakistan by saying "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Once progressives like Hayden (his credentials as a true progressive date to 1961) abandon principled analysis of ongoing war crimes such as illegal invasions and occupations, what remains is just a pragmatic tactical and strategic discussion. Such an abandonment, such as this article demonstrates, is a move away from progressive ideals such as Hayden surely has, and away from the progressive platform, as embodied by the Green Party, Nader, Kucinich, and Congressional Progressive Caucus platforms.
To Tom Hayden,
Why do not you shut-up and go away. It is obvious even to the blind that
there is no difference whatsoever between Obama and McCain. Both of them are war-mongers who are owned and controlled by Big Money/Big Business.
The only hope is a strong third party and that will take years to materialise.
If one expects the two political parties to end the American wars in the Middle East or stop the coming engagements in the Americas, one ought to seek therapy.
Ending these wars will be the responsibility of the American people in the streets and in the offices of every elected representative in the US of A.
"There is a story about Henry David Thoreau who, as you may know, was jailed for civil disobedience for refusing to pay his federal taxes as a protest against slavery and the U.S. invasion of Mexico. While in prison, he was visited by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson walked into the jail, approached Thoreau's cell, and called out: "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau, without skipping a beat, retorted, "Ralph, what are you doing out there?"
Hayden constantly demonstrates his views are void of wisdom, understanding, or depth.
We must get out of Iraq and Afghanistan even if it requires painting the solders bare asses yellow and have them walk out in direction of the sun to hide their departure. Iraq is an illegal occupation, morally wrong from before Bu$h the elder invaded to reinstall a more repressive regime in Kuwait than Saddam had in Iraq.
In over 100 years of British and US mucking about in the middle east they have achieved the same sort of results that the crusades got.
Expensive, murderous, chaos.
If Obama was truly a progressive, he would be *annihilating* McCain in the polls.
Instead, Obama's move to the right in recent days has narrowed his slim 4-5%
lead over McCain to about 2-3%.
Surely, Tom Hayden knows that Obama is not going to move to the left. Tom
Hayden also knows that there are oodles of votes to Obama's left, enough to swamp
McCain in November. But what Tom Hayden *also* knows is that Obama's corporate
paymasters will never let him move to the left to garner those votes.
Tom Hayden, try as you might, you're not fooling anybody. Instead of
vaingloriously "urging" corporate candidates to move to the left -- as you
tried unsuccessfully to do with Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 -- why not
admit that Obama can't move left because he's nothing but a whore in bed with
Corporate America.
To reiterate something I excerpted in a previous post from an article
by Bill Van Auken:
"If the candidate (Obama) is more openly promoting his right-wing agenda
now, it is not in interests of gaining votes. Over two-thirds of the
American people want an end to the war and the overwhelming majority
is hostile to the Bush administration; he does not have to appeal to
some vast right-wing constituency. On the contrary, Obama is making
his pitch to the ruling elite, attempting to cast himself as
'presidential,' i.e., someone who is prepared to do whatever it takes
to defend the interests of American capitalism, both at home and
abroad." Click here for the entire article --
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j09.shtml
Hey, Tom, your "movement" has devolved into a corporate-funded fraud with a "minority" face better to trick fools like you into supporting more of the same policies with a new flavor. Get a grip.
Not only did Obama:
1. support the invasion of Afghanistan;
2. wants a continuing US presence in Iraq;
3. threatens to invade Pakistan;
4. he, along with several other Democratic senators, signed off on Bush invading Iran. (The Senate to George Dubya: "If you invade Iran, we won't object.")
Some peace candidate. Obama's warmongering includes four different countries!!!!
NOTE: Iran has not invaded another country since BEFORE the United States was the United States. ... By contrast, Afghanistan was the 20th country the United States government has bombed since the end of WWII.
All 20 countries are third world countries ... some without air forces ... and Iraq without even a standing army!
So much for who's an aggressor nation and who isn't.
Topm Hayden thinks that Obama being elected will somehow make it easier for a progressive movement to take hold in the United States. The only way a progressive movement will take hold in the United Ststes is by SUPPORTING a progressive movement in the United States. Not by selling out one's support to a corporate-sponsored, corporate-controlled PRO WAR candidate.
As one poster in this thread put it: "When is enough enough, Tom Hayden?" How far to the right does the Democratic Party have to move before you acknowledge what's been happening over the past 30 years? And what's happening is that the Democratic Party has been playing progressives for fools.
