Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCan Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire?
A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan?
Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won't do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military. If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be counterpressure.
Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined, AP reports. Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.
But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military escalation.
Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask your Representative to sign it - here.]
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports, no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay the same, rather than increased.
If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals. If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political pushback to military escalation.
33 Comments so far
Show AllHow are we going to sell this? Kill now, pay later. That would be the ultimate lay away plan. Maybe we should make a deal with the Taliban to have them on the border between the U.S. and Mexico. They could train our religious right on the techniques necessary for mind and drug control.
Does Naiman employ circular reasoning? Let me try summarizing his points.
Naiman reinforces his assumption that he and/or progressives are a counterbalance to the military and can sway Obama’s decision because Obama is, after all, representative of a “progressive presidency”. Talk about loaded descriptions. What is ironic about Robert’s call to “action” is that he also assert the military holds influence over the progressive president’s decisions -albeit partially- because a 17k v a 20-30k increase qualifies as “partial” troop increase?( Who knows where Robert comes up with “partial” –I’m only guessing ).
You have to excuse me as I try to flesh out this form of logic….
I suspect Naiman is not asserting the military is progressive or that the president is easy to push around, but is asserting progressives are the natural counterbalance to the military. Of course this plays back into his circle that if the president is a progressive, then the only rational justification for Obama to increase troop deployment into Afghanistan is because why? He is being pushed around or at least is willing to sanction the requests of the military, but only because there is no logical counterbalance to push back at the military because “nobody is taking action”? Allegedly, one must assume Obama’s decision to increase military engagement has nothing to do with Obama being a progressive, because naturally, if a progressive were the counterbalance to the military, then there would be no presidential acquiescence.
A-ha! Now, let’s see. Because Obama is representative of a progressive presidency, naturally, if his administration fails, it is because Congress let him fail and not because of his progressive leadership. I think I’ve got it.
to: chuk-it-levi-strauss
I guess we're even: I don't follow your reasoning either.
Perhaps this will clear things up: I actually have no stake in whether Obama is described as "progressive"; nor do I particularly care whether people taking action describe themselves as "progressive"; what I care about is that people take action. Does that help?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/afghandontescalate.html
That’s fine, Robert Naiman. I shouldn’t have tried to flesh out the arguments you made. It is all just too confusing and contradictory. I am guilty of taking indulgences..
I do understand you want citizens to take action and stop the escalation and you are willing, at least I think, to drop the bait –progressive presidency- and clear the field to simply make your point. And yes, I have taken up your challenge and have taken action.
At this point it is irrelevant if I disagree with the notion that Obama is being pressured by the bad policy or the military, and is instead responsible for his actions and is fully cognitive of the policy he issues. I have no illusions and only wish we’d all come to the reality Mr Obama is doing what he thinks is right, which I believe contradicts a progressive presidency.
I think it is a problem with Obama listen to one of him self choosen adviser. That man is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is obsessed with Afganistan. He cant let them be. He was adviser to J Carter too and during that time he (Brzezinski) 'hotted up muslim' as he self put it. Well we know what happend. Sovjet was there and Brzezinski wanted to give them a fight. And he chose the 'muslims' to do it for him. Those muslims turn in to Talibans. And what the hell is he thinking he can do now and what is his goal?? Why does he hate afgans so much ha just cant let them be. He is the reason for the problem in Afgansitan today. Maybe he is the reason for all what happend there later.
I'm dissapointed that Obama choosed that man. He is an old fart and should retire before he starts more hell in Afgansitan. There must be other solutions for them.
i agree as long as zbig has obama's ear. i will be endless. with zbig albright and holbrooke. they will balkanize the whole region.
i fully endorce your views,with the hope that sane voices will prevail
and our world will be more peacefull, as long as Obama is at the helms
of affairs.
THIS is the biggest issue.
Commonreader
Obama, the peace candidate, sounded so wise yet obvious when he faulted Bush's reasons for going into and staying in Iraq.He was then an outsider and saw the folly of it. Now he has the power and seems blind to the folly of more U.S. troops in the Middle East.
I read:
"In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military."
Obama is so pragmatic and logical. Why is he making a decision and acting on it before the problem is fully defined?
