EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Obama's War Strategy a Wise One or a Betrayal?
During the presidential campaign red and white anti-war signs dotted the countryside. In some towns, they lined the streets.
The initial impetus for Barack Obama's candidacy came from the anti-war movement and his promise to bring the troops home.
At first, Obama argued that U.S. involvement in the war would end quickly after he became president. As the campaign wore on that urgency migrated to getting the troops out in 16 months.
On Friday, President Obama finally made it official. United States troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 - the timetable worked out with the Iraqi government under former President George Bush.
But what of the 16-month timetable?
The newest version of the Obama plan - on its face - has the United States withdrawing combat troops in 19 months. However, his plan calls for leaving upward of 50,000 of the current 142,000 troops in support positions. This smaller number is carefully being referred to by those in the administration as anything but advisers, a term made politically incorrect by the Vietnam War.
And what if the war goes badly between now and 19 months down the road?
According to statements coming out of the White House, it appears all bets could be off for withdrawing United States troops.
So what did the anti-war movement get with their "agent of change," President Barack Obama?
Little or nothing, it would appear.
Obama has, for all practical purposes, signed onto the Bush Doctrine in Iraq.
But Obama's betrayal doesn't end there.
Obama isn't really bringing troops home. He is moving the numbers to Afghanistan. For those outside the anti-war movement who may have forgotten, Afghanistan is where Russia lost devastating numbers of its troops. So badly was the Kremlin defeated that the experience has been referred to as Russia's Vietnam.
So where is the anti-war movement now that it has been betrayed? Will those "Support Our Troops - End The War" signs remount front yards and line streets again?
As information about Obama's withdrawal plan leaked out, Bill Ayers, a 1960s leader of the homegrown terrorist group Weatherman, was among the few speaking out. Ayers became a lightning rod of criticism during the election because of his terrorist background and affiliation with then-candidate Obama.
To his credit, Ayers was consistent in expressing his disappointment over Obama's plan.
Referring to President Obama committing an additional 17,000 troops recently to Afghanistan, Ayers told Alan Colmes of Fox News, "It's a mistake. It's a colossal mistake. And, you know, we've seen this happen before, Alan. We've seen a hopeful presidency, Lyndon Johnson's presidency, burn up in the furnace of war."
"I fear that this brilliant young man, this hopeful new administration, could easily burn their prospect of a great presidency in the war in Afghanistan or elsewhere."
There is doubt that others who declared their anti-war preferences during the presidential campaign will be as consistent as Ayers.
Take New Hampshire congresswoman and former anti-war activist Carol Shea Porter for example.
"Our nation was attacked by evil people who trained in Afghanistan," said Shea Porter during a House debate. "We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist training camps. As a matter of fact, we should be working even harder there to make sure our Afghanistan mission does not fail. We must not allow the Taliban and other terrorist groups to control Afghanistan again."
This may be the cover the anti-war movement needs. Iraq just wasn't the right war, they will argue.
For the sake of America's sons and daughters in uniform, they had better be right. But the United States' experience in Vietnam and that of Russia in the barren hills of Afghanistan argue they are making a costly and deadly mistake.
- 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...

21 Comments so far
Show AllAnd what if the war goes badly between now and 19 months down the road?
According to statements coming out of the White House, it appears all bets could be off for withdrawing United States troops.
Then goodbye, Superman, goodbye. You will be challenged by a contemporary version of Gene McCarthy while the Repelicans run Sarah Palin and Bobby Gin Doll. In any case, you will be defeated and can spend the rest of your life wondering how you came to be a piss poor imitation of LBJ and Nixon.
" Our nation was attacked by evil people that trained in Afghanistan ". Please___ Carol! " We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist training camps ". Since we train terrorists in the good old USA ( just ask Iraqi's, Vietnamese, Pakistan or the other countries that are too numerous to mention here ) I guess according to that logic, Iraq, Pakistan, Vietnam ect. have the same right!
Pilisuk's article is a much better analysis of ethics.
