Obama's Exceedingly Familiar Justifications for Escalation

Published on
by
Salon.com

Obama's Exceedingly Familiar Justifications for Escalation

by
Glenn Greenwald

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.

Share This Article

More in: