Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
"Barack of Afpakia"
Today's Wall Street Journal suggests that if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in Afghanistan, he'll have to fall back on the support of "Bush Republicans and neocons." In its lead editorial, it says:
Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, "Why are we in Afghanistan?" The President's friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to "Obama's Vietnam." Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support -- to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.
The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:
The regents are on the ground and commanders are crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge in Afghanistan. Let's hope he's willing to see it through when his most stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.
In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions haven't yet been set in stone about Obama's Afghan policy. How many troops he adds, if any -- whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want -- isn't decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem at Get Afghanistan Right.
Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman: "I would expect the presidential decision could come shortly." Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama will make a decision within "days." But why would the president decide to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote earlier, it's a classic case of "Ready, Fire, Aim."
There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: "New US troops in Afghanistan see combat." MSNBC's headline is: "3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge." Strictly speaking, these troops aren't the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC's report notes:
The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.
- Posted in
38 Comments so far
Show AllNow is the time to resist (nonviolently). The fulcrum moment is the most powerful. Do it now!
Even the most apathetic USA citizen does not want the government wasting money in a senseless war when the apathetic one is in dire financial straits.
The lives you save are your sisters and brothers.
The President will decide. The President will decide. Will Congress and the American People have any input, or are we just along for the ride?
Congress already gave the permission for engagement so really they don't have any more input...they could use their constitutional right to withhold funding but i don't think many members of Congress even know whats in the constitution!
Obama ran his campaign on the promise of increasing troops in Afghanistan so i don't know why people are acting so shocked now that he's ordered more troops into battle.
When President Bush was in the White House the Democrats in Congress demanded a time frame for "withdrawal from Iraq" and attached the demand to several appropriations which Bush vetoed.
Let's see if these same Democrats have the spine to demand that President Obama tell the nation when the last soldiers will have left Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Japan, Germany, South Korea a.s.o. and make their demand known in every appropriation bill.
Wanna bet? That is not going to happen. One reason why Democratic Congresspersons will never have a full-body X-ray taken is because that will reveal that most of them are spineless. Crossing Bush was easy because they knew that he was going to veto their demands.
Troops stationed in Germany and Japan aren't in a conflict zone. Why do you include them with the troops in Iraq, S. Korea, Afghanistan and such who actually are?
The carriers fleet stationed in Asia saved tens of thousands of lives during the Tsunami. Had there not been troops there those people who have died.
The problem was never Afghanistan. Its Pakistan. Pakistan is literally on the verge of collapse. An imploding Pakistan is the worst case scenario for the entire region. Like a insatiable blackhole, a disintegrating Pakistan will take everyone down with it. I dont think anyone in D.C. has a clue as to how to solve this problem leave alone Obama.
rid 1:38 -------- Our job is to tell the USA how to solve the problem.
1) Embrace the Pakistan democracy.
2) Do not attack Pakistan for making Peace.
3) Support non- violent policies in Pakistan.
4) Encourage Pakistan to reenstate its judiciary.
5) Allow Pakistan to be a full partner in the Afghan Peace process.
6) Mediate a secure Peace between India and Pakistan.
Among other population groups, Pakistan has an active educated population that vehemently supports Democracy. We need only reenforce their democracy.
I presume that the solution will require some sort of Surge.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The scary thing is that nobody really has a solution...
Obedient 4:08 ------------ Popular Surge.
I respectfully submit that the problem is not Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. It's America. Solving the problem would involve butting out of everyone's business, and we would lose a lot of customers for our bombs and jets and stuff. Somebody has to be killing somebody for America to make any money.
I suspect that most of those on the right who are urging Obama to escalate in Afghanistan are secretly wishing that it does become Obama's Vietnam. Then they can elect Jeb or some other monstrous ghoul in 2012, and we can say goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, unions, college education for non-elites, and the middle class.
A distinct possibility.
Joe
"Afpakia?" Will "Pushtunistan" be next?
Pushtunistan is the latest 'Imperialist Construct' and as expected is being hyped as the latest and greatest solution by elite western media. What a joke.
Lord 2:19 ------ actually Pushtunstan is on maps. I beleive my '70's vintage Afghan tourist map has the NW Pakistan provinces as Pushtunstan. This is a war of ethnic cleansing of Pushtuns.