Please do not get involved in a 16/19 month debate.
The 50,000 troops can be lobbied out at the time they are left.
Afghanistan is where the military agression impetus is.
So Afghanistan is where the War/ Heroin machine needs to be stopped.
Carol Shea Porter talks of "evil people" who trained in Afganistan and we should destroy everything there too like in Iraq where we had no business and no right and says nothing of the fact that 16 of the original assholes that killed all those poeople here were from Saudi Arabia.That word terrorist is getting to be used by politicians of the repubdems like the boogy man is used to scare kids.I'm no kid and don't buy this shit.She is a hypocrite;all of them are including Obama.Tony
Tony, I could not agree more! If we went anywhere looking for the REAL terrorists, wouldn't common sense tell one to start in Saudi Arabia; especially, since some people claim some of the hijackers are still living there!
Thanks for the kind words and Obama is starting to waffle like an accordian.What is next?Tony
Actually, if "I" was looking for a terrorist, I would look no farther then my current government.
"especially, since some people claim some of the hijackers are still living there!"
Exactly. : ) No less than 7 of those 19 hijackers have been proven to be still alive. That's an amazing feat. If only American soldiers could be that good.
Obama has been consistent so far. He betrayed every promise he made in the campaign. I think his AIPAC handlers are having him prepare an attack on Iran, during the next 2 years.
from the article:
"Our nation was attacked by evil people who trained in Afghanistan," said Shea Porter during a House debate. "We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist training camps."
so i guess that means that the good folks in vietnam, laos, cambodia, iraq, guatamala, chile, argentina, el salvador, nicaragua, mexico, etc all have a right to kill americans
to say nothing of the slaughtered first nations
fair is fair
cheers, b
I wish. Reciprocity is not in our national vocabulary. Agent Orange, what's that? Some strange fruit in Viet Nam? Hell no they don't get no reparations says our holy supreme court of pricks. We're all about cognitive dissonace, you know. We aim a gun at you and ask you to reward us for helping you out. Then we're offended at your ingratitude.
We'll I've got news for the Orwellian Assholes: There's a depression and you war profiteers are going to have to put the war appropriations where the sun doesn't shine. We are going to be a poor country. Poor countries can't afford to be empires. You're going to need to get a real job, you greedy, congressional bribing crooks.
The only thing Obama has changed from his campaign promises---16 months has been made into 19. He always said he'd leave behind a residual force. And, he always said he'd be careful in withdrawal.
The residual force will be gone by 2011 too.
He says that ALL troops will be gone by 2011. This is according to the agreement between Bush and Iraq. That's ALL troops. That's ALL OF THEM. That means no more troops left behind after 2011.
Someone explain to me how that is a betrayal---please!
I think we're all going to have to come together, conservative, liberal, or whatever, and work out our differences. Movements start from the local levels on up. If we can take on our reps and sens on local and state levels, Obama will listen. If my father who lived to tell me how people, united in their hearts and souls to pull out of the Great Depression, were alive today, he would not be able to digest the currently dysfunctional electorate. Believe me, in my state, it's hard to get most folks to believe in getting our troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan and they'll call us "unpatriotic" for even uttering a word about it. But then again, I'm in the "deep red seas" as some would call it for my state.
Exactly.
It is much too early to tell what will happen to our occupation of Iraq. There have been so many twists and turns in that occupation that it is dumb to expect President Obama to keep his word. Remember FISA?
Twelve American soldiers are in last week's "the Defense Department regrets to informy you" letters to the next of kin, six killed in Iraq, six in Afghanistan. Apparently Obama also lied to us during the campaign when he insisted that, although he'd listen to what the generals had to say about ending the war, he'd be the one deciding. Either he lied or the military has intimidated him such that he's afraid for his life. Either way, we're screwed because perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday. It's getting to look like only a mass uprising can save us.
Has anyone been indicted for the attacks on the World Trade Center? I don't think so.
People have been blamed, but where is the evidence?
