Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US 'Secret War' Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take larger Role
Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.
Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. (Image: DoD) Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and
are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning
of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the
Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in
the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.
Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.
The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.
One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.
Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."
'More access'Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration, when most briefings on potential future operations were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"We have a lot more access," a second military official said. "They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly."
The White House, he said, is "asking for ideas and plans . . . calling us in and saying, 'Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.' "
The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, "we are doing all three," the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.
The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States "will not merely respond after the fact" of a terrorist attack but will "take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."
That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to "take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.
Bush-era clashes between the Defense and State departments over Special Operations deployments have all but ceased. Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as an independent force, approving in some countries Special Operations intelligence-gathering missions that were so secret that the U.S. ambassador was not told they were underway. But the close relationship between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is said to have smoothed out the process.
"In some places, we are quite obvious in our presence," Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of the Special Operations Command, said in a speech. "In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile. In every place, Special Operations forces activities are coordinated with the U.S. ambassador and are under the operational control of the four-star regional commander."
Chains of commandGen. David H. Petraeus at the Central Command and others were ordered by the Joint Staff under Bush to develop plans to use Special Operations forces for intelligence collection and other counterterrorism efforts, and were given the authority to issue direct orders to them. But those orders were formalized only last year, including in a CENTCOM directive outlining operations throughout South Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
The order, whose existence was first reported by the New York Times, includes intelligence collection in Iran, although it is unclear whether Special Operations forces are active there.
The Tampa-based Special Operations Command is not entirely happy with its subordination to regional commanders and, in Afghanistan and Iraq, to theater commanders. Special Operations troops within Afghanistan had their own chain of command until early this year, when they were brought under the unified direction of the overall U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and his operational deputy, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.
"Everybody working in CENTCOM works for Dave Petraeus," a military official said. "Our issue is that we believe our theater forces should be under a Special Operations theater commander, instead of . . . Rodriguez, who is a conventional [forces] guy who doesn't know how to do what we do."
Special Operations troops train for years in foreign cultures and language, and consider themselves a breed apart from what they call "general purpose forces." Special Operations troops sometimes bridle at ambassadorial authority to "control who comes in and out of their country," the official said. Operations have also been hindered in Pakistan -- where Special Operations trainers hope to nearly triple their current deployment to 300 -- by that government's delay in issuing the visas.
Although pleased with their expanded numbers and funding, Special Operations commanders would like to devote more of their force to global missions outside war zones. Of about 13,000 Special Operations forces deployed overseas, about 9,000 are evenly divided between Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Eighty percent of our investment is now in resolving current conflicts, not in building capabilities with partners to avoid future ones," one official said.
Questions remainThe force has also chafed at the cumbersome process under which the president or his designee, usually Gates, must authorize its use of lethal force outside war zones. Although the CIA has the authority to designate targets and launch lethal missiles in Pakistan's western tribal areas, attacks such as last year's in Somalia and Yemen require civilian approval.
The United Nations, in a report this week, questioned the administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification -- the permission of the country in question -- is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge approving the attacks.
Former Bush officials, still smarting from accusations that their administration overextended the president's authority to conduct lethal activities around the world at will, have asked similar questions. "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based," said John B. Bellinger III, a senior legal adviser in both of Bush's administrations.
The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.
Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.
75 Comments so far
Show AllLike a huge demented octupus, (octupus', I am sorry to use
you as description of America's death machine),
given legality through Public Law 107-40.
Bush's lawyer proclaims that Obama is violating the law that authorized actions against those responsible for 9/11.
True.
He did not proclaim that Bush also violated that law by invading Iraq, when the hijackers were trained to steer airliners here in the USA.
So this law should be used to end the war since 9/11 is history and this War lead by criminals has made us poor while causing terrible suffering and death of the people most of whom do not profit from the war racket at all.
We are fighting to preserve the old style colonial system of exploitation with modern terms (new speak) and weapons.
This war cannot be won and the world needs peace now.
The next election won't stop it or millions demonstrating wont stop it. Losing seems to be the best option.
We lost every big war since 1945 so we are getting used to it.
We should try a conditional surrender.
