Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Exceedingly Familiar Justifications for Escalation
In order to prepare Americans for Obama's Afghanistan escalation speech tonight at West Point (at least he's not wearing a fighter pilot costume), White House officials have been dispatched to speak to the media (anonymously, of course) to preview all of the new and exciting aspects of the President's plan. As a result, media accounts are filled with claims that there are major changes ordered by Obama that will transform our approach there.
But to anyone with a memory that extends back for more than a few weeks, all of this seems anything but new. In December, 2007, George Bush delivered a speech to the nation announcing his escalation in Iraq -- that one only 20,000 troops, compared to the 30,000-40,000 Obama has ordered for Afghanistan. It's worthwhile to compare what Obama officials are excitedly featuring as new and innovative ideas with what Bush said; I'm not comparing the Iraq and Afghan escalations: only the rhetoric used to justify them.
ABC News: "While tomorrow night's speech will have many audiences ... a senior administration official tells ABC News one key message will resonate with all of them: 'The era of the blank check for President Karzai is over. . . The president will talk about, this not being 'an open ended commitment'..." Bush:
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act.
The Afghan leader has heard our ultimatum and understands it ("The president was described as heartened to hear that Karzai spent much of his inaugural address discussing corruption"). Bush:
The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of their sectarian or political affiliation."
The Afghan government will have strict benchmarks they must meet (Gibbs: "the new strategy will include many of the same benchmarks, but with ramifications to US support to Karzai and his government if they are not met"). Bush:
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
We're going to ensure that Afghan troops are trained to provide the security which the country needs (Gibbs: "the goal and the purpose of the strategy is to train an Afghan national security force, comprised of an Afghan national army and a police that can fight an unpopular insurgency in Afghanistan so that we can then transfer that security responsibility appropriately back to the Afghans"). Bush:
Our troops will have a well-defined mission: To help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. . . . We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army -- and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq.
We're going to have a strategy based on funding and strengthening local leaders ("much of it will be targeted at local governments at the province and district level, and at specific ministries, such as those devoted to Afghan security"). Bush:
We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance.
If we don't escalate, Al Qaeda will get us ("The focus of the new strategy, sources say, will be going after al Qaeda and affiliated extremists"). Bush:
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
We must fulfill our moral responsibility to stand with the Afghan people. Bush:
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists -- or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
Obama's decision came only after serious and careful deliberations on all the competing options (ABC: "The decision comes after months of discussions and deliberations with the president's national security team"). Bush:
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States -- and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
To keep the asthetics the same, we even have Michael O'Hanlon leading the way, as always, providing the Serious Expertise to justify further war.
This is all to be expected. Ostensible justifications for war are more or less universal, as is the familiar mix of fear, claims of moral necessity (and superiority), and appeals to patriotism and military love that are always hauled out to justify their continuation and escalation. Beyond that, Bush's escalation was based on many of the same counter-insurgency dogmas in which Obama's escalation is grounded, designed by many of the same people. So it's anything but surprising that it all sounds remarkably similar. And it's possible that once we hear the actual speech, rather than the White House's coordinated depiction of it, that there will be new elements.
Still, this pretense that Obama spent months carefully deliberating in order to devise some new and exotic thought pattern about the war seems absurd on its face. At least if his top aides are to believed, what he intends to say tonight should sound extremely familiar.
* * * * *
In The Guardian yesterday, the courageous Malalai Joya -- who might actually deserve the Nobel Peace Prize -- explains why escalation and ongoing occupation are so devastating for her country.
And on that note: Obama is scheduled to receive his Nobel Peace Prize next week in Oslo. No matter your views on Afghanistan, and no matter your views on whether he deserved the Prize, is there anyone who disputes that there is some obvious tension between his escalating this war and his receiving this Prize? Unless one believes that War is Peace, how could there not be?
UPDATE: The most bizarre defense of Obama's escalation is also one of the most common: since he promised during the campaign to escalate in Afghanistan, it's unfair to criticize him for it now -- as though policies which are advocated during a campaign are subsequently immunized from criticism. For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo opened, and privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the ground that he promised to do them during the campaign? I highly doubt it.