Congratulations, Tom Hayden, you're now part of the problem.
The "RAND" is made up of former CIA agents.
Who will tell us?
The last sentence says it all: "...seems to be a dumb idea."
-what a dumb article, what is the point?
"...restated his commitment to combat troop withdrawals..."
-a master of double speak
...would "refine" his views when he consults military commanders...
-somebody please tell this moron Obama that the Commander in Chief sets the policy and the commanders in the field figure out how to best accomplish it not the other way around
"....140,000 by 2010...
-that number is pure bullshit designed to cover his ass
"...more stabilized Iraq..."
-you idiots are the doing the destabilizing-just get the hell out of someone else's country
more effective in countering militants
-a militant is anybody opposed to the US occupying and subjugating their country
"... highest rate of infant mortality in the world..."
-the US should get the hell out before they kill them all!
"... this one in violation of Pakistan's sovereignty..."
-Obama: "So?"
"...tough towards Afghanistan and Pakistan is a defensive cover for withdrawing from Iraq, and he later will follow up with unspecified diplomacy after he takes office..."
-PURE CRAP! This is the part where this DPA (Democratic Party apologist) really goes out on a limb and asks us to believe Obama doesn't really mean what he says, just trust him!
We need a Labor Party in this country. It will be born out of the immigrant rights movement and the struggle to form new labor unions not afraid to fight for their members.
The Democratic Party is just an obstacle at this point.
wsws.org -- Terrific series of postings. Now, what's to blame for the corporate stranglehold, the murder, the genocide, constitutional crimes, the smothering of culture and the environment?
Surely, not my vote for Cynthia McKinney?
Could it be the votes for those who promote the corporate stranglehold, the murder, the genocide, constitutional crimes, the smothering of culture and the environment? Those who live in fear that an idea outside the corporate nursery story will show its face somewhere? Nah, that would be too easy.
Had we begun earlier, I'm quite certain that the 12% figure would be low.
WSWS.ORG: Thank you for breaking it down so thoroughly, especially the hypothetical percentages in progressive increments to the Green (or new) party. Your approach has lent an important shade of gray to what otherwise conforms to a cartesian dualism that bends all options to extremes of "black" and "white." You've made my decision easier (on the conscience).
In considering progressive alternatives to Barack Obama, one needs to assess their personal momentum not to mention their energy levels. However, I've seen no evidence that Obama knows what he's doing anywhere in the Mideast-- he seems almost as retarded on these questions as Bush and McCain. And I agree with Tom Hayden's underlying precept that if you have to perform any kind of military action, it must be one that will be quickly over.
To me, McCain is an old tractor without a reverse gear. And Bush is a sailboat that lost its ability to come about-- the kindest thing I ever will say about him. Either of these guys contains the strong potential of leading us to an eventual war with China.
But Obama-- at least he has the common sense to set a specific timetable in Iraq-- which is what Iraq wants. And why should what Iraq wants not matter. John? George?
One can hope that Obama is capable of growth and transformation, even of flip-flops-- think of Kennedy's transition from Bay of Pigs to Missile Crisis.
When the other two guys-- robots both-- are dead, nobody will ever be able to examine their lifetimes and find any growth even remotely comparable to that.
bottle July 15th, 2008 9:26 pm writes "But Obama– at least he has the common sense to set a specific timetable in Iraq.."
-a complete crock of shit
-Obama is trying to have it all ways. He is both against the war but for funding it. He wants to withdraw the troops but send them to Afghanistan. He was going to filibuster against the FISA capitulation but decided to support it. He has fine print weasel on his website allowing for him to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. The man is a human vote calculator.
Recently The Post reported rather ominously:
Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.
"But Obama– at least he has the common sense to set a specific timetable in Iraq"
How do you know?
Tom Hayden is getting the criticism he deserves. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Democrats will alter the course of the American Empire one iota. In fact, the Dems may feel they have to go overboard in order to impress the corporate/military bosses with their willingness to serve their agenda without the slightest concern for the law or the wishes of the American people. As Howard Zinn noted, Obama is only slightly to the left of the Republicans and that was before Obama felt safe enough to come out, so to speak.