"This war cannot be won and the world needs peace now." -- Jim Glover
I agree with you!
The more suffering you cause- the more you will suffer ! What applies to individuals is so with nations... fascist amerika IS the big loser !
tioche said "The more suffering you cause- the more you will suffer ! What applies to individuals is so with nations."
So, then everything must be on course and those people who are suffering now must have done some pretty bad stuff earlier to be deserving all this now. And if that's true, why then, who are we to try to interfere with this cosmic-scale plan by trying to assist or alleviate?
I really hate the idea of karma because it so easily can be used to blame the victim as in they must have done something to deserve whatever bad thing is happening now. And the only reason we have to try to stop it is because we'll get it back in spades, not because it is wrong!
Just passing on what i know, internally, to be so : Karma is an ever changing tapestry woven by individual actions, with the past and present always influencing the future. So, to say nothing can be done...its just Karma, is a very lame excuse. People and even large groups are always influencing their future. But the range is vast, from negative/ bad, to do nothing, to right action/ thought and compassion. In every action, thought or feeling, doing what truly seems to be "right", listening to our conscience, IS always the best choice; because thats correct activity, in and of itself. The "reward" system..."its going to improve our karma",is like postre/ dessert. All seems to be involved with making human consciousness more compassionate and peaceful; both individually and collectively. From the ancient teachings of the East : " a Saint is a sinner who never gave up. "
tioche, Mexico
"We lost every big war since 1945 so we are getting used to it."
An interesting factoid which reminds me of another: Germany has not won a war since 1871.
Both countries are major industrial economies. Many major wars, all lost. Yet the countries persevere with such destructive waste.
Some might argue that winning or losing wars matter not to the puppet-masters, it is the financial bottom-line that is important to them.
Others may also argue that failure is due to the use of German strategic battle tactics with which the US military are so enamored; Carl von Clausewitz' theories on battle tactics are mainstream thinking in US military classes.
"We should try a conditional surrender." –(Jim Glover)
An unconditional surrender would be much better, in fact, would be mandated.
The Obama administration ... has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 ...
... Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.
------------------
Impeachment yet?
Impeachment
That's a word I'm happy to see.
Yes, but who would take his place Biden? Clinton, Palin? Romney? I don't see much substantive differences just stylistic and rhetorical ones.
Lily
Better yet, prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Hang 'em high.
I can't help but connect the MIC, the unchecked budget that supplies the MIC, and the ecological crises that we face. The MIC must be producing the largest carbon footprint possible -- of any entity on this planet Earth. How many gallons of gasoline do they use daily? Not to mention the fact that as the U.S. military plods around the world, they also poison the land, air and water, with depleted uranium, phosphorus, etc. They are completely irresponsible, cruel and unjust in their actions and policies -- IMHO.
I remember listening closely to what Obama had to say when he was campaigning -- he was very clear about his intention to escalate the war in Afghanistan. This was one of many reasons why I did NOT vote for Obama.
Stop the wars and bring the troops home -- NOW!
The Pentagon accounts for 50% 0f USA oil consumption
Plus add the pollution from explosions and fires
My question, what percentage of USA murders is committed by the Pentagon?
I pointed that out in 2002 when the oiligarchs were in power.
They got first dibs at the federal feeding trough frenzy.
He also promised to escalate the use of drones in Ir-Af-Pak. In addition to yours, this is one reason I did not vote for him. Also, he voted for continued funding for these illegal occupations and invasions, and he voted for amnesty for the telecoms assisting the NSA in spying on us. Of course, I couldn't vote for McCain either. I wasted a vote on Nader, but upon further reflection I wish I had voted for Cynthia McKinney. I don't think I'll ever vote in another presidential, senatorial or house election. What's the point? What's the use? Candidates never never NEVER keep campaign promises. They never act in the interest of the people after eledted but only for the wealthy special interests that finance their campaigns. If you don't have enough money to buy a politician you will have no representation in this government.
Like you, I voted for Nader. However, even though he didn't come close, I do NOT feel as if I wasted my vote. I seriously considered Cynthia McKinney, too. I have a deep respect for her and her values. As for voting, or not voting -- each day, I waver and contemplate as to the best way to protest our system because real change involves systemic change. Our elected officials fail to represent us, we the people. Instead, they support and vote corporate policies, with bills written by lobbyists.