- Posted in
75 Comments so far
Show AllYou can be absolutely sure that the speech Obama will give to justify the war escalation will be full of psychological warfare strategies. In other words, the speech is designed to accomplish a mass psychological conditioning that has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with a fascist agenda!!! Good-bye America the brave and free and hello tyranny and enslavement!!!
Swell! I'll listen to the sound of silence instead.
Follow the link to see sanity vs IN-sanity. Dennis MUST become President in 2012 or we have zero chance of getting off the canvas!!!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/48083
Not only should DK become president in 2012, he should declare his candidacy tomorrow morning, while Obama's speech is fresh in everyone's mind. Think of the message that'd send to Obama, especially if people like Michael Moore, Nader, McKinney, Sheehan, and others all got behind him, and became vocal about it.
You are right, Kane. If you followed my link, you can pick up the frustration and anger (Well, as angry as D.K. gets.) in his expressions and voice. I was in contact with Cindy Sheehan about getting behind D.K. in 2008 and she said she was BUT I don't think she was vocal enough.
Michael Moore (ALSO afraid of "losing" to the Repugs) did not endorse Dennis even after sharing a stage with him on Single-payer reform and sharing a strong anti-war stance. MM lost many points with me after that.
Granted, Kucinich can't change everything without a sane Congress but I'd sure as hell rather have him in the Oval than what's been in there for nearly a decade.
I'm sorry guys. Who we vote for for President makes no difference at all. Only a corporate spokesmodel can get the Repub or Dem nomination. And if somehow one were to be nominated (either by Rep/Dem or a 3rd party) the media would fry them or ignore them to death. Most of us are still voting on corporate owned and run, eminently hackable voting machines. And even if elected (as, say, Obama was), he or she would still face the certainty of assassination, character assassination, impeachment, or worse if they stepped out of line.
The U.S. is a military/corporate dictatorship disguised as a democracy. The voting thing is just a circus to keep us distracted from that reality. Get used to it. Strategize accordingly.
GreenDragon, exactly right and I am glad somebody gets it. To go with the circuses there will be bread.
We will run out of bread soon enough.
Green Dragon,
I think you just explained how it was that many "progressives" voted for Obama.
They listened to his mixed messages and hoped he was speaking to them between the lines, even though some of the things he promised should have sent up a red flag of alarm, especially escalating Afghanistan and Pakistan. The American people need to learn to censure all such speech and behavior and to never give it a pass.
They hoped Obama was really one of us and that he was only saying things to get elected because "only a corporate spokesmodel can get the nomination." That explained to them why DK got kicked out and had no chance. They hoped Obama was trying to fool the corporations to get to the White House. This was in their mind, however they failed to reason that if DK were visibly supported by crowds with signs he couldn't be marginalized, and if he won the primary elections anyways, just like he was winning the televised debate polls by a landslide, then at least it wouldn't have been the progressives themselves giving him the boot and not sticking to their convictions! They hoped that once Obama was in the WH and the dems in Congress, he would change into DK and work with Congress to turn back the corporations.
Hope alone can be weak.
I didn't vote for Obama, because my principles would not let me vote "for" his spoken promises. I believe that speaking forthrightly during campaigning is when it matters. I thought that if ALL the Dems spoke truth to power DURING the campaign, the American people would give them an overwhelming victory in the elections. All the doublespeak creates confusion that allows neoliberalism to keep going like a runaway train.
Afterwards, I hoped for a power shift by popular insistence, the momentum of which Obama would rise to or come around to lead. But, we have not yet played our part in a coherent, unified, momentous way.
Still there's hope. :)
Running the headline of 'FAMILIAR WAR JUSTIFICATIONS:-BUSH'S IRAQ VS. OBAMA'S AFGHANISTAN' is absolutely the wrong way to frame the current debate, Common Dreams editors. In reality it has always been Bush's and his Democratic Party cohorts' Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and now it is Obama's and his Republican cohorts' Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
These two wars are in reality one big war tied all together on 2 different main fronts, and both the Democrats and Republicans have bipartisanly TOGETHER kept these 2 war fronts going on all along. It is disturbing that the Democrats want to act as if the Iraq War is just in the bag so they don't talk about it now. Shame on the Democrats for this stance! Shame on the Left for following passively along. Stupid voters for any of us ever having thought that our sham electoral system ever has offered us a real choice at the polls.