I agree with many of you who comment here on CD: A Nader run with 10% of the vote would make a fine start for a fledgling movement. Remember, we really don't have a movement right now, the Democrats took all the steam generated by our disgust with the war, healthcare, etc. and gave us the calming Obama-balm - it did sooth our nerves for awhile but now we just feel violated. When you feel violated, you are more likely to be disabled and that's exactly what the Democrats want, including Hayden. Disabled, distracted, disorganized. Thank goodness for Ralph Nader. We need to step up to the plate and help him do what we know needs to be done. Powder milk biscuits, anyone?
I recommend: vote Nader, send him a little money, and don't be afraid of the backlash that would surely follow a McCain win. When you go to bed tonight, think about why Obama would be turning right when all that does is narrow the race. I have my suspicions.
A lot of people seem to be getting hysterical over Obama invading another country like Iran. The fact is he wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being reelected if he did so. I mean an "eventual war with China"...Jesus...i mean contain yourself.
Say what you will about iraq the situation in afghanistan is much better. Unlike in iraq where there was a functioning infrastruture afghanistan had none of this and we had to build it from scratch. Progress in afghanistan will be slow but if we leave the pakistanis are going to go right back to supporting the radical islamists like they have been for the past thirty years.
At least our support for radicals like hekmatyar and haqqani ended in the 80's, pakistan has activly funded all sorts of groups and they were the ones who got the guns to Taliban not the US (a common misconception). Anyone who thinks afghanistan is bad should look at the nineties (and there was still an insurgency going on then, led by Massoud).
The article states that Obama "forcefully restated his commitment to combat troop WITHDRAWALS"
But what he actually said is: "We can safely REDEPLOY our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months"
Redeploy can mean to Afghanistan or Pakistan or neighboring countries or even within Iraq. He has also stated that he is open to halting to redeployment based on the advice of the military. Gates is opposed to redeployment and Obama has hinted that he might keep Gates as Secretary of Defense.
"But the US escalation policy already is deepening, with bipartisan support–or silence–so far."
It's not silence it is clear bi-partisan support and it all on the record. There are only a handful (if that) of elected officials (I can only think of Kucinich) who are opposed to the war in Afghanistan.
"it is possible that Obama thinks being tough towards Afghanistan and Pakistan is a defensive cover for withdrawing from Iraq, and he later will follow up with unspecified diplomacy after he takes office."
It is possible, but so is anything. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest this is true. It's the same wishful thinking that got us stuck with a pro-war democratic candidate in the first place. Why do you automatically assume that Obama is more principled than Bush? He's a better public speaker, but politically he's nearly a clone. Iraq is a tremendously unpopular war, please explain why he needs cover to withdraw?
I've heard this fallacy before, "the democratic congress can't vote to end the war because it will make them look soft on terrorism!" Well, right now they all look like a bunch of imperialists who are soft on human rights. Not anyone I would vote for.
If you choose to vote a third party, please vote Green. Make sure you vote in those local elections and vote Cynthia McKinney for president.
Don't overlook the party structure and what has been built by the Greens. Give them the opportunity that they richly deserve. They have been fighting for what you believe in for years.
Cynthia McKinney may not have the name recognition of Ralph, but that could change, especially if Nader shows some common sense and campaigns for the Green Party.
Cynthia is no slouch herself and will have no problem holding her own.
Personally, I'm growing some balls, so I can reach the lever (button, mouse, laserpen, whatever) and vote for McKinney in November. I will abandon the Democ-Rat choke hold on working-class and progressive votes, and suggest the rest of you think hard on it.
Is Tom Hayden turning a corner? He actually seems to get it here, although, toward the end of his essay he descends into double-think jujitsu nonsense about Obama faking war in order to retreat from it.
It's probably asking too much of Hayden that he would see there's nothing to support in the Democratic Party. Sure, his friends will get lucrative appointments if the Democrats win, but we don't care about that. We just want someone who won't bomb the crap out of innocent people.
For once, Hayden uses the term "preventive war" in association with Obama. So, by using that term, he understands, I think, that what Obama is proposing is a war crime. It's also Bush's current policy.
Let's seek alternatives to this madness.
Loyal Dems: When you find yourselves resisting and repeating the mantra, "Supreme Court nomination," over and over again in your heads, try to envision this instead: picture little kids getting blown to bits by Predator drones.
Dems will never change, and neither will Repugs, from the disastrous policies they commonly support. However, all of us can refuse to go along with their bullshit.
Let's not vote for murderers. They aren't defending this country. You have alternatives. Use your power to disrupt business as usual. You have nothing to lose but your illusions.
The Realist July 15th, 2008 10:49 pm
"...we leave the pakistanis are going to go right back to supporting the radical islamists..."
