Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Don't Go There Mr. President!
17,000 or 21,000 more US troops will not protect Americans against Al Qaeda attacks.
The Obama plan instead will accelerate any plans Al Qaeda commanders
have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe. The
alternative for Al Qaeda is to risk complete destruction, an American
objective that has not been achieved for eight years. A terrorist
attack need not be planned or set in motion from a cave in Waziristan.
The cadre could already be underground in Washington or London. The real
alternative for President Obama should be to maintain a deterrent
posture while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate
Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir.
President Obama is right, at least politically, to take very seriously the threat of another 9/11 from any source. Besides the suffering inflicted, it would derail his agenda and perhaps his presidency. This is all the more reason he must understand that by repeatedly threatening to "kill Al Qaeda" he is provoking a hornets' nest without protection against a devastating sting.
The hard choices are laid out very clearly in writings by the CIA's former point man on Osama bin Ladin, Michael Scheuer, who also ran the agency's rendition program and still supports it. Scheuer is a tough guy, in other words, who says the options are either to kill all the jihadists, make it quick and withdraw (not a real option), or begin pursuing an agenda that addresses what he calls Muslim issues: the American military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula, the unqualified US support for Israel, US support for states that oppress Muslims (China, India, Russia), US exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price, US military presence in the Islamic world, and US support and protection of Arab police states.
Such an approach would create an option to violence for many millions of jihadi sympathizers and potential recruits. It would create an incentive not to inflict terrorism, blow up airplanes and hotels, or deploy a nuclear bomb in a suitcase. It would disturb the multinational oil companies and the Israel lobby but open a better path to stability than wars against the Muslim world.
Escalation of American troop levels is a slippery slope. John F. Kennedy sent 16,300 Americans to save South Vietnam from the Vietcong.
President Obama obviously has no intention of sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan. But escalation, once it begins, is increasingly difficult to stop. Already Obama's generals want more troops than the president is sending. The neoconservatives and Republicans are demanding a "must-win war" and denouncing any talk of an exit strategy. A gradual American escalation may play into the jihadist game plan, drawing more Western troops into jeopardy or permitting a retreat into mountainous wastelands if necessary. Any "redeployment" (another word for retreat in the minds of the neocons), other than returning with Bin Ladin's head on a platter, provokes a right-wing reaction at home. The easy solution to these pressures is another escalation followed by another, like one drink at a time. (See Daniel Ellsberg, "Secrets", 2002]
A regional diplomatic and political solution is possible, but not by imposing US-NATO dominance.
In the model currently applied, military force is to be followed by diplomacy with NATO at the center. Whatever the reason--access to oil resources, global dominance, the clash of fundamentalisms, distrust of the region--this desire for Western dominance delays and may even derail any possible diplomatic solution. The primary powers in the actual region include Iran, India, Russia and China, all distrusted on various levels by the US government, which therefore wishes to include them only as junior partners or satellites of NATO. Take the example of Iran: with 150,000 American troops on its border with Iraq, and upward of 100,000 more on its border with Afghanistan, is it going to revert to its 2001 posture of supporting the United States in Afghanistan? Or take the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (China, Russia and Central Asian countries): will they be persuaded to welcome NATO? They already are on record calling for US military withdrawal from the region. Or take the Kashmir crisis" does the United States expect Pakistan to withdraw support for the Taliban and other jihadists it sees as a bulwark against the Indian threat in Kashmir and Afghanistan while the United States tilts toward India?
The other problem with a diplomatic solution for the United States is the uncomfortable matter of democracy. In Afghanistan, the Karzai regime might not survive this year's election, in which case the United States will be seeking a substitute who signs off on the occupation. In Pakistan, the United States has spent nearly a decade, and $11 billion in taxpayer money, supporting a military dictatorship and now, after the assassination of Benezir Bhutto, the United States has been backing the Zardari regime against the more popular movement of Nawaf Sharif supported by thousands of lawyers and civil society in the streets. Anything resembling genuine popular democracy in Afghanistan or Pakistan would end the Western military occupation, or at least the air war, house-to-house roundups, and mass incarceration at Bagram and force a reversal of the ratio of 18-to-1 spending priority on the military. (See Tariq Ali, "The Duel", 2008, and Ahmed Rashid, "Descent into Chaos", 2008.)