It was clear that the NAZI invaded Poland in 1939, and it was clear that the Japanese Navy bombed the fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941.
But, who attacked the WTC? The Saudi's?
The Nazi's blamed the Riechstag Fire on "Polish Terrorist" and even dressed up executed Jews in Polish Uniforms and said they were terrorists trying to cross the border.
There is much speculation that Roosevelt let Pearl Habor happen, just as the Pacific air force was ordered to remain grounded and was desroyed by Japanese bombers in Manila.
The Japanese explaination for these attacks is that the USA blocked its oil supplies from SE Asia.
madcow:
You're blinded by your worship of Obama. You are correct: there will be NO TROOPS in Iraq in 2011. Yay! Um...gee...except for one tiny, miniscule, little detail: there will still be upwards of 50,000+ ADVISORS in Iraq after 2011, with NO withdrawal date.
It's called the old bait-and-switch, dipshit. Haven't 8 years of Bush's Orwell-speak taught you anything? Or is your memory as short as the rest of the sheeple's? Simply change the word "Soldier" to "Advisor." Thus, Obama can insist he kept his promise. The 50,000+ troops left behind in Iraq for the next X amount of years are not "troops," they are "advisors."
"Prisoner of War" becomes "Enemy Combatant." "Torture" becomes "extreme interrogation techniques."
Wake the fuck up and rub the Obama-stars out of your eyes, sheep. Your boy is just as bad as Bush, he's just a lot better at hiding it.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Is Obama's War Strategy a Wise One or a Betrayal?
=====
Well, I don't think it's wise, and it only borders on "betrayal". (I heard Obama speak a year or so before he decided to run for the presidency, and at that time he indicated he approved of Bush's wars.)
He made a mistake by claiming his election would bring about change, though. He didn't qualify what that "change" would be. I think he avoided the war issue as much as he could to focus on domestic issues to win votes -- he's following the Democratic template on those issues for the most part. This is what Obama's apologists stay focused on with occasional forays into his foreign policy/national security agenda even if they aren't able to justify most of it.
Obama is simply continuing GW Bush's illegal war-strategy, and though I'm terribly angry at him for this, I sigh and tell myself I shouldn't be surprised -- he made his pro-Bush-war support pretty clear when I heard him speak before.
What was a surprise to me was his decision to support the Bush administration's war-crimes. But maybe Obama's position is based on his support of Bush's warmongering and his intention to continue it.
Remember, by definition, any person that takes a shot at the occupiers of his/her nation is defined by us as a terrorist, probably an Al-Quaeda trained terrorist. Every person that grabs a gun and tries to defend his family when his door is kicked in is a terrorist, probably a dead terrorist. His family is probably collateral damage.
If we were occupied, we would all be terrorists, according to the occupiers, as we fought to expel the invaders and regain our nation.
This was true in occupied France and the Balkans during WW-II. The Philippines were full of terrorists according to the Japanese, and on and on. The people of Gaza, if they resist the horror perpetrated upon them are terrorists.
The Afghans have been eating foreign armies since the time of Alexander. They are very good at it. When the butcher's bill gets too high and we run out of resources to pour into Afghanistan, they will have expelled yet another one.
If we cannot rejoin the community of civilized nations, then we shall tread the same road as every other empire that overreached itself.
-------------------------------------
Hubris Uber Alles
Astride the known world,
Filled with hubris
They marched in their turn:
Darius, Xerxes, Agamemnon, Alexander,
Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and more
All their empires rising, conquering,
Their passing marked by mounds of skulls
And vainglorious boasts.
Their places taken in turn by others
as their empires rotted from within.
Now yet another warlord stands,
His nation’s proud banner, once a beacon
Of freedom and hope to all mankind,
Now a symbol to be feared
By friend and foe alike.
This, too, shall pass away
After adding its quota of skulls to the mountain,
While the common man around the world
Holds tight the dream of Brotherhood and Peace
Close to his breaking heart.
Steve Osborn
9 August 2003
---------------------------------
And so it goes.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Santayana