EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
Popular content
Today's Top News
Freeing Up Resources... for More War
Hours after President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, the New York Times printed the news that he plans to gradually withdraw "American combat forces" from Iraq during the next 18 months. The newspaper reported that the advantages of the pullout will include "relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan."
The president's speech had little to say about the plans for escalation, but the few words will come back to haunt: "With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."
Obama didn't mention the additional number of U.S. troops -- 17,000 -- that he has just ordered to Afghanistan. But his pledge that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people" and his ringing declaration, "We will not allow it," came just before this statement: "As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy."
Get the message? In his first speech to Congress, the new president threw down a 90-month-old gauntlet, reaffirming the notion that committing to war halfway around the world -- in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too -- will make Americans safer. With drumrolls like that, the mission could outlive all of us.
And so, a colossal and fateful blunder, made by a very smart leader, arguably our best and brightest, is careening forward with the help of silence that defers all too readily to power. This is how the war in Vietnam escalated, while individuals and groups muted their voices. Many people will pay with their lives.
The reasons why the war in Afghanistan cannot be won are directly connected to why the war is wrong. In essence, people do not like their country occupied for years on end, especially when the occupiers are routinely killing civilians (whatever the rationale). Monochrome words like Taliban and "terrorists" might seem tidy and clear enough as they appear in media coverage, or as they roll off a president's tongue, but in the real Afghan world the opponents of the U.S. war are diverse and wide-ranging. With every missile strike that incinerates a household or terrorizes a village, the truly implacable "extremists" can rejoice at Uncle Sam's assistance to their recruiting efforts.
Those who are fond of talking and writing about President Obama's admirable progressive values will, sooner or later, need to come to terms with the particulars of his actual policies. In foreign affairs, the realities now include the ominous pairing of his anti-terrorism rhetoric and his avowed commitment to ratchet up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.
I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war.
They could save themselves a lot of shame, and save others their lives, by speaking out sooner rather than later. In the process, they might help save the Obama presidency from running aground in Afghanistan.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
130 Comments so far
Show AllFor those who would be disappointed,
"Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two combat brigades a month. But he supports increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been resurgent and Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
"Because Barack Obama has proposed an increase in U.S. troops to Afghanistan - and because the conflict on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border has intensified - the senator's foreign trip begins with a focus on his aggressive approach to the war on terror, not on Iraq," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk.
Jul 19, 2008"
http://cbs5.com/campaign08/obama.foreign.trip.2.774863.html
Personally I think it sucks, but the fact of the matter is, he is beholden to those interests that got him elected, and the war pig has to be fed.
www.oldelmtree.com
Also, not often mentioned is that he plans to leave behind in Iraq a "residual" force of 30 to 50 thousand troops. And there is never any mention of how many mercenaries from Xe (formerly Blackwater), Triple Canopy, Dyn Corp, etc., will remain. So the U.S. will not really withdraw from Iraq at all. Obama never was an anti-war candidate. At least he's not John McCain -- faint praise.
The only people in this country who want war are those who profit from war. We haven't had a real government of, by and for the people in decades, if we really ever did. WE the PEOPLE do not want more wars, new wars or continuing wars. Only the GOVERNMENT wants more war.
d.k.shaw
Funny how his supporters during the Primaries were screaming that he was an anti-war candidate just based off his 2004 DNC speach and used that against the other candidates. Change and Hope my ass.
www.oldelmtree.com
I prefer the pre-election Norman Soloman (you know, the Obama delegate who advocated against third parties, and covered the DNC for CD) to the post-election backstabbing Norman Solomon.
Hopefully we won't leave any troops in Afganistan. I believe over this year the pressure will continue to build to get out. Soon as we can. Summer 2010 tops.
Did you note his mention of increasing the troop level in our forces and also the mention of stopping the cold war type systems? This is the first time that there is a stated intention to return the armed forces to what they should be, by that increase get rid of these contractors and stop wasting money on cold war type weapons systems.
Will he follow through? I don't know, so far his record of keeping his word isn't good, but at least the direction is the right way to go.
Re: Your second paragraph. One can only hope ...
d.k.shaw
Believe me...I' hoping!
Tom,
Give up all hope. This article is about the Iraq war.