UPDATE - Peace Action reports: Rep. James McGovern and Rep. Bob Filner have signed the letter. The deadline is Wednesday at noon...
Two or three years ago, I read of a European (Swiss?) proposal to buy opium directly from the Afghan growers to make into medical morphine? Bush, of course, nixed the idea. We're only driving them into the hands of the Taliban by eradicating poppies, when they're the only thing that grows there worth any money. This is the only way to begin to win the hearts needed. No more drug money going into Wall Street?
It would probably be less expensive to buy the opium and destroy it. Making useless things has made our economy the marvel of the free world (until recently).
To the cynics, who profess to love Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, but whose "analysis" leads them to advocate "no action," I would say this: what would Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, signers of the Congressional letter, want you to do in this situation? They would want you to take 5 seconds, go to the link, and ask your Member of Congress to sign the letter.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/afghandontescalate.html
"Can Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire?"
To re-frame this ... the real question to ask is:
Can Obama (U.S.) save the Afghans from the Taliban ?
If we really gave a damn we could.
Excue me, do you know about the U.S involvement in Afghanitan since 1979?
Briefly, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia recruited 100,000 Islamic Militants from 43 muslim nations to fight against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union broke apart in 1989. However, the funding, training, arming of that Islamic Militant force continued through he 90's and their name changed to Al Qaeda (The Base). "The Base" was used in the Balkan Wars and then used to install "The Taliban" as the rulers of Afghanstan, again supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia......When "The Taliban" decided that Bridas Oil Company of Argentina was to be awarded the Afghan Oil Pipeline, Unocal cried foul and Neo-Conservatives developed PNAC, Plan For A New American Century, which included the overthrow of Iraq and Afghanistan and the hopes for a "Pearl Habor Type Attack" to execute that plan.......
In other words, "My friend is my enemy, My enemy is my friend."
oh brother ... here we go again ... please google and see all the previous discussions on Afghanistan ... CD should have a seperate forum for discussions on hot topics so we dont have to go over and rehash the same old shit.
Rid 3:52 -------- The Afghans do not want foreign TROOPS to save them from anybody. The Afghans want an end to war. The invaders are creating more enemies the more they engage in combat. GET IT? The Pushtuns as a whole are fighting the invaders not Al Qaeda or Taliban or "Insurgents". The solution is simple and cheap. STOP KILLING PEOPLE. The Afghans did not ask to be invaded to be saved from anybody. The moronic Neocons used the al Qaeda and Taliban as an excuse to fool the gullible. I call it the Neocon "Bomb them out of their Burkas Policy". The bloodthirsty, Racist, Muslim Hating, Ignorant, Robokillers, Yankess need to leave and tend to their own shortcomings.
If you truly care about women stop the soldiers in the DRC who are gang raping 10,000's of women, girls,and babies and ripping their vaginas too pieces.
But USA citizens only attack people who are demonized by the MIC.
Darfur is still worse than Afghanistan has ever been.
Since when is it legal to invade a country to improve human rights;especially a nation as the USA that has one in every thirty two adults in prison. And 7 million women who have been raped or assaulted by intimates.
You are absolutely right. We need to get the hell out of there. We need to make sure U.S. troops dont exist on Afghan soil for any peace to happen.
However ... washing our hands off the situation and 'bringing the troops home' alone is not enough. We need to directly engage Pakistan in the effort to squash the Taliban. Pakistan as you know is 'terrorism central' thanks to its military and ISI. We need to completely cut-off funding the Pakistani military and ISI. We need to engage Russia, Iran, India and the Pakistani political parties in solving this situation. We need to fund the effort. We broke it and we need to fix it.
Instead we are too busy attempting to accomodate 'moderate' Taliban (what an oxymoron that is !!). In all probability Hekmatyar, the old reagan-era mujahiddin war-horse will be trotted out to help us save face. Hekmatyar .. the brutal, evil, messenger of death is our solution to the Afghan problem. The 'liberals' and 'progressives' meanwhile will praise the Good Lord Obama for such a brilliant, creative approach to problem-solving.
The Afghans are fu~!@#ed any which way you look at it. Pakistan will ensure that.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC11Df01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC11Df03.html
Rid 7:06 ------ I agree with much of what you propose. If you have not heard todays Democracy Now you can hear it at democracynow.org.