-who cares?
Something to ponder Realist: what if the US were the radicals trying to dominate the entire world and make it safe for democracy (anything that makes a lot of money for corporations at the expense of other peoples). Why is every little corner of the world our "vital security interest"? That does sound radical doesn't it?
Ah, the Obama bashers are out in droves in this thread. They never consider the reality of presidential politics here in the home of the brave, the land of the free. Yes, Barack is, gosh, a politician. And the nuance of his campaign seems to have slipped by the Nader-nuts, and they seem to want McCain elected so the country will suffer another Bush term. They, like in 2000, rant about a purer liberal, a greener ideologue, and for whatever Bob Barr has that can appeal to the libertarians.
Gore would have been a lot better president than Bush, but old Ralph still won't admit it. Now, the fringe will be duped again by the Republicans and their corporate masters, because they get so easily confused by the politics of it all. A closer examination of Obama will reveal that he is being very careful not to derailed by the fear mongers. He has to try to seem reasonable to the many Americans not on the fringes of the electorate who are vulnerable to the security issues.
Notice that Obama realistically supports building infrastructure in Afghanistan. Do the Obama bashers know what indoor plumbing can do to a culture. Give every Afghan teen a cell phone with free unlimited texting and free down loads of music. It will take less than one half a generation for the culture to change. Distribute some jobs, install indoor plumbing, adequate electrical service and the willingness to run off into the mountains to wage war on the foreigners and infidels will lessen.
Not all occupations have to be brutal, and last for 60 years. Barack Obama gives us the best chance for change of American foreign policy than any politician has in my memory, and I was born when FDR was still the President. Yes, maybe he doesn't sound liberal enough, but I don't expect anyone with a chance to win, to say what I believe about Israel.
We are currently in an occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans have been lied to, and the propaganda has worked to muddy the issues for the American voters. Obama's only chance to win is if he can run strongly on the theme of change.
You Nader-nuts, need to be very careful this time, that you don't help elect John McCain. His world view is more like Bush than Ralph's. And Obama is more like Ralph than you are willing to admit now. Obama has a chance to win. Ralph, Cindy, and Bob to not have a chance.
The country needs to elect Barack Obama. Vent all you want here on CD, but do the right thing in November.
This is an excellent overview of some of the critical issues concerning Obama's proposed escalation of the war in Afghanistan and potential military clash with Pakistan, but with two damning omissions that reflect very poorly on Hayden's ultimate allegiance to the antiwar/progressive movements and the reason for his inclination to always apologize for Obama and the Demorats.
Hayden doesn't go far enough in his criticism because he leaves out two all-important points.
Firstly, that when the U.S.originally chose to illegally invade Afghanistan it violated international rule of law and thereby set a very dangerous precedent for future illegal invasions. But Hayden knows this and yet he failed to include this critical point in his critique.
Secondly, given Obama's stated commitment to continue to violate Afghanistan's sovereignty and the international rule of law that protects said sovereignty, Hayden should have stated that for these reasons alone he can no longer endorse Obama's candidacy. TZo not do so makes a mockery of all his other criticisms.
These critical points cannot be repeated enough, because too many Demorats have selective amnesia when it comes to remembering such fundamental facts. Like the fact that when Saddam Hussein first was testing the waters to see if he could attack Kuwait for some very legitimate reasons(Kuwait was clearly stealing Iraq's oil from beneath the ground), and he checked with the American ambassador to Iraq who subsequently gave him the U.S.green light to undertake the attack but then blindsided him with Operation Desert Storm when he did.
Or the fact that the U.S. initially trained, supplied, financied the Taliban when it suited them, but when the Taliban didn't go for the pipeline idea across Afghanistan,began to almost totally eliminate the opium trade and then stated that, after 9/11 that they would turn over to the U.S. Osama Bin Laden but only if the U.S. could produce the proof thatd would hold up in a legal cour of law that Osama was directly implicated in the 9/11 attack they, too, were blindsided.
But even talking heads like Larry King let Obama off the hook. When Obama stated to Larry King that, "If we have actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama we will undertake to capture or kill him." But King would not go for the jugular and ask Obama the all-important question, "But if you have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin laden is in Pakistan and the Pakastani wisll not act on it, would you invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden?"
Obama seemed to imply that he would but King did not nail it unequivocally down.