The cost is far too high, another trillion in time.
Bush's war costs in Afghanistan have been $173 billion from 2001 through 2009. Obama's proposals for Iraq/Afghanistan are $144 billion this fiscal year, but are not broken down. The secret war by the US-trained "Freedom Corps" in Pakistan is budgeted at $400 million. As America's infrastructure decays, the Army Corps of Engineers is spending $4 billion for construction in Afghanistan this year, including 720 miles of roads this year alone. The expansion of Afghanistan's army will cost "up to" $20 billion in the next several years, while Afghanistan's entire national budget is $1.1 billion this year. Cost overruns and corruption being what they are, it is easy to predict the Afghan/Pakistan wars costing $1 trillion by the end of the president's first term. Military spending will continue to outpace civilian reconstruction aid indefinitely.
In summary, be prepared for a war that spans the length of the Obama presidency, an Obama War. Expect the Congress to be inert and distracted. Expect little help from the media.
But hey, we've been here before.
It's time for a new movement against reckless escalation, especially one that threatens to divert our attention from the crisis at home, while only leaving poverty, malnutrition and anti-American hatreds rising abroad.
The movement could begin this week, a living memorial to the passing of Dr. Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968.
Don't Escalate, Negotiate Diplomacy and Development, Not Predators and Prisons What about the Home Front?
•Visit Get Afghanistan Right and learn more about reasons to oppose an escalation in Afghanistan.
•Call your Member of Congress and let them know you oppose escalation in Afghanistan. If you're not sure who represents you, visit the House of Representatives website and input your address--it will give you the name of your Congressperson (and it will take you to an e-mail form). You can reach your Congressperson through the Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121. United for Peace and Justice gathered some fantastic fact sheets to help you prepare.
•Call the White House and tell the president you oppose escalation in Afghanistan: (202) 456-1111.
•Sign the petition over at Rethink Afghanistan calling for oversight hearings on the Afghanistan policy. (They've also just posted Part 2 of their excellent film... See the trailer.)
•Sign Sojourner's petition to Obama.
•Sign the Friends Committee on National Legislation's petition calling for an investment in peace, not war, in Afghanistan.
- Posted in
56 Comments so far
Show AllGreat article from a great man.
I would have areed with you, but when "The Story" continues that we have to continue the fight against "The Database".......That is all Al Qaeda means.
Al Qaeda was a creation and continuation of names the CIA used in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA kept using the "Data Base" to fight in Kosovo and to install The Taliban in power in Afghanistan. The men within this"Data Base" are merely CIA pawns to be used to justify a "Never Ending War and Occupation".
When I keep hearing and reading that "The Oficial Version of 9/11" is still the mantra of all politicians, I question their veracity.
The three countries that should have been invaded for the attacks of 9/11 were: The United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The United States trained and gave visas to many of the alleged terrorists.(The Mossad of Israel were following some of those alleged terrorists and lived two blocks from some in Florida. Andreas Von Bulow, "The CIA and 9/11") The Saudis recruited and funded many of the terrorists. The ISI of Pakistan was given money by DOD and relayed to Mohammed Atta. (Philip Shenon, "The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission"). Also, DOD destroyed all evidence of Able Danger Group and its relationship to Mohammed Atta.(Congressional hearings were not allowed to hear the testimony of 3 DOD employees who helped destroy those documents).....World Trade Center #7 was demolished with explosives (Eyewitness accounts and Media on the scene reports)
No, if Tom would ask for an Independent Investigation of 9/11.....No, if Tom would demand an explanation of "The Carter Doctrine" and why it is still being used for our continued "Occupation" of Afghanistan and Iraq.... No, if Tom would ask for an accurate count of mercenaries in Afghanistan and Iraq and ask for their contracts to be terminated.....No,if Tom would speak out for the over 1 million dead Iraqis and 4 million Iraqi refugees, then I too would say, "Great Man"........
Unfortunately, there are no "Great Men or Women" in politics or in Washington D.C. "God have mercy on us all!"
Obama sits grinning in the White House because of his anti-war constituency, but he wants to be a "war president", a "commander-in-chief". Don't they all? Too bad for the women & children of South Asia.
Hayden states the elusive obvious when it comes to moral deterrence. Bravo to you Tom!