Pipeline + Poppy + Predator Drones = Profit$
9/11 was some kind of inside job. The buildings were brought down with explosives that were triggered by sophisticated devices not available to men in caves in Afghanistan. Thermite incendiaries of a specific type which requires advanced techniques available to the U.S. military and its contractors and few others have been found throughout the dust from the explosions.
When Senators Lehey and Daschle held firm in a demand to have a Special Select Committee appointed to investigate 9/11 Bush and Cheney openly opposed the formation of the committee. Anthrax, traced to a U.S. Defense Department lab was sent to Daschle and Lehey and to a reporter at the National Enquirer who had published unflattering pictures of Bush's daughter. Several people died, and when the investigation led to the DOD lab, the investigation was dropped and the story dropped from the corporate media. Think for a minute; would those Senators be a likely choice of target for a crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan? Would he have access to anthrax from a DOD lab in Maryland?
So the premise for the Afghanistan war, that somehow some guy in a cave in the most isolated place in the world outside of Antarctica is going to attack the U.S., is utter rubbish.
Giving the Peace Prize to Obama is Orwellian for sure.
Right on, Heavyrunner. We have to keep repeating these things every time the subject comes up. We cannot accept the conspiracy of silence over the fact that the very justification for the war in Afghanistan is bogus. The Taliban was never publicly shown to be complicit in the attacks; NOR WAS AL-QAEDA. The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US if they could see the evidence of his guilt. Nothing doing. Now it is eight years later, and we're still stuck in the mire, the lies, the needless deaths.
pilarerecto wrote: These two wars are in reality one big war...
So many Progressives still don't understand this.
Bush called it GWOT
Pelosi calls it WOT
The Pentagon calls it The Long War
I suggest again that we call it the DAFT war (Defense against Future Terrorism) and throw rocks at it in an attempt to be entertaining enough to pierce the media blanket smothering all things progressive.
Public Law 107-40 started this madness (and keeps the insanity going) and Progressives (except yours truly) never mention it.
I understand why our lizard-brained and moronic Congress-reptiles ignore their responsibility to clean up the mess that they started when they supinely succumbed to Bush's lies, deceits and political blackmail.
I don't understand why Progressives ignore this law. The DAFT war cannot be stopped until we do.
Good post, locust. DAFT it is.
Spokesflack Gibbs sez: "... the new strategy will include many of the same benchmarks, but with ramifications to US support to Karzai and his government if they are not met"
***
Next year at this time Mr. Greenwald can compare the Obomber administration's rollout of yet another "6-month timetable" with all the Cheney-Rummy era "6-month timetable(s)" for the Iraqis to grab hold of their own security bootstraps.
This happened with Iraq about every, oh, six months or so from 2004-2008. To be fair, some of them were 9-month timetables.
sierra7
Anybody who watches any presidential speech is just plain brain dead.
Period.
Correct.
Those who think they may learn something from such exposure betray their abject ignorance.
America can only elect fascists as Presidents. It is a contradiction in terms to expect otherwise.
I knew in advance that Obama would send more imperial fascist emissaries to Afghanistan and so did every sentient being know this. How can anyone remain surprised? There was never any debate, never any doubt.
One remembers the palpable aversion and nausea some felt when watching Bush; now the same feeling appropriately extends (or should extend) to Obama. Both are rebarbative examples of the American political grotesque, albeit 'stylistically' different: State terrorists, war criminals and mass murderers, one and all.
Would it not be better to train oneself in advance not to watch or listen to them? That should be axiomatic for American Politics 101. Obama is a known quantity as is any American President.
I have never watched either except accidently. It is tantamount to willfully consuming a toxic substance. Finally, it is irrational. One should know this in advance and hone one's consciousness (and consciences!) for automatic avoidance reaction.
–(Jill Bains)
I wonder what the cadets will really be thinking when they hear the argument for justification. Will they sit on their hands or follow orders to cheer? We'll see.