But it is clear that Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth when he talks about diminished presence in Iraq but a clear escalation in Afghanistan. If Obama is a student of history he will realize that he is once again committing the U.S. to the slippery slope of another Vietnam, or long-term "Phillipine-type" illegal occupation.This is certainly not "Change we can believe in, but more of the same ol', same ol'.
Hayden should publically disavow his commitment to Obama on the principled basis of an anti-war, anti-illegal occupation philosophy.
I haven't voted in American politics since having voted back in the day for Dick Gregory in the old Peace & Freedom Party. But I registered again to vote in this election on the basis of the initial holpefullness of what Obama seemed to be promising in a Change We Can Believe in.
But now I've registered as an Independent and intend to vote for the Nadar/Gonzalez ticket as my own personal statement that we progressives need to wean ourselves off the Demorat teats and stand on our own two feet.
I've just sent my first campaign congtribution to Nadar/Gonzalez to help them get on more state ballots.
Vote third party. Look how far you have come since the first time, not. The progressives have had seven years of Bush that should have helped build a grassroot candidate who would already be on every state ballot. Why isn't he? What is wrong with this picture? Too much talk and no plan, too much rhetoric and no on the street cred. The progressive party doesn't speak to public. What has Nader done to show that he could run anything? He has had the worst of times that should be the best of times for him and still..nothing. Chose a real leader and progressive and take a page out of Obama'a fifty state stategy and just do it.
The progressives themselves are to blame. Maybe you should take a look at a puma site, they got some game and a fire in the belly to actually do something. Sadly, their candidate is an egomanicical crazy person but still she invokes a passion.
Nader isn't the going to be president, Barr isn't going to be president and God help us if Hillary is president. Guess what? You all left it too long again to run a viable candidate. Get cracking on 2012 and choose someone who actually has a chance at getting to a debate. Stop blaming the media, he needs to make them want to include him. Nader isn't the man for the job.
Saw Obama interviewed on PBS last night. He sounded all but confused about Iraq-Afghanistan---what the goal is, how to get anything done. In short his main assumption seemed to be that this "war on terror" is indeed a question of military victories, and that's as foolhardy as anything from McCain. Obama named one goal, "to finish the war with Al Qaeda"---what does that mean? Kill them all? How can you do that when killing one produces 10 more? I am so sick of these bought-and-paid-for prostitutes who see the whole world through one "proud American" eye. Change we can believe in? I doubt it. Nader gets my vote, period.
"Ah, the Obama bashers are out in droves in this thread. They never consider the reality of presidential politics here in the home of the brave, the land of the free. Yes, Barack is, gosh, a politician. And the nuance of his campaign seems to have slipped by the Nader-nuts, and they seem to want McCain elected so the country will suffer another Bush term."
_
No. NOT Obama bashers. Obama realists. The reality of presidential politics is that Corporate Candidates head both parties and their minor differences are the nuances you refer to, nuances that don't matter as their overall operating paradigms and ideology are very similar, if not identical. And you prove the critics points with calling people "Mader-nuts". You are sir, just like a Republican, proving that the critics are correct. And as for "they seem to want McCain elected so the country will suffer another Bush term", that is an ASSumption. The truth is getting either Obama or McCain elected will have us "suffer another Bush term". To believe otherwise is not paying attention to what the Democrats, including Obama, have enabled the Republicans to do and get away with.
"What has Nader done to show that he could run anything?" Look up Nader's resume. Compare it to McCain and Obama. "Choose a real leader.." Obama is a "real leader"? Really, what the frak? YOU look up the Nader organizations and the leadership he has exhibited. This is ignorance. Look at this: "Sadly, their candidate is an egomanicical crazy person but still she invokes a passion." What presidential candidate isn't running on ego? Saint Obama? Look. The election is a farce. You and we know that the Corporate Parties in collusion with the Corporate media determine who the candidates will be, and which acceptable candidate will win. You are right. The media is not the problem in getting a Nader, or 3rd party, elected. WE ARE! People like you who make reality out of: It can't happen here. By the way, there is no national "progressive party". But here in Vermont, there is state Progressive Party with 6 House reps. It can be done. Do it. Dump the Kool Aid.
McKinney's acceptance speech on Saturday was thrilling!! (:
It's not just who we vote for President; we also must vote for alternative candidates in ALL elections, state, federal, municipal, town - it's time to say a loud "NO!" to both political parties! The time is NOW! Every four years we will get horrible candidates, so the time will never seem right, but the time is NOW!!