This is classic Liberal navel-gazing. Do your homework Tom. Pakistan is responsible for more Muslim deaths than any other Nation/State in Asia, not just South Asia. Funneling more $$ into Pakistan does not address the issue of oppression of Muslim populations. Dismantling Pakistans Military/ISI and the Jihadist network THEY created is the first step. And of course the hypocrisy of the U.S. attempting to address Muslim issues is mind-boggling !!
Dont go there Tom !
Does Hayden seriously think that petitioning Congress and calling for oversight hearings and visiting your representatives website is going to change anything? Are people that blind to how deeply entrenched the war economy is? If not Iraq then Afghanistan, if not Afghanistan, then Syria or Iran, if not Iran then Columbia or even Mexico, or North Korea, or hey how about China?
By all means "learn more about reasons to oppose an escalation in Afghanistan", but until we fully realize how much control the Pentagon, and it's corporate cohorts, has over the Congress and the President, this type of waring enterprise will go on and on. The planners are likely cooking up other "enemies" at this moment.
Calling, writing, petitions, voting, all well and good, but it's not working. We are are nation of civil obedients who like to moan, but Empire rolls along with our begrudging consent.
We have to be more skilled and active.
Joe
Seriously why bother? Obama has decided he's a Republican.
No to single payer health care.
No to ending the drug war.
No action on relieving the plight of the unemployed.
No to ending the Iraq occupation.
No help for the people of Gaza.
No to ending the futile war in Afghanistan.
But those crooked bankers got their millions.
If we had voted for McCain/Palin what would be different?
I think Tom Hayden's suggestions are good. But if you have other ideas, please do something. Obama may have decided he is a Republican in some ways, but that is not a signal for us to desist from trying to get what we think is right. The ultimate power in the United States is the people, although it is never easy.
Joe
"If we had voted for McCain/Palin what would be different?"
Lots would be different. The Iraq occupation IS ending. With Palin in there we'd be at war with Russia right now.
Guantanamo forever and torture too. No healthcare reform in the works. No 700+ billion jobs stimulus. No federal easing of medical marijuana busts. No stem cell research. No acceptance of global warming. No science in government. No internationalism. Plus, there'd be no garden at the Whitehouse!
Your list is simply wishful thinking, madcow.
The occupation is touted as winding down, but the reality is that a relabeling is underway. Troops are now peacekeepers, or training detachments, or whatever the latest propaganda tool decides them to be. They remain. You cannot honestly say that they will be gone in 2011, only that you have faith that they will be.
Torture is not ended, rendition remains and that is only a vehicle for the allowance of other nations to do our dirty work for us. There is no other purpose for it.
Healthcare reform you say, as long as health care remains solely a function of for profit insurers and HMO's our health will be at the mercy of accountants and many of our citizens will remain excluded.
The stimulus package is yet to be determined effective but you post as if it were a done deal, do you also feel the same about the TARP funds?
But you are correct that we seem to be making progress in the sciences and perhaps even in the area of global warming, yet all is still talk.
But you are right about the fucking garden.
Right on Rick!....and let's not forget Pakistan. If anything, Obombem has accelerated our killing spree in that neck of the woods. See today's nooze. But no doubt Joe Hopeless will be here soon to explain why this is "change we can believe in" (the key word here is "believe"....because that's all it is. Belief in their marketing)
"If they can convince you of absurdities they can coerce you into atrocities." Voltaire
Madcow seems all to willing to be convinced of absurdities, scary.
You cannot honestly say the troops will NOT be gone by Dec. 31, 2011, the SOFA cutoff. Just that you believe they wont be. At least I can point to a concrete agreement between the parties involved. What can you point to except pessimism?
Rendition CAN have other motivations than torture. For the sole purpose of holding a suspect for example---at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, maybe.
Obama has always stated the goal of allowing everyone to choose between private insurance, and government run healthcare. If enough choose the government run program it will put the private companies out of business.
The stimulus package was passed and signed into law. Remember, only three republican senators voted for it.
Wake up ,madcow, and I mean that with all due respect.
Rendition does not mean holding someone at an American airbase, this is way beneath you,sir. That is not rendition, that scurrilous action refers to kidnapping an individual and turning him over to Egypt or Syria or Turkey or wherever for the express purpose of committing acts of violent interrogation upon him.