Read this:
"Obama's Non-Withdrawal Withdrawal Plan"
http://www.counterpunch.com/floyd02252009.html
"All of this is what the Obama-Petraeus plan will do. But what it won't do is "end this war" -- "responsibly" or otherwise. When Obama says it will -- as he said last night to a rapt national audience -- he is, quite simply, and very deliberately, lying."
Hoyt
I never give up hope. There is always a chance. A corporal taught me it was true long ago.
Here's hoping!
I am in complete agreement with you on this point,Mr. More. Hope springs eternal as Mr. Pope noted:
Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733
I read some very studied and informed commentary here ( along with the rest)that seems to have a systemic pessimism inherent within it. I always wonder what motivates such a person to continue on.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"I read some very studied and informed commentary here ( along with the rest)that seems to have a systemic pessimism inherent within it. I always wonder what motivates such a person to continue on."
Someday that "very studied and informed commentary" will be mine...I'm working!
"I always wonder what motivates such a person to continue on."
Me 2.....
Only an arrogant SOB would think he could WIN in Afghanistan.
Ain't gonna happen dude !
Frankly I can't find anyone who said that...who are you referencing?
The autosprawl system is still in control. It will require a mass movement to get real change. Fortunately, just such a worldwide movement is growing. Those who want peace should pause and look outside. What is parked right there? Then think about what is the root cause of the oil and gas-pipeline wars.
http://freepublictransit.org
Yes, I was going to agree by saying that it always comes back to this, but really it never leaves.
Speaking as an inventor of public transit so cheap that a region might well run it for free, I must point out that there's no development money anywhere for worthy energy-efficiency inventions if they involve public transit. The ideas are out here. Waiting.
Still waiting.
(noise of someone humming.)
Brief and to the point. As a skeptic of Obama's alleged progressivism from the beginning of his run for presidency, I must admit I was impressed with his speech to Congress last night. Not that he turned me around, but it was his best address ever, IMO. He struck some fairly "progressive"-sounding chords, even if the word has mostly been drained of meaning over the last few years. Still, Obama's signature vagueness on policy direction was anything but absent. But there were those notes of potential change on the near horizon, nonetheless.
But they're all neutralized precisely because of what Solomon says in this piece. He fully intends to live up to his campaign promise of escalating the US incursion/invasion/bombing/occupation and all other manifestations of US imperial military might and will in Afghanistan. He will not leave this keg of dynamite alone; he's got the match and by god he's going to strike it.
He apparently has faith that all the scare words (Al-Qaeda, terrorism, Taliban) still have enough currency to fool a majority of gullible Americans into supporting this guaranteed catastrophic failure, just as Bush gambled they would in 2003. The fact that Iraq is the most disastrous escapade this country ever launched is utterly lost on this "brilliant" president. He still nourishes the fantasy that "the surge (in Iraq) was successful beyond our wildest dreams," and desperately wants to prove as successful a "wartime president" as his magnificent and valiant predecessor. He just knows he can win in Afghanistan the way Bush won in Iraq.
There probably aren't ten people in the world who truly believe the US can accomplish what Obama thinks he can in Afghanistan, especially by military force. How can someone be so "smart" and unutterably stupid at the same time? With that degree of delusion, how can anyone think this guy is going to deliver the goods on healing our shattered economy? He'll bankrupt us even further with his own personal military adventure, if it's even possible to go more bankrupt than we are now. He'll kill countless Afghani civilians trying to exterminate the evil terrorists, in reality only recruiting more to their fanatical cause, just as Bush's war has done. We've killed about 1.3 million Iraqis, drove another 4 or 5 million into exile, and successfully destroyed the country. (A dream come true, apparently, for Obama.) The fact that he cannot understand this, or doesn't care, makes him just another wanna-be criminal American president, in a tragically long line of them.
And here I was thinking maybe there would be some "hope" for this guy, after that stirring speech. Silly me.
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: Many good points, however, I am fairly certain Obama is not as blind as you seem to indicate. It's not that he believes in the military mission, it's that such activities are a virtual requirement of any US president in a state that functions largely through war and must bow down and show allegiance to its money masters, the vast majority of whom profit from the MIC and its insidious PR campaigns perpetually in search of the next enemy. This is one reason why Hollywood must produce films that have such black/white good guy/bad guy plot lines, with a battery of weaponry used to NORMALIZE it as a form of "currency" in the public imagination. Scary stuff indeed. How much was Obama on board to be the puppet du jour, and how much has he been sold out in the process through threats... getting as high as he has (public office), you can imagine how words like "you know too much" can play when a person still has a heart and soul and a family to protect.