To all you progressive hawks: Obama hasn't kept many/any of his campaign promises--so why justify this abomination of a war by referring to what he said about Afghanistan in his campaign speeches?
Good point. Promises mean nothing to this guy, so why would that one be any different.
Progressive Hawk? Thats a mutually exclusive term is it not?
Instead of withdrawing the troops as he should, instead of sending what his military asked for to do the job he assigned them to do, he will send too few, too late.
This is a President that is too weak to do what is right and even to weak to do whats wrong right.
It is clear that it is impossible to 'nation build' if the majority of people in a country do not wish it (Japan, France, and Germany welcomed our help after WW2). Otherwise, the best we can do is install a puppet government, which engenders resentment in the long run. It will always be "too little, too late" or, in the case of Iraq, too soon when the weapons inspectors were kicked out (which was a RUSE to PRETEND that diplomacy would be given a chance. Once the build up was underway, war was a foregone conclusion because no country would go to the expense of transporting all that equipment and men, unless it intended to attack).
Where military force used for 'preventive war,' and 'nation building,' Henry, the results will always be disastrous, and produce unforeseen consequences. Not only that, it is the epitome of arrogance to think we know what is best for another country when we really do not even know what is best for ourselves.
Attacking Afghanistan proved to be knee-jerk reaction to 911 as well, when, instead, we should have conducted a thorough investigation. What did Bush do? He flew the Saudi dignitaries out of the country ASAP when they should have been held and questioned first. If an independent and thorough investigation had been conducted immediately, conspiracy theories could have been laid to rest from the outset.
You will most likely see a dramatic reversal in Iraq if/when we pull out. We have not won the hearts and minds there, but engendered secret hatred, possibly far exceeding what was felt for Saddam.
Thus, in my view, Obama is not wrong for doing too little, too late; he is wrong for escalating a 'war' that is already lost, even if battles are won and the military objectives are achieved. The pentagon (similar to an evil pentagram) and the US military-industrial complex stands against peace everywhere. It profits by the manufacture and use of arms, whether producing them for our allies-who-later-turn-into-enemies, or so-called friends, like Israel, who have no compunction for whole-scale slaughter they commit in the name of self-protection. The whole scene is vulgar and disgusting.
However, it is hypocritical for us to condemn war when we are secretly filled with hostility ourselves. I've seen others attack your posts where they do not agree with them, accusing you of this or that, not seeing that, they, themselves, are inwardly part and parcel of the 'war mentality.' Maybe it's largely a cultural thing. In our daily interactions we are so adversarial. It's no wonder that we project that attitude collectively.
I got pounded in another CD forum for saying that blind activism against ANYTHING is doomed to fail. Until or unless we step down from the battle-mode within ourselves, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Though the circumstances may be different, the underlying thread and threat of violence will be the same, and that's what we'll project in our ignorance. You MUST understand yourself to understand the world of human relations; they always have and always will go hand in hand.
"Japan, France, and Germany welcomed our help after WW2"
This is a really dumb comparison. If America had done to these countries what it has done to Afghanistan, they would have all united and sent their bombers to New York and Washington to destroy the USA.
Imagine if French people had been tortured for a decade by American GIs. The USA would never live this down.
It is not 'dumb' in the context given. And we did plenty to Germany (my father was sent to bomb Berlin on Christmas eve) and Japan (especially to Japan with Hiroshima and Nagasaki). At some point the 'help' and assistance was welcomed and they both recovered with strong economies. You prove my other point as well, but I'll leave it up to you to consider what I'm referring to.
Well, at least there is the poetic justice that a country that repeatedly invades third world countries eventually turns into one. (I'm a fan of poetic justice.)
Obama: We will stand down when the Afghan forces stand up.
Bush: We will stand down when the Afghan forces/Iraqi forces stand up.
News flash: if the Afghan forces haven't 'stood up' after eight f**king years, THEY ARE NEVER, EVER GOING TO STAND THE F**K UP!
Once all official justifications for continuation of an illegal occupation are shredded, only one remains - the one Big Media dare never speak: the death-for-profit incentive.