The signing of an agreement is not the act itself, and once again I must note your great enthusiasm for calling words as deeds. I do not know whether the govt of Iraq will even be in place in 2011, whether the incarnation of that government will insist upon honoring that agreement or our own govt will as well, and neither do you. What I do know is that fifty thousand of our children will remain in Iraq because Obama wishes it so.
As to health care; what freaking govt run care? What freaking choice? I know you to be much smarter than this position makes you appear. You seem to abrogate reason and honesty in the cause of remaining loyal to a leader who shows very little loyalty to you and your children.
"Rendition does not mean holding someone at an American airbase, this is way beneath you,sir. That is not rendition, that scurrilous action refers to kidnapping an individual and turning him over to Egypt or Syria or Turkey or wherever for the express purpose of committing acts of violent interrogation upon him."
I think you're right about the kidnapping aspect, but I don't believe it means that the suspect MUST be turned over to a torturing nation. Thus, the torture aspect may be removed from the act of rendition. Show me a definition that necessitates the act of torture.
Here's what my dictionary says: Render... submit; send in; present. Rendition... an interpretation or rendering of a dramatic role, piece of music, etc.
Nothing at all about torture.
We will see what comes out of the healthcare reform package.
Madcow, let us reason together shall we....
Might I refresh your memory about planes known to be chartered to CIA agents , planes used to fly kidnapped persons to such as Syria, Egypt and Turkey for the express purpose of torturing those people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
Extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition are terms used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another.[1] "Torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the United States has purportedly transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture. It has been alleged that torture has been employed with the knowledge or acquiescence of the United States (a transfer of anyone to anywhere for the purpose of torture is a violation of U.S. law). Condoleezza Rice, (then the United States Secretary of State), stated in an April 2006 radio interview that the United States does not transfer people to places where it is known they will be tortured.
The US program prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states. June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on EU territory (with the cooperation of Council of Europe members), and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA, some sited in Europe. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA and criticized several European governments and intelligence agencies for their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation.
President Obama represents the audacity of building up hope in order to crush it.
From past experience, all the writing and protesting to your elected representatives is a complete waste of time.
The neocons, back to their old agenda, are firmly entrenched in the new administration. So let's face it, we're going to have to shell out more money we don't have to win a war which has no roadmap.
Doesn't anyone in the military care about our own servicemen and women? Where are the seasoned war veterans on this? Do they really think they are being patriotic backing every war that comes down the pike whether it is good for this country or not?
. . . the options are either to kill all the jihadists, make it quick and withdraw (not a real option), or begin pursuing an agenda that addresses what he calls Muslim issues: the American military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula, the unqualified US support for Israel, US support for states that oppress Muslims (China, India, Russia), US exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price, US military presence in the Islamic world, and US support and protection of Arab police states.
Obama will opt for killing all the jihadists. If you think he'll do the latter, you're out of your mind.
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. ‘We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
This is just as true of Obama and the closet throatstickers around him as it was for Bush, from whose regime this infamous quote emanates.
The above quoted statement exhibits an arrogance that is unprecedented in the history of the genus Homo.
---USAn---
"Obama will opt for killing all the jihadists" and killing at least double that number of civilians in the process. That will lead to the jihadists multiplying like the brooms in the "Sorcerer's Apprentice".
Even Mickey Mouse learned the lesson that our leaders seem incapable of absorbing.
Joe
Hayden is correct in comparing Obama sending even more troops into Afghanistan with that of JFK sending "advisers" into Vietnam. As those of a certain age will remember, that was not the wisest decision that Kennedy could have done, which was to have listened to his advisers, who were thought by many to have been the "best and the brightest" in Kennedy's cabinet. Now Obama appears to be doing his best to emulate what Kennedy did by listening to his people who, like Kennedy's people, seem to be anything but "the best and the brightest."
But while Hayden admits that sending more American soldiers can become a "slippery slope" he somehow believes that "President Obama 'obviously' has no intention of sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan." How in the world can Hayden make that statement with such confidence especially after witnessing the folly that the United States pursued in Vietnam?