Of course you're right, SR, but how many understand this? I just finished reading Nick Turse's "The Complex," where all this is made perfectly clear. We are so invested in militarism that it's literally unbelievable. We almost have no economy outside the military-industrial-entertainment-media-scientific-intelligence-technological-corporate complex. Without that matrix in full operation, unemployment would be about 65% (I'm guessing, but I'm sure it's not far off).
The interstices of this war behemoth are literally everywhere, and it absolutely has the economy hostage. So when Obama talks about turning the economy around, not only can he never do it under Geithner, Summers and associates, but in even trying to do it he'll have to direct more and more funding and energy toward militarism. And if we HAVE all that lethal equipment we will use it. Otherwise it has no justification.
We're in a cul de sac, and the Pentagon is the only institution at the end of the road. This seems to be entirely lost on most Americans. They think he's sincere about solving the mortgage and credit crisis, wants to stick it to the rich bankers and help the little guy, and even if he wants to, he can't. I think he may be very sincere in wanting to come to the aid of those who've been shafted by the banksters and insurance fraudsters, but he seems to be schizoid about it. He's smart enough to know he's completely at the mercy of the villains who caused all this, and hostage to the military matrix, so he talks out of both sides of his mouth, hoping to delay the inevitable.
Or he just hopes Americans will remain as clueless as they were in 2003 when Bush fooled most of them into supporting the Iraq war crime. Sadly, tragically, humiliatingly, he may be right. No, he's probably right. A majority will most likely be just as dunced into believing the inevitable media spin into bombing Afghanistan into the Stone Age (not far to go) as they were in accepting the lies of WMD in Iraq. Or, they may not believe it, but TV addiction will keep them docile and submissive in the face of the War machine.
If he does this crime in Afghanistan, this country is completely finished. Lights out.
Terrific posts, both of you, insightful and accurate. This tragicomedy of our foreign policy about drives me nuts. One might consider that, given the history of Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Iraq et al, and the dreadful need for funds to repair infrastructure, funds available from a bloated and unecessarily wasteful military budget in fact,one as clever as Obama might back pedal a bit from the incessant need to make war on someone, somewhere.....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"We are so invested in militarism that it's literally unbelievable."
You've got that right!! There is defense contractor business in EVERY SINGLE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT in America. War IS America's business!! Obama has NO INTENTIONS of changing that.
i agree the afghan deployment will be stressful for all
how else though is the west going to recover from these economic difficulties
the way of the west is to take it from the savages - the non-whites of the planet who probably should never have been there in the first place
as cheney says, its not the us's fault that all their oil happens to be under iraqi sands
then we have to increasingly factor in the climate and water wars
but as one of yesterday's articles here pointed out - most americans are living in the most populous state - the state of denial
cheers, b
Please remember Afghans are fairly fair ( like Persians). Some people( like Hitler, sorry) considered them the purest and original Ayrans.
Indo europeans in fact....and many economists note that money spent on the military is not returend to the economy as are many far better investments.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Ah! But if our troops were where they should be...here, then their money would be returned to the economy.
Thomas, even the bogeyman of the left,Milton Friedman, had noted that for every dollar spent on the military we saw little return to the economy when compared to monies spent on such as infrastructure and other govt expenditures...Then he fell under the thrall of Ayn Rand,sadly....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"Thomas, even the bogeyman of the left,Milton Friedman"
I loved that!
Ayn Rand must have been very hot!!
Very hot? Not:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_gallery
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Afghanistan doesn't want or need us there and while I'm glad that the Guantanamo gulag is slated for closure, Bagram continues. As for Pakistan, his continued bombings are only destabilizing it and strengthening the popularity if militant anti_American Islamists. Obama is generally progressive domestically but his foreign policy is a continuation of the short-sighted imperialism that got us where we are. Maybe he is a more efficient imperialist but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Also his comments regarding Social Security reflect a dangerous Repug lite approach.
The Jaded Prole
Taking troops out of Iraq just to put them into Afghanistan isn't why the American people elected Obama.
If he continues on the war path of Bush, he will be a one-term president, as well he should be.
He doesn't get it. Americans are fed up with unwinnable wars. They are tired of paying for wars with money they don't have.