An Afghan born USA citizen living in Kandahar since 9/11 working to employ women, categorically states there are moderate Taliban. She also says they are not the violent ones. She states that it is the radical Taliban that needs to be engaged in negotiations.
What I disagree with that it is in any way our mission to rid the world of Taliban.
What we need to do is support the democracy of Pakistan in a huge way. And let Pakistan deal with it's people the way they see fit to. Also known as Sovereignty.
Hayden the last CIA director clearly stated that al Qaeda is so closely monitored it can not make any plans operational.
Taliban had no desire to attack any western nation before being attacked( and I would assume would not now if attacks on it was stopped).
I have yet to hear anyone claim Taliban had foreknowledge of 9/11 but many claim the Neocons did have foreknowledge.
"And let Pakistan deal with it's people the way they see fit to."
Unfortunately thats not acceptable. The people living in Pakistan (whether pakistani or not) are actively involved in destabilizing the neighbors and exporting terrorism. Pakistan is either incapable of handling this problem or is actively involved in doing so ( i believe the latter ). So we either bring external pressure by way of sanctions on the military and ISI to tackle our 'frankenstein' or we do it with them together. Sovereignty doesnt apply to failed States or States that either promote or turn a blind eye to fundamentalist forces operating right under their eyes. The very fact that Pakistan has already lost control of Swat and other Tribal Areas is reason enough to question its sovereignty.
riddimboy.
we, you, i, the u.s. government need to get the fuck out of afghanistan and the fuck out of every other countries business we've gotten into in the last hundred or so years.
why? cuz its none of our goddamn business. we can't even take care of our own country and yet feel the need to get involved in everyone elses business.
if you and your family are having problems. you figure it out. i don't feel the need to get involved in your affairs. why would you feel the need to get involved in others?
You don't know shit about terrorism do you? That word is tossed around solely by the u.s and western powers now to describe people whom are fighting for their countries. Back in the 70's the u.s and the south african government labeled Nelson Mandela and the ANC to be a "terrorist" organization. wtf, he is going to go down as the greatest freedom fighter of all time.
The real terrorists are the U.S. Government and the greed and destruction and murder they have brought around the world in the name of greed.
Wake the fuck up and educate your self.
Ahh i see ... Pakistani nationalists have invaded CD. The lack of a cogent argument on your side and the fact that you seem to have reading comprehension issues is a dead giveaway. Go back and read my posts and while you are at it try and grow a brain. Stop the swear words coz trust me ... you dont wanna go down that route chimp.
-- "You don't know shit about terrorism do you? That word is tossed around solely by the u.s and western powers now to describe people whom are fighting for their countries."
Thats right ... the honorable Taliban are fighting for their country ! This is the oft quoted refrain of a classic jihadist like yourself. Infiltrating CD and spewing your filth is not the brightest of ideas. People see right through it. You dont normally find people on this forum who support U.S. Imperialism. But you do find people who use the excuse of U.S. imperialism to propagate and support insidious terrorist organisations in their owm countries !!
http://www.counterpunch.org/fawzia03032009.html
Get out.Tony
Weren't we lied to initially in order to get our troops to attack Afghanistan, then Iraq, then back to Afghanistan, then to Pakistan. Lying all the way. I knew in 2000 that the Republicans would start a war that the Democrats would be afraid to stop. And that is how it has turned out.
I feel like I am watching old Vietnam reruns as the quagmire grows larger and deeper wasting more lives/more money, and it is disgusting to watch our President and far too many cabiniet members support expanding the war instead of stopping it and bringing troops home.
Do you suppose these wars are intended to drain the treasury as well?
Did Congress save us from one more day of debacle in Iraq after the Democrats came to power in November '06? No. They, including Obama, kept funding the occupation. What makes anybody think Congress will lead us out of disaster this time? Anyone who runs for the presidency has a large ego even if, like George Wanker Bush, you are the dumbest, nastiest creature on the face of this earth. I have the sinking feeling that Obama has told himself repeatedly that he doesn't want to go down in history merely as the man who cleaned up the economic manure pile left us by 30 plus years of reactionary rule. He wants to WIN in Afghanistan. Does he not know who Lyndon Johnson was? Does he not know what happens to the best laid plans of mice and men?