Obama has said, almost with gleeful pride, that he does not believe in the values of the 1960s generation. Since Obama seems determined to demonstrate that he can be just as militaristic as Bush or McCain, I fail to understand why Hayden believes that Obama [the alleged antiwar president] will not dramatically escalate more belligerent actions that have already been undertaken by the United States.
I believe JFK had prepared an "Executive Order" stating, "The United States is to withdraw 5,000 of its military advisors from South Viet Nam prior to December 25, 1963." After the Diem brothers were assassinated with the help of the CIA (The CIA had planned to fly them out of South Viet Nam, but could not find a plane.), Kennedy felt intense guilt. (They were pulled out of a Catholic Church.).....
The "Power Elite" (Watch and listen to Kennedy's speech on "Secret Societies" in "Zeitgeist, The Movie") had planned to make lots of money in Southeast Asia and Kennedy looked like he was going to be in the way......Shortly after his executive order was written, Kennedy was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson wrote another Executive Order stating that "all military advisors would remain in South Viet Nam until victory," four days after Kennedy's assassination.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is Obama's main man. He is the genious that came up with "The Carter Doctrine"......any outside force that threatens U.S. "Vital Interests" (OIL) in the Persian Gulf shall be confronted with military force.....He also sought the destabilization of Afghanistan because the Soviet's political and economic plan was successful and could wind up in Iran....."Which would you rather have as an enemy, the Soviet Union or the Taiban." Personally, I don't think creating an enemy is a very good idea.....and Benazir Bhutto would have agreed with me.
Obama has said, almost with gleeful pride, that he does not believe in the values of the 1960s generation.
______________________________________
Erroll, FWIW I too find Obama's sour attitude toward the Sixties counterculture and politics significant.
As an unabashed devotee of the Age of Aquarius, and one who strives to Keep on Truckin' and Flying My Freak Flag high, it is only natural that I should draw a negative inference from this circumstance.
· Yr Obd't Servant
You make a good point, Erroll. Why does Hayden assume that Obama can be pressured, when Obama was very clear about his war escalation plans during the presidential campaign?
Tom Hayden was a former 1960s war protester, but he pretty much gave Obama solid support during the campaign.
-TIA
too late...
It is extremely difficult to stand upright on blood and oil.
The United States has been in Afghanistan for seven years. What has been accomplished?
Do most of us know what our objective is? Beside the standard nebulous desire for "peace on earth good will toward men?" But can Obama tell us what the true objective is? How to measure it? How to honestly gage success and failure?
Can Obama (at this time he can) tell the American people that if Afghanistan proves to be another "quagmire" the US will not slog through with an empty hope for a miracle: "the light at the end of the tunnel" argument?
The far right in this country believes the US should have won in Vietnam. In truth, the Vietnam War was an immense exercise in self-deception and wishful thinking engaged in by national leaders who could not admit they were wrong. Is that what Obama is looking forward to in Afghanistan?
At this time Obama can safely be frank and open with the American people about Afghanistan. And promise not to waste American lives there if the war proves to be a sinkhole. We are still reeling from Iraq. The Vietnam war still occupies our national consciousness. Most Americans are accustomed to the idea of fighting in needless sinkholes and wiill accept pulling out in order to avoid a repetition.
Only a minority wants another Iraq or Vietnam. (Though, of course, they believe this time we, the US, should win. Which shows the lesson was never learned by them.)
Sure, Obama could be frank and open. However, as with the Vietnam war, U.S. military industries are making a ton of money off the wars. You are right that there is no military objective. The true objective is simply to funnel taxpayer dollars to the military industrial complex, no matter the carnage. The U.S. global war on terror is a self-perpetuating exercise because as Obama blows up families abroad, he creates new "terrorists," and the money cycle continues.
Possibly, Obama wants that oil pipeline built through Afghanistan, but that's probably the only "reason" - and it's not a good one.
-TIA
Afghanistan is a War for G.O.D...
The unholy trinity of Guns, Oil, and Drugs...
Guns: military contractors and weapons manufacturers that profit on selling weapons to both sides in the conflict...
Oil: Pipeline from the Caspian to the Pakistani coast to circumvent Russia and China in access and distribution of central Asian oil...