For all Obama's great oratorial skills, his message is disheartening.
"Taking troops out of Iraq just to put them into Afghanistan isn't why the American people elected Obama."
Thats what he should have done, unfortunately he is sending troops from here, That makes it additional troop numbers. Not good.
I would add we are tired of wars we shouldn't be in too.
Thomas, would you consider that the rise of the Taliban, the sheltering of AlQaeda will only benefit from the intrusion of US troops into that nation. We wont catch them, we will kill innocents, we will make many,many more enemies and we will join the ranks of other empire that foundered on those rough shoulders of that nation.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Red Rick
I think its a given that our intrusion into Afganistan did indeed strengthen the Taliban, though at first blush it seemed as if they lost, they just did what all insurgent groups do, retreat till you start winning again. I don't think for a moment that the Afgan people want the Taliban back, but they don't want us either. Their country, its got to be their solution...if there is one.
When I think of AlQaeda I think of the hundreds of small terroist gangs, the few larger terroists gangs like Hamas, Hezblolla and some patriotic groups lumped under that banner that benefited from our invasion of Iraq and our return to Afganistan and I think every day when they get up they give thanks to Cheney and Bush because if we hadn't done that most of them would be back in the slime they crawled out from.
"would you consider that the rise of the Taliban, the sheltering of AlQaeda will only benefit from the intrusion of US troops into that nation."
now the short answer....yep!
"I don't think for a moment that the Afgan people want the Taliban back, but they don't want us either. Their country, its got to be their solution...if there is one. "
THANK YOU ! If only more people in this country would learn. If we abolish the CIA, the Taliban will be gone sooner than most people can imagine.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"Taking troops out of Iraq just to put them into Afghanistan isn't why the American people elected Obama."
This is something Obama campaigned on. It was one of his talking points. If you didn't hear it then, what were you listening to? Or did you just get blinded by the Hope and Change???
Not blinded, dcostello, just realistic and determined to work with what we had and commit myself to additional post election work. I worked for Barack knowing his stance and knowing I wanted/needed to change it. There are few perfect candidates.
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
Sorry Kate,
You got snookered.
Mr. Obama is not withdrawing from Iraq, either. It is an escalation of the war.
"All of this is what the Obama-Petraeus plan will do. But what it won't do is "end this war" -- "responsibly" or otherwise. When Obama says it will -- as he said last night to a rapt national audience -- he is, quite simply, and very deliberately, lying."
http://www.counterpunch.com/floyd02252009.html
I didn't vote for Obama or " hope and change." Why would he think we wanted troops pulled out of Iraq just to put them in Afghanistan? Does that make sense to anyone?
If the American people were disgusted with Bush after eight years of war, what makes you think they would be happy with eight more of the same under Obama?
Why did he include that promise in his campaign? The country wantee him and he knew it, so he could say anything and they would buy it.
Now it's up to those who voted for him to make him "change."
I didn't vote for Obama or " hope and change." Why would he think we wanted troops pulled out of Iraq just to put them in Afghanistan? Does that make sense to anyone?
If the American people were disgusted with Bush after eight years of war, what makes you think they would be happy with eight more of the same under Obama?
Why did he include that promise in his campaign? The country wantee him and he knew it, so he could say anything and they would buy it.
Now it's up to those who voted for him to make him "change."
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
Quite simply and not surprisingly, the sheeples HAVE BEEN FOOLED AGAIN.....