I certainly feel and share your despair!
" Peace is every step" Thich Nhat Hanh..... be mindful with steps, and keep on....... all steps count !
"I don't think I'll ever vote in another presidential, senatorial or house election. " –(EKATON)
–Now all you have to do is KNOW you won't vote anymore. It is not enough to leave the matter up to conjecture. That is the point which must be reached.
Saying "Maybe I wont vote," leaves the possibility of continued self abuse open in the future leading to a politics of incoherence.
Refining one's politics by necessary subtractions of vestigial attachments to counter productive (corrupting) endeavors is a first step.
Very few people had anything to do woth 9/11.
Another example of how people never exposed to bloodshed are the most bloodthirsty.
Dimos,Repugs, ..... Vampires
Obomber is trying soo hard
to be worse than Bush
WTF do you mean trying--Obomber is now much more dangerous that that dumb dumb W.
In fact he has much more potential to do more harm, because so many still trust this black bitch of a faker( he faked at being black and faked at being a man)--they just won't admit that they were stupid enough to have been fooled.
So we will attack anyone we think might be thinking about attacking someone we think is on our side ... Now THAT is very clear thinking. Electing the Oreo might have been the last gasp of American attempts at democracy. RIP
MichaelC: "Electing the Oreo..."
What is wrong with you? If you had any sense of decorum you wouldn't use such an insensitive racist remark. The President's ethnic heritage plays absolutely no role in this article, or the point you're trying to make.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
To all the Obama apologists: We're dropping somewhere over $20 billion dollars a month just on Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Who knows what President Oilbomber's escalation of special forces ops in 73 countries (in addition to Iraq & Afghanistan) is costing on top of that $20 Billion--every month. In nearly ten years of America's oil/pipeline/terror wars the arrogance, incompetence, cruelty and recklessness of those wars has caused the numbers of terrorists and terrorist attacks around the world (including in the U.S.) to soar. Obama said he would "address" the problems in Afghanistan. He didn't say he would be a full-on warmonger escalating the costs of all these wars and "special actions" beyond the fiscal stratosphere. Nor did he say he would redundantly repeat the same failed tactic of the Petraeus surge worldwide, continually expecting different results. You Obama apologists must all be rich enough from Party patronage or some other financial source to be insulated from the devastating cost of these wars to the economic security of the U.S. But most Americans are not. Obama is a national check kiting warmonger more profligate than ANY other president since Bush II and will, if re-elected, surpass even that imbecile's military-industrial waste. What do you have to say for yourselves?
Are there any Obama apologists left here? I haven't seen any in quite a while.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I've seen them in the last several weeks posting on several articles. They troll around on CD but when confronted with the worst aspects of Obama's policy record they either spew denials, try to downplay the obvious to the point of absurdity or they seek another article (& related comments) that they perceive as easier to attack.
metal:
Ummmm I don't think I've read any posts on this article that are apologetic of Obama. People have simply stated that he made it very clear during his campaign that he would escalate both the war in Afghanistan and the use of Predator drones in the Af/Pak region. The point being "congratulations, you got what you voted for." And not, "Hey don't be mean to the President, he's trying his best."
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I haven't read through them all since I posted earlier this morning, but they usually show up after a while. But I wasn't responding to any earlier. I'm challenging the ones who might arrive later to defend the strategic and tactical efficacy and overall cost-effectiveness of Bush's & Obama's oil/pipeline/terror wars, and Obama's continuing escalation of them. I have yet to see any of them answer my objections to those policies.
voting record as IL senator;
extend Patriot Act, war funding, FISA, Military Commissions Act
I must be forgetting something. Anyone?
Questions about Special Operations:
Who, in the end, has the authority to call in a strike?
Upon what information is that decision made? How was that information gathered and who gathered it?
What are the criteria used to establish who the enemy is and whether the enemy poses a threat to the United States? In other words, does the United States differentiate between legitimate threats to governments it deems friendly and threats that are aimed specifically at the United States? Would the United States, for example, engineer an assassination of a Thai dissident simply because that dissident advocates removing US bases from Thailand?