Drugs: Heroin poppy fields were being iradicated by the Taliban, which reduced the global supply by 90%, so they had to go... Now that the US military and contractors are in Poppystan to stay for good, the poppy harvests are at an all time high, and with the newly formed country of Kosovo run by gangsters, the military contractors can traffic the goods thru Turkmenistan, then Turkey for refining into Heroin, then onto Kosovo for distribution to the European market...
...G.O.D. Bless America...
Sioux Rose
TIA: Right on! Of course the American people like and require stories, ones that tell them they are the greatest, always bound to doing well for others... and so the PR machine gets to work fabricating the latest in a line of excuses that place a fig leaf over the real motives behind these military operations and "adventures."
Amy Goodman said even the military contractor sitting next to her on a plane was shocked by Obama's Afghanistan strategy.
Lets face it he cares about the Enviornment but is extremely draconian.
Whatever Hayden had in the sixties he lost a long time ago. For those of us who voted for leadership that was anti-war, we told you so. Had enough?
Start working to build Third Parties.
What would Eisenhauer do if he were president now, or what would he recommend if he were alive?
In all probability that he would never have gotten us to this stage. His advice now would be to withdraw and focus on Pakistan.
As soon as we hear that the next war funding supplemental bill is coming up for a vote, we need to start applying pressure to our congressional delegations to vote against it. Then track their votes. See:
http://tinyurl.com/warfunding
Every federal legislator who votes for war funding should be opposed in 2010 by a peace candidate in the general election. And we must vote for that candidate, not for the Democrat. This is the only way to get the message across to legislators who support war.
We need to move from aimless discussion to action. If you don't believe that action does any good, I understand, but for my purposes you are irrelevant.
There is no supplemental bill coming up. The money for the wars is included in the regular budget.
I always thought that Afghanistan was another way to splell "Tar Baby".
It is probably too late to change any minds in this administration. Besides it is not just Obama, but those around him, ie. Clinton (one with pantsuit) and Holbrooke. I think I read somewhere that Milosevice wanted to settle before they Kosovo war, but Clinton (one with cigar) and Holbrooke put such onerous conditions on it in order to squelch it. They wanted a war. Made for good poll numbers, TV, and a distraction.
Losing faith fast. President Johnson, a potentially great president did not fulfill his potential and promise because he failed to recognize that a war that had already depleted our reserves in patience and dollars was unwinable. And not in our countries interest, It appears that Obama is following the same course even though our country is in a worse condition. Like the Irag war the action in Afghan was not the most effective means of dealing with the situation. President Obama and his advisers have decided to significantly expand Afghanistan’s security forces. A plan awaiting final approval by the president would set a goal of about 400,000 troops and national police officers. The cost projections of the program, range from $10 billion to $20 billion over the next six or seven years. It looks like Obama will suffer the same fate if he does not seek another solution History does repeat itself
Obama must have let Cheney spook him into the surge in Afganistan
I don't think it's Cheney as much as former President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He's a war hawk who's dreamed for many years of using fundamentalist Islam to attack Russia. Brzezinski is the architect for arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the a Moscow-friendly government there. That action was probably the principle cause of blowback-style attacks on U.S. bases abroad, and even 911 at home.
Obama hired Brzezinski as his advisor during the presidential campaign. Obama has made public statements about admiring the whole cold war mentality - he's a true believer in that respect, not much different than Ronald Reagan. I'd ascribe the escalation of the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan directly to Obama, who promised to do those things during the campaign.
-TIA
I guess we all better buy a nice tent with a porto-let and a solar cook stove. Help is not on the way, folks. Oh, and old styrofoam gathered from mall dumpsters can be mixed with gasolene in metal 5 gallon cans to make tent insulation for cold weather.
I heard that some Russians stayed in Afghanistan after they were ordered to stop
fighting and find their own way home. So how were they treated? Cut up into little pieces, right? Nope. Welcomed into town community.
And then there's Greg Mortenson. Check out the picture at the entrance to his website, http://www.gregmortenson.com/ . And/or read his book, the Kiriyama prize winner, THREE CUPS OF TEA. Who is he? An American known and loved by people on both sides of the border. Why? Because he's built well over a hundred schools and has nothing to do with the American Military.
Funny thing about war. It's for assholes. Do it and nobody's going to like you. Don't do it and you have the chance then for the first time of achieving some of your objectives.