No. Obama is a black Calvin Cooledge and Harry Reid is a Mute Morman Mental Midget Bagman for Vegas. There is no will to stop a war. Thats not what the Corporate Democrats are paid for. They are paid to mute the trumpet of dissent. Why is it that all the readers on here have figured that out but the writers often have not? Hmmmmmmmmm.
Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
The title of Mr. Naiman's piece should have been: "WILL Congress Save Obama From Afghan Quagmire?" It could do so, as one Congress "saved" Reagan from the Iran-Contra quagmire, by refusing to fund "his" war. But will they? When do pigs start flying? Mr. Naiman confuses the progressive views of the people who elected both Obama and Congress with those of the people who actually manipulated them to vote for these "representatives"; the power of that much-mentioned "military industrial complex" with their mega-billions of dollars of campaign contributions and their massive spending on lobbyists who can remind Presidents and members of Congress every day in the week and twice on Sunday of their obligations to the hands that feed them. Of course we don't have a progressive presidency that will be "wasted" if we don't act progressively; we precluded that possibility in the presidential election when we rejected such truly anti-war candidates as Kucinich, Gravel and Paul, two of whom are on that forlorn group of 8 members of Congress who wrote the very letter to the President that the majority of Americans would sign, if they had a chance to do so. The "progressive" President with his mostly-regressive cabinet is not likely to be pushed by that "good pressure" when all the marbles are in the bag of the "bad pressure" folks who will make him pay mightily if he should go against the generals and the defense industry on the issue of Afghanistan. Until that unlikely day when we have genuine electoral reforms and reduction of lobbyist influence on legislation, as "progressives" we will have no more "voice" in the actions of our "representatives" than an occasional opportunity of choosing between the greater and lesser pawns of the aforesaid "complex."
I signed.
Removing troops from Iraq: Good.
Redeploying those troops to Afghanistan: Bad
Afghanistan is slipping, much like South Vietnam, 1965.
NO amount of escalation can win an unwinnable war. We should have remembered that bitter lesson. At best, we will have a stalemate at a higher level. Another quagmire.
Please sign the anti war petition provided by the link in this article.
The USA has managed to turn what should at the most been a police action against a handful of Al Qaeda into an overthrow of a sovereign government, occupation of a sovereign nation, attacks on a second sovereign nation, and now the ethnic cleansing by the USA of many millions of Pushtuns.
Please protest NPR's lauding of a invading special forces airman receiving a medal for calling in the dropping of a 2,000 pound bomb on the defenders of a remote Afghan village the occupiers were attacking.
Progressive Presidency? What non sense is this?
Obama intends to occupy Iraq as long as he is president with at least 50,000 troops. That will be followed by him collecting 500,000K per speaking engagement by his corporate and military industrial establishment paymasters after he leaves office. Obama is up to his neck in Dirty Coal money and dishing out crumbs for sustainable solutions. He also loves nuclear and bio fuels both inimical to the Earth. As more land transitions to higher paying corps for Bio, less land will be used for food crops thus pushing food prices up and insuring world wide starvation. Obama is escalating Afghanistan even though no occupying force has prevailed there for over 1500 years. He has a covert war ongoing in Pakistan that has claimed the lives of innocents by striking high density population centers with non combatants. Obama just took the Grey Wolf off the endangered species list to appease corporate ranching giving them the green light to murder at will any Grey Wolf they see. Obama has perpetuated warrantless wire taps, and run away from appointing a special prosecutor for war crimes and domestic spying against Bush and Cheney.
Man, pull your head out of denial.
elohim,
Don't forget about Obama facilitating the continuance of the giveaway of trillions to his Wallstreet masters. Any man who would kick his spiritual mentor of 20 years to the curb to serve his own ambition is going to serve the masters who serve his personal ambition. (Remember when the excuse for betraying Jeremiah Wright was that the Reverend was a distraction from Obama being elected in order to facilitate change and to serve the people)
elohim 9:57 ------- Good post, a couple of points
Removing agricutural land from food to biomass is a no,no.
Using grasses, specialty plants, etc. on arid land for biomass can be done beneficially
Also,waste products, garbage,forest thinning, algae etc. can produce biomass ethically.
Also I wish people would stress more importantly that it is criminal to be killing Afghans not that the Afghans always win.