Once an operation is carried out, does the United States acknowledge the actions of its Special Operations team?
If crimes are committed by Special Op teams, is there any legal redress for the victims?
These are a few of the questions I have. If anyone can provide answers, I would appreciate it.
My guess is Secret Wars like any war must have secrets... but you probably already knew that.
drosera: "Would the United States, for example, engineer an assassination of a Thai dissident simply because that dissident advocates removing US bases from Thailand?"
WTF do you think? Was that question meant to be rhetorical, or was it just plain stupid? Get your head out of the sand.
Don't need the insult. I am just seeking answers to questions.
Yes, the best questions are usually the ones nobody has correct answers to.
Well, LBJ used to pick targets in Vietnam to bomb while having his breakfast.
The Beltway attitude clearly is that decision-makers are not going to be held accountable and have free rein - to pollute, invade, terrorize, kill, enact regime change, occupy, harvest and waste resources, do absolutely whatever they please - almost anywhere on earth.
This is, of course, outrageous, and the only remedy I can see is a public outpouring of disgust and a total rejection of such military policies, not only by USians but, much more effectively, by people around the world. Our joint voices can be heard, but if this does not happen soon, these same dark forces we've spread far and wide will be instructed to suppress all such dissent.
To the American public traumatized by the Bush Presidency, corporate America poured enormous amount of money to tout an African American man, Barack Obama, as the candidate of ‘Hope and Change’; however, once in office, President Obama kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in charge of the Military Industrial Complex and kept Bush’s Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, in charge of the Nation’s Banking System.
Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, was asked in 2010, what difference he saw between Bush and Obama. He succinctly answered ‘color of their skins’.
Unfortunately we are going to get duped every four years.
The working class whites will be duped by the Republicans who are there to defend the white American cultural values, and
the progressives will be duped by the Democrats who are there to defend the 'progressive'ideals.
Evo always says "IT" right ! Join the peoples non-violent revolucion ... its happening Now ! Resist, oppose the fascist amerikan empire ! The fall of the empire IS at hand !
tioche, Mexico
Nice post, I also agree with tioche below. Evo is a truly wise man.
Bird With Two Right Wings
And now our government
a bird with two right wings
flies on from zone to zone
while we go on having our little fun & games
at each election
as if it really mattered who the pilot is
of Air Force One
(They're interchangeable, stupid!)
While this bird with two right wings
flies right on with its corporate flight crew
And this year its the Great Movie Cowboy in the cockpit
And next year its the great Bush pilot
And now its the Chameleon Kid
and he keeps changing the logo on his captains cap
and now its a donkey and now an elephant
and now some kind of donkephant
And now we recognize two of the crew
who took out a contract on America
and one is a certain gringo wretch
who's busy monkeywrenching
crucial parts of the engine
and its life-support systems
and they got a big fat hose
to siphon off the fuel to privatized tanks
And all the while we just sit there
in the passenger seats
without parachutes
listening to all the news that's fit to air
over the one-way PA system
about how the contract on America
is really good for us etcetera
As all the while the plane lumbers on
into its postmodern
manifest destiny.
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Even Dick Cheney could not do a better job.
Time to re-read "The Bipartisan Consensus" chapter from Zinn's classic.
When will folks figure out that no matter who is in the WH or Congress, (D or R) policy shifts ever rightward?
The next president, no matter who it is, will coninue this trend.
Maybe Obama is taking bipartizanship all the way and will run as a republican.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
A good article on Counterpunch.org today related directly to the subject of the Wapo piece:
One Year After Cairo
Obama's Speech: Promises Made; Promises Unkept
http://www.counterpunch.org/amin06042010.html
Some excerpts:
1. Issue Closing Guantanamo.
Obama’s Words: “I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
With mounting pressure from Congress and the extreme right, the administration backed down.
2. Issue: Israeli Settlements.
Obama’s Words: “This construction (of Israeli settlements) violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
Twice last year Obama faced Netanyahu and twice the US president blinked in front of the Israeli prime minister.