Without Afghanistan, Big War Profiteer is screwed. Period. If we ain't killing foreigners, they ain't 'earning' profits. So their choices are: A) Perpetual undeclared 'war' B) New undeclared 'wars' C) Bankruptcy.
I guarantee that if We The People decided to ban war profiteering, our armed forces would be home by dinner...
It is about profit isn't it?
Obama's clan make Billions, selling bullets and tanks to you, the taxpayer.
Poor Americans make a decent wage fighting eight thousand miles away from home.
Afghans get paid a few hundred a month to fight their compatriots.
Why won't more of them "stand up"? Think about it. If a (Swiss maybe)version of Obama came to your town and said he would pay you a hundred dollars, or maybe a thousand a week, to shoot your neighbors, not everyone would go for that deal. And those that did probably would only do it grudgingly, unless they were criminally insane or something.
Military contractors must like Obama. They seem to be doing pretty well lately. The following list shows stock price changes for some of the big ones, from a low point in March, 2009 to the present (December 1, 2009).
Boeing: $30 -> $52
Halliburton: $15 -> $30
General Electric: $7 -> $16
Lockheed-Martin: $59 -> $77
Northrop-Grumman: $35 -> $55
Indeed. The so-called "Afghan Forces" are separate fighting groups under the control of several warlords.
A bunch of "perfectly clear" Bushist/Nixonian used car salesmen. The vaunted "transparency" of Uncle 'Bomb's regime!
Obama may just be the Orwellian President we've all been dreading would never arrive but here the hell he is, selling us on the doublespeak lie that War Is Peace. The horror of it all is that the same 51% who always believe any lies they're told by those in power will believe this one too. 44% won't believe it and 5% won't have an opinion. Or whatever. Even as his surge deteriorates into the meat grinding bloodbath it is certain to, Obama will be "reassuring" Americans that it's still the Right War and our cause is freedom and Protecting Americans from Terrorism. He's hard-wired to believe his own lies, just like, who was it again? Oh right, George Wanker Bush and Dickhead Cheney. They'll be toasting him tonight with bottles of Dom Perignon. Even Glenn Beck and O'Reilly may have some sweet words to shower on our new Warlord.
Says it all. –(Jill Bains)
UPDATE: Butt 'Bomb DROPPED single-payer health for US all AFTER PROMISING it when we (DID) deliver to him and DEM, both houses of Congress and (HIS) presidency. This is more Obombastic solipsism (make your own reality mirrorspeak, if you will)!
HOW are we going to pay for this?
We're already more than 7 trillion in debt from Iraq.
Our unemployment is rediculous. Foreclosures are at an all time high. Our infrastructure is deteriorating. Education is falling apart. Now we want to borrow even more money! For what? To kill people. That's intelligent.
For me, it's time to start thinking about my family and my future. That means looking for another nation to be a part of. I'm thinking New Zealand.
Good luck USA. (Or whatever you are now)
Will it take a Nixon to get us out of Afghanistan? ("RN, Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...")
He IS Nixxon. This is Nixxon's eleventh term.
As a result, media accounts are filled with claims that there are major changes ordered by Obama that will transform our approach there.
Someone light a match. I can smell the stench all the way over here on the left coast.
Obama wants to surround Russia, put Iran in a vice, control the Paki nukes, and kill Osama and he wants to do it on the nickel of the working man. It's the Obama - Osama show and it risks igniting WW III, the neo-con wet dream, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. Happy Holidays!
Maybe some country will make war on us to eliminate corruption in our government, set benchmarks, force us to fulfill our moral responsibility, etc., etc.
Is it not against the Honor Code to copy someone else's speech?
Seriously, sounds like all except the most loyal are ready for a unified third party push, now.
Sounds like DK has a lot of backing.
Can DK get the Dem. nomination or does he need to go Independent etc.?
Is there anyone out there who can do an analysis of all the candidates, to see who has the best chance?
I myself pledge to vote for whoever can receive the most votes.
If there is someone decent, but can also appeal to the teabags, that could be the beginnning of a successful movement.
LETS DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!
Afghanistan is strategically located for resources needed by China for all the stuff and junk they make for the USA.
So, since the USA is in debt to China for having such a big military, the USA must send that military to do the dirty work for Chinese resources.