Though infinitely more intelligent than Bush, Obama was well vetted by the empire that chose him. The empire is extremely adept at manipulating those it chooses. Bush was a wooden puppet for them. Obama is a next generation high tech puppet. I believe that he means well. But then so did Bush. He has 'chosen' a cabinet that reflects all the empire's interests. He will continue to support and expand the military complex, as have so many predecessors. He will defer to the empire's clients in continuing bailouts. In relation to Afghanistan: As recently repeated by an ex-CIA analyst who was involved in the endeavor under bot Carter and Reagan: The CIA set the mouse trap to lure the USSR into that Vietnam quagmire in order to accelerate its demise. And it worked. The USA pumped money, arms and encouragement of religious fundamentalists for this purpose. And this began under Carter! Brzezinski, Gates, and others were and continue to be rabidly anti-communist; not because they fear Communism as a military threat, but because it threatens our capitalistic system of 'progressive Democracy' (i.e. the more you have, the freer you are). They should fear it because they and their cronies are at the top of this 'Democracy', and to fall from there can be really painful. Brzezinski, himself, said it best: the Afghan people are pawns, having no innate value other than their function as suits the Empire's goals. And that view is finally coming home to the good ole' US of A. Whatever one might point to as the source of the current economic meltdown, the fact is, it is an inevitable consequence of Capitalism. Many economists are decrying the fact that Americans are doing just the opposite of what is needed to end the crisis: they are not spending like there's no tomorrow. The guiding principle of Capitalism is "More is Better"; that is, one should never be satisfied with having enough. This philosophy of unlimited greed was proudly espoused by Reagan "If the rich become rich enough, it will trickle down to benefit the rest". The flaw in this logic is the word 'enough'. It is blatantly evident that even the richest- especially the richest- will go to any lengths to get more and more- to the point that we are now beginning to see just what lengths they have gone to. This economic meltdown will continue, and to dupe the masses into further acceptance, we will expand the military complex. Hope and Change? Indeed, people who have never had to experience real hope in the comfort of their middle class homes will now begin to hope. But too late. They will be absorbed into the third world pawn vat, while the Empire continues its growth. The empire well knows that Obama's Waterloo will happen. He is yet another puppet. What the Empire may not duly estimate, however, is the mass hatred that will ensue. For, Obama truly did inspire hope. And though he might not wreak nearly the havoc that Cheney et al. have done, he will be hated much more for inspiring such hope in so many- both at home and around the globe.
Even if Obama was as evil as many here think, he cannot continue the game of war as Bush and many before have done.
After the financial world monetary meltdown everything has changed behind the scenes.
War is expensive and the people are restless for Jobs and a future.
Politically, for a president to survive a move to peace now is to send in more troops so that the peace talks to come will be seen as from a position of strength which is about all the-Military complex is trained to care about... to look big, bad and strong.
Of course this could just lead to a greater wider war also.
But one thing is certain, Obama will not have the money to spend or the confusion about what Debt is doing to the world as Bush had when the USA and Britain lied their way into Iraq and Afghanistan and put the world in more Debt then could be hidden in a hundred years.
You may think Obama will be like Bush but even if he wanted to, everything has changed.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
Until the next false flag.
"War is expensive and the people are restless for Jobs and a future."
War is BIG BUSINESS and creates LOTS of JOBS. Guns or butter? Basic economics. Besides, WW II fixed the last Depression. WW III will fix this one. Wait and see.
dc 1:18 there must be a lot of federal trolls out . because people could never be so heartless for free.
Sioux Rose
DJPROF: Excellent post. I agree with your points, and see a further response on the part of a public that sees its assets seriously decimated, one that goes beyond disappointment for collapsed hopes.
I take issue with your first assertion. Bush was not ignorant, naive or a dupe... him and his ilk were and are diabolically brilliant. They pulled off a coup and a rape of the American citizen, manipulation of the press, crimes in wide view of the world... and got away with it.
Bush did not "mean well", him and his masters had one goal in their coup and that was to bring down the U.S.... and now the world in order to enact what his father termed "a new world order"... new word for the public but a very ancient plan and agenda.
There's spiritual connotations of this battle that the average liberal or democrat is willfully and happily ignorant about. Be assured that those pulling the strings have a spiritual grounding... a doctrine of light that ironically spreads darkness across the world. Do your research, this is the time that the ancients of all cultures warned about.
So, what are the best groups in terms of activism for this. Where are the best places to plug in???
Check out Progressive Democrats of America. http://pdamerica.org There's an action alert--second story from the top on the home page.
They've been on this for over a month.
Up side he did not name the Taliban as enemy leaving negotiating room.
Very, Very down side,( which I bet not many people heard), he said he was going to INCREASE the NUMBER of people in the MILITARY !!!!!!!!! To take the strain off the ones now in service.
If he is withdrawing from Iraq, he must be planning to esculate Afghanistan tremendously ------ ground invasion of Pakistan , after it just finally became a democracy again( as is our wont to destroy democracies we disagree with)
OR ------- A new War ------ Iran?
Why do so few people calculate the impact of Wars on climate change, the carbon and particular footprint must be huge ---- Think transport and explosions.
FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL
MOBILIZE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geneva Peace Conference NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!