3. Issue: Lifting Gaza’s Blockade.
Obama’s Words: “Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
The administration even financed the construction of a sixty-foot underground steel barrier along the Egypt-Gaza border in order to tighten the siege on Gaza; it also recently shielded Israel in the UN after the flotilla massacre.
4. Issue: Human Rights and the Goldstone Report.
Obama’s Words: “We reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
Although the Goldstone Report concluded that Israel committed war crimes and killed 1400 Palestinians during its invasion of Gaza (the overwhelming number of which was non-combatant civilians including hundreds of women and children), the Obama administration defended Israel in all international forums including the UN’s Security Council and Human Rights Commission.
5. Issue: Palestinian Elections Results.
Obama’s Words: "We will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people."
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
On the contrary, the US supports the unelected Palestinian Authority imposed on the Palestinian people in part by the US, as well as it trains and finances its security forces (under Gen. Dayton). According to human rights organizations, the PA has tortured hundreds and detained, without trial, over one thousand of its opponents in the last year alone.
6. Issue: Imposition.
Obama’s Words: No system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by any other.
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
The Israeli government did not like the results of the Palestinian elections favoring Hamas, and consequently imposed a crippling siege on Gaza, which the US has tacitly supported and defended in their attempt to undo the elections’ results.
7. Issue: Reconciliation Between the Palestinian Factions.
Obama’s Words: “We will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comments:
In public the administration says that the ongoing dispute between the Palestinian factions is strictly a Palestinian affair; but in private it has vetoed and obstructed any reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, pressured Egypt to continue its siege of Gaza, and threatened the PA with the withdrawal of all financial aid if it reconciles with Hamas.
8. Issue: Nuclear Weapons
Obama’s Words: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
While pressuring (NPT signatory) Iran and threatening to use crippling sanctions against it, the US ignores Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its refusal to sign the NPT.
9. Issue: Use of Drone attacks and killing of civilians in violation of the laws of sovereign nations.
Obama’s Words: “So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
Despite the countries' objections against the mounting civilian casualties, the drone attacks under Obama have tripled in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and expanded to other countries such as Yemen and Somalia, even to the point of targeting US citizens for execution (i.e., assassination) without due process of law.
10. Issue: Muslim Charities in the US
Obama’s Words: “In the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat.”
Promise? Not Kept.
Comment:
No Muslim charity closed during the Bush administration has been re-opened or had its assets returned. The administration even defended the use of Bush’s illegal wiretapping against one charity in Oregon prompting a federal judge to rule against the government. The administration has failed so far to meet with any credible US Muslim group to address the issue of the closed charities or the unjust prosecution of their officers.
Final Score: Promises Made: 10, Promises Kept: 0.
Very nice summary, thanks for this. I don't think you'll see any Obama apologists that can dispute any of those 10 points.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power.
Mostly, when they think they can't get one on the facts they'll just generally damn Obama's leftist critics for placing the country at risk of putting Republicans back in power. But none of them seem to be looking at Obama's actual record as a neo-lib/neo-con in office, or the record of the current neo-lib/neo-con Congress that solidly backs his warmongering and is just as feeble and corporatist right-wing as him on health care "reform" and financial regulatory "reform." Both the Dims and Rethugs are rattling sabers all over the place, including at Iran. The ONLY slight difference I see between the two dominant parties now is that Republicans are more eager to actually go to war with Iran and are more likely to initiate a military draft as a jobs creation tactic (though it won't create enough jobs), and Dimocrats are more likely to support any Republican administration in going to war with Iran and are more likely to feebly oppose a draft (while not creating enough jobs either). Both parties are a waste of time and Americans are now so goddamned collectively stupid and easily brainwashed that no corporate or government evil seems harsh enough to wake them up anymore.
The oil deluge in the Gulf of Mexico is the PERFECT emblem for 21st century Amurka: Cheap, stupid, vulgar, toxic, violently murderous, apathetic and greedy. Israel is our PERFECT ally.
"...But none of them seem to be looking at Obama's actual record as a neo-lib/neo-con in office, or the record of the current neo-lib/neo-con Congress that solidly backs his warmongering..."