The USA. Mall cops to the world.
Just keep shopping and having more kids, and don't forget to catch Dancing with the Stars tonite, it's gonna be a good one!
And when they send your son or daughter over there to be maimed, remember how proud you're going to be. You'll even get a new flag.
queer 3:58 ----- My take this is to contain China by controling the resources China needs. I guess seeing how much China cooperates with the USA warring in the UN etc. would indicate if the USA is containing or serving China.
Either way it is death and destruction for the innocent civilian Afghans and resistance.
Sorry but we are not trying to contain China.
China has purchased the second largest untapped copper mine in the world from the Karzai government in Afghanistan. South of Kabul in Helmond province. The USA has a base near by and is protecting the mine from insurgents. Americans have died in the nearest town to protect the mine and save the village for democracy. The road from Kabul to this town and to the mine was paved with money from the Chinese. I read that China is considering building train service to China to transport the copper. China needs the copper to electrify it's rural population and keep them from flooding into the cities for work and an easier life style.
Perhaps in the NWO there will be one UN like government with countries as parts of the whole dominated by the wealthy. We the USA will be the worlds banksters holding the dominant world currency, police force being able to democaratize any nation not in compliance and inventors, mostly stuff that controls and kills.
What part of the world gets left out in the race for the last remaining resources? Africa? Will that be the beginning of the resource wars?
"Americans have died in the nearest town to protect the mine and save the village for democracy."
Ha ha! Best laugh I've had all night!
The flag will be made out of polyester with a tiny label that says "Made in China"
Remember Country Joe and the Fish
"......be the first one on your block to have your son come home in a box."
The usually vigilant Greenwald fails to point out that Obama's language and policy are the same as George Wanker's because the policymakers are still essentially the same neocon mafia that got us into this mess, seconded by their crazed step'n'fetchit military boys with the fancy brass on their epaulets. All the high military honchos with any sense of honor have long since retired or resigned, and all the diplomats with any brains or decency did the same, leaving Bushco's and the neocons' minions to fill the boat's empty hull with their poisonous bilge. The only way out of this is to clean it all out, top to bottom, and Obomber ain't gonna do it. Nothing short of mass mutiny in the ranks and mass demonstrations in the streets will do it.
Here's an excellent analysis, as usual, from Barry Grey in WSWS
"At a White House meeting with military leaders on Sunday, President Barack Obama formally issued the order to send at least 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan. Underscoring his contemptuous attitude toward popular opposition to the war or any other democratic considerations, Obama did not wait to issue the order until he had offered his explanation for the escalation to the American people in tonight’s nationally televised speech.
In its contempt for the will of the people, as in its policies on the economy, war and democratic rights, the Obama administration is continuing without a hitch the basic policies and methods of the Bush administration, which were repudiated by the electorate when it voted for Obama on the basis of his claim to be the candidate of “change.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d01.shtml
Obama's long charade of "taking input", "listening", "studying", and "anguishing" are more than a bit insulting now that we know the truth --- that even the orders were signed before tonight when he will supposedly "share" his decision, and "ask" for the support of the American people.
BS. He's just placating the peons, and shilling the serfs tonight.
We all have the right to feel like Chinese president Hu in SNL's skit, and ask Obama, "aren't you going to kiss me first?" --- because we've all been "had sex with".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Its going to be a tricky speach that Obama will make:-
1. He cannot afford to use the words "drone bomber" and "terrorism" in the same paragraph. If those two words get too close together they may get associated in peoples minds, and once that happens you wont pull them apart because the moment that you focus attention on the question, logic will glue those words together permanently.
2. Similarly, the use of the word "freedom" would be kind of tricky 8 years into a war of occupation. As we are occupying their country for so long, it will be difficult to pretend that the war is to bring freedom. Also the "freedom" word will have be kept far from the "prison" or the "Guantanmo" words.
Then again, I am no expert on propaganda, so maybe it is simply possible to lay down the words in a classic Orwellian way, and get away with it:-
* War equals peace.
* Occupation equals freedom.
* Imprisonment equals freedom.
* Drone bombers do not equal terrorism.