GAWD ! Yet another reason to regret my vote for Obama when I could have listened to my wife and vote Nader ! I wonder if Obama even plans on running for reeelection at this rate.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Okay, debates over, Obama just sent 17,000 more troops.
They're there now so let's support them.
"They're there now so let's support them."
Does that mean bring them home now or let them rot? Pick one.
Gee you sound just like a Bush supporter talking about Bush's invason of Iraq. Did I mention you are wrong about everything JoeHopeless? Hint slaughtering people who did NOTHING to us doesn't SUDDENLY become moral just because the party doing it has a name that starts with D. Stupid koolaid drinking Dimorat! Sigh!
Sioux Rose
It's the sickness of our nation today that there HAS to be a war. Enemies are created, that is when bad policy doesn't generate them, and why? How else to keep the people convinced they need this military behemoth that like a giant leaves its gigantic footprint all over the world, generally wiping out life wherever it touches, that is when it's not leaving toxic residue behind.
I long for the day when NO American is willing to accept the military as a staple of its economy. No other nation seems to need or want to spend the sums we do on arms? There was a time when the US reached for ideals and perhaps WAS a good cop, but in a sense, it devoured its enemies and having digested them, took on many of their worst attributes. Who does not see parallels between the use of fear/terrorism and fighting a specific enemy/scapegoat and how the Nazis operated?
Every American president seems to require this baptism in blood, each to hang his name on a war; and it's all obscene, has been obscene, only guarantees a continuation of REAL enemy-making, and wastes so much land and money when there's little of either TO waste. Tragedy speaks in our nation's dialect.
Paul Siemering
right again Sioux Rose.
Military spending is the most successful form of Keynesian spending on record.
If gang warfare were an economic stimulus would you support that too SG? It's precisely that sort of thinking that shows mainstream economics is a sick and destructive discipline.
i stated a fact. You don't have to support it but you should acknowledge the truth of it.
steel 10:16 NOT FACT
What do you think brought an end to the great depression...It was the World War.
oldcreditiste says; The devil is in the details; to wit: The world war caused people to accept an increase in the MONEY SUPPLY. THIS WAS OUT OF NECESSITY. NOW it is necessary to increase the Money supply again because that money supply has disappeared in the Wall Street Casino. Take your choice. Give it to the gamblers so that they can play more or give it to the people, poor, unemployed, working, in debt, so that they can consume those things which we have already produced and are capable of producing if we can get the gamblers out of the way.
Do not worry about the bogleman of inflation, which some are trying to raise. If we get inflation a sales tax will control it quickly if we can keep the hands of the gamblers off the controls of the government
I would vote for infrastructure, which doesn't kill so many people and keeps paying dividends for decades. Education is also good.
Infrastructure is good when designed right. Japan has plenty of brand new Bridges nobody uses. Education is the best investment of all.
steelgray 8:52 ------- Wrong domestic spending creates more employment and wealth.
I disagree. It is expensive and leads nowhere.
Joe
That's is why it's Keynesian.
Paul Siemering
The most powerful military force in the world is telling us to be afraid of Afghanistan, the very poorest, most defenseless.
there is no war on terror
The pointless, stupid, brutal, inhuman, endless massacre of Afghanistan was a war crime from the start, it is now, and it gets worse every day it continues. to intensify it now is monstrous.
I see no reason why the Wall Street Journal shouldn't be blown off the face of the earth. Every day it fulfills its role as the mouthpiece for imperialism and treason. Truly, its writers and editors deserve the Guantanamo treatment.
Well, I won't actually advocate violence, but I will be ripping off and burning every single WSJ I see for the duration.
Unfortunately, our Republican brethren have just spent the last eight years conferring dictatorial powers on the Office of the President.
8 Years without a Leader
Both parties have screwed the pooch Perry, Bill Clinton's genocidal sanctions against Iraq and illegal and immoral war against Serbia impress me not one bit more than both Bush's illegal and immoral wars against Iraq. Genocidal crimes don't SUDDENLY become good when done by a D. We have been more like six decades without a leader. And are leaders and hierarchy even what we need in the first place or rather the root of our problems?
oldcreditiste says; Some of the better medical journals have 'review articles', from time to time to refocus readers on a problem. Could someone review the problems and possible solutions for Afghanistan for us? What is the objective? Was it reached in the first 2 weeks in 2001? What more is to be done except kill more people, and practice killing? It was said about the Bourbons 'They learned nothing and they forgot nothing'.