–(metal)
I'm afraid they are, (looking at Obama's record), and they like what they see. There lies the problem.
In America, when one scratches a 'liberal' and many times even a 'progressive,' one finds a Neo-fascist. The generalized right wing dispensation of most Americans no longer is even remotely surprising– although many times the latency is masked– only to be divulged almost accidently.
Often, when friends have visited us from other parts of the world– many who are by no stretch of the imagination 'radicals'–the omnipresence here of liminal rightism never fails to astonish them.
One too many dinner parties and barbecues have ground to a disquieting halt because of these sudden, unpleasant epiphanies from people you least suspect.
Perhaps it is a good thing that Americans are throughly incapable of holding political discussions in person and must confine it to the internet.
"In America ...when one scratches a 'liberal' ... one finds a Neo-fascist." VashkarKim
In this instance, this sounds very much like a Conservative trope.
Actual statistics are difficult to calculate but growing numbers of liberals, progressives, left-wingers, or whatever you want to call them, disillusioned with both parties, do not like what they see at all. Right or left wingers, or neither, have lost more control of their lives, have become more alienated with no matter who is in government. I don't know where you're from but with the Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Americans are facing the toughest problems they've confronted in decades. If you've got the owner's manual on how to operate and dismantle the system that the designers created let me know.
Painting all liberals, or all Americans if that's the case, with such a broad brush shows a limited knowledge of America and Americans in general.
"...but growing numbers of liberals, progressives, left-wingers, or whatever you want to call them, disillusioned with both parties, do not like what they see at all." –(Carax)
–Or, as in the point of our posting, is that they 'appear' to dislike what they see. I should have been more clear in making that distinction. Or perhaps it is more cogent to say "How much do they dislike what they see?" There is little concrete evidence to the contrary that we can discern.
"I don't know where you're from... but with the Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Americans are facing the toughest problems they've confronted in decades." –(Carax)
–We are from India and Vietnam respectively, both raised and educated in the UK, Hong Kong and the USA. Now resident off and on, in the U.S. We are American citizens.
Your statement that Americans are in the 'worse straits' they've been in for sometimes– may be objectively true– but there is again no evidence they are doing something about it, in ways that matter. Or worse, they really do not want to do anything about it, despite lip service and internet blather to the contrary.
This is because they are ill prepared to do so being ideologically incapable, which was the point of our posting. Your self-serving indulgence in wishful thinking, is all too typical and myopic at best. We see Americans as being incapable of talking to each other about maters of importance without near total belligerence and acrimony ensuing.
We see the cultural and political aspects of an almost inbred rightist dispensation in America as generalized, almost ambient, even affecting those who may appear least susceptible. Perhaps even those such as yourself?
That is why we find it useful and accurate both, to paint the picture– in your words– with such a "broad brush."
Tropes, are what is important in America, the acts of individuals seem to matter less.
Consider that is it not possible that if a real left emerged to challenge state power in America (really impossible) would not many putative liberal and even progressive groupings band with the dominant fascism to suppress it?
Concordantly, would not any 'revolution' in America likely default to fascism? That appears so obvious to us, despite not being purely and providentially Americans, as not worth disputing.
–Kim & Vash.
"...Americans are now so goddamned collectively stupid and easily brainwashed that no corporate or government evil seems harsh enough to wake them up anymore." –(metal)
–The future will show– as you correctly state– that there is no limit to the tolerance for atrocity resident in most Americans, especially if it has a component of collectively applied sadism.
But what is even worse– is their infinite capacity to rationalize evil as if it were not a moral blasphemy, but as if it were a 'good.' Curiously, as you again point out, it matters little if they are the perpetrators or the victims: The atrocity itself, as 'spectacle,' is paramount and value neutral.
Cocooned in an insulated nether world of the imagination there is no empathy there.
The recent moral debacle in the American media over the most current Israeli barbarism is but one example of normalizing the unconscionable, in fact gilding the atrocity as a 'good' and necessary thing.
Similarly, the Gulf oil catastrophe is met with a 'shrug' and is already yesterday's papers.
Not often is psychopathy so readily, shamelessly and cretinously admitted.