Say "NO!" to Barack Obama!! (It should go without saying but "NO!" to McCain, too!) (:
"Many independent analysts question the wisdom of leaving some 50,000 American troops as advisers, trainers and counter-terrorism units in Iraq after the withdrawal of 140,000 by 2010. Those forces would be protecting a sectarian political regime that is linked to death squads, militias and a detention system now holding 50,000 Iraqis in violation of human rights standards." -- Tom Hayden
Such hubris. So essentially we (the US) had nothing to do with destabilizing and destroying Iraq ... its just that darned 'sectarian political regime'.
How convenient it is to blame the victim ! Is our collective memory really that short ? We are absolved of blame, while the 'sectarian political regime' which we installed is linked to 'death squads, militias and detention systems' that were created by our invasion of their land. As always up is down. wow .. nothing changes.
As for Afghanistan im gonna cut and paste from another thread ... since i have all the friggin time in the world !
The U.S. created the Taliban with the help of the Pakistani Military and ISI (Pakistani Intelligence Agency). Its their responsibility to kill this monster. Every innocent Afghan death lies at the feet of the Americans, Pakistanis and their monster (Taliban). I dont care how many fu__ing Marines die, we need to clean up this mess we created.
We need to do this by not bombing wedding parties to begin with. We need to cut off ALL funding to the hated ISI and Pakistans military. We need to enforce the Pakistanis to take action by making them forcibly destroy the ISI. We also need to ensure we have the complete co-operation of ALL regional countries (Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India, China) in solving this issue.
Simply walking away from this mess may be a convenient 'liberal' talking point, but its immoral to do so. We cannot treat people with such complete disdain and shirk our responsibility.
A true Progressive response to Afghanistan would be to genuinely involve the regional and World powers to deal with this situation and also put our lives on the line to solve this problem we helped create.
"Give every Afghan teen a cell phone with free unlimited texting and free down loads of music. It will take less than one half a generation for the culture to change"
We rest our case.
Words Are Important:
I agree with your whole post, except the "most on this website still supporting the democratic party" part. Go back up and read the comments, taking the tally of DPAs (Democratic Party Apologists, I LOVE that term) vs. FUPs (Fed Up Progressives), and hopefully you'll get the little glimmer of hope that I do when I browse the comments on stories like this.
If you're referring to the actual STORIES posted to the Common Dreams main page, I personally think they've been doing a 'better' job of getting to the root of things recently. I will however concede to the idea that an Ivory Towerish attitude hangs over the invisible editorial staff, and not a small amount of the comment posters.
Take hope though, people are waking up a little at a time.
Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain support a continuation of the American imperial folly in Southwest Asia and the Middle East, with only some quibbling differences of emphasis, a continuation of complete, unqualified support for for the right wing parties of Israel, and a continuation of America's disastrous militarism. I am really starting to not see much difference between them with exception that McCain is more forthright about his positions and Obama is just more slippery about his own.
The course of American militarism and empire will not be changed by any change in presidential and congressional leadership. It will only be changed by catastrophic national failure in these areas and possible economic collapse. What kind of change would ensue after such failures if frankly anyone's guess at this point. Whatever it is, it will be "Change you have to believe in"
Sit tight, America, you are in for a rough ride.
"Afghanistan is an unstable police state."
Yeah, yeah: and so is the U.S.
Celebrity "left" participation in imposing this "post-partisan" fraud on the dead Democratic Party, because of his fetching birthday suit, wasn't such a hot idea, was it?
If the Democratic "leadership" insists on nominating this pig-in-a-poke, there's really nothing to be done but
1. vote, if at all, NObama
2. tear up the pea-patch
"Sit tight, America, you are in for a rough ride."
Precisely why I have taken steps to move to New Zealand. I have had enough of the hypocricy, marginalization, double talk, dysfunctional politic, liars, corporate yes men, and patriarchal ass holes running rampant in Washington.
I can see no logical reason why Tom Hayden would still support Obama.
Political expediency has never worked and never will, whether practiced by an elected official or a voter.
Vote Third Party, don't support the status quo.
The same process that will end the war will also solve many of the country's other ailments. Enforce the laws equitably.
Start the impeachment of Bush, and Pelosi can be defeated if people truly want peace and justice.
I will not support Obama and the three ring circus that the political system, the corporate elite, and the mainstream media want us to accept.
Start justice by voting for candidates that support justice.
vote Third Party.