Nicely put. We know almost nothing about the Afghan culture or its mores. We refuse peaceful and civilian sponsored solutions to real economic problems there and use the military to ensure endless war for endless profit.
Yes Obama is in Afghanistan. Wrong.
The new NeoCon Foreign Policy Initiative, a William Kristol PNAC successor is gearing up to push the US into more wars a la Iraq. Their first goal is to see the Afghanistan War amped up, their keynote speaker will be bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran John McCain.
Advocating carpet bombing Afghanistan. Like Iran. And likely Russia, Iraq for a "Thousand Years". McCain is a psycopathic warmonger who would have us in a four-front war-firestorm LIKE HE PROMISED.
100% different from Obama. Nuclear War different. A four front World-War different.
Afghanistan is wrong. But not as wrong as hundreds of thousands of people buring to death.
Tom Hayden writes:
"It's time for a new movement against reckless escalation, especially one that threatens to divert our attention from the crisis at home, while only leaving poverty, malnutrition and anti-American hatreds rising abroad."
Actually, the antiwar movement is still around, Tom, and just had a protest on March 21. I didn't see you on the speaker's podium at the Los Angeles rally.
So, really, there's nothing wrong with the old antiwar movement, which still maintains a loose organization that leaders like you could embrace. I'd say it's quite likely that the antiwar movement didn't support Obama in the last election (unlike you) because they understood he planned to escalate the wars.
Obama ended up getting the majority of the votes, of course, which implies public support for his war plans. Trying to work against that fact has really sapped the life out of the antiwar movement, I think.
While I like your essay in the abstract, you have a responsibility to give the antiwar movement some indication of possible success before making your clarion call to action. Quite frankly, as bad as I thought Obama would be, I never dreamed he'd be so Bush-like. The only difference between the two is that Obama has got some people fooled that there's actually a change to believe in, when there isn't any sign of that.
-TIA
Tom Hayden keeps hoping against hope that Oreobama is even a little bit of what he pretended to be during the campaign. Get over it Tom, he ain't.
Thoughts_Into_Action said, "Obama hired Brzezinski as his advisor during the presidential campaign." That is technically true, however Brzezinski hired Obomba to be his presidential candidate long before that.
The whole thing reads like it could be the latest chapter in Howard Zinn's book A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. World War I was used to avoid a possible rebellion because of a depression brought on by the criminal activity of the capitalist elite. World War II was used to avoid a possible rebellion because of a depression brought on by the thievery of the capitalist elite. World War III....
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana ...
It is so predicable it is getting BOR...ING! Thankfully,
Nothing exists.
Our voters of 2008 have got exactly the kind of government they deserve, namely one that tells us fairy tales about the economic/financial meltdown and the so-called “war on terrorism”. The two fairy tales are interconnected and President Obama is very good at telling fairy tales, much better in fact than his bumbling predecessor Bush which is also why he is much more dangerous that GWB. In reality there is essentially no difference between the two with regards to the need to maintain our vicious hegemony over oil and gas for the industrialized Western World. The difference is in style, not in substance. Style easily fools the American voter. It always has.
Pepe Escobar in his wonderful article on “Pipelinistan” has coined a new term namely “immobile aircraft carrier” (IAC) which means a huge US airbase in foreign lands from which a large region of the world is to be controlled.
During the cold war era our IAC’s were in various countries of Western Europe. Now that the “War of Pipelinistan” (crude oil and gas) has replaced the ideological struggle of the post WW2 era the IAC’s must be strategically located in Eurasia. One IAC, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, already exists. As long as huge IAC’s can be maintained in Iraq and Afghanistan there is no need to attack Iran or demand a base in Pakistan. There is no doubt that the demand for oil and gas will eventually lead to permanent or semi-permanent IAC’s or demands for IAC’s in Georgia, Iraq (Kurdistan?), Afghanistan and one or more of the other “Stans” (the Arabian Peninsula is a non-starter). IAC’s are potentially vulnerable to local uprisings but they are cheaper to maintain than real aircraft carriers and are infinitely more convenient for their military personnel.
The financial angle of maintaining IAC’s and real aircraft carriers where needed is the connection to the fairy tale of the economic/financial meltdown. The measures taken or proposed by the Obama administration are said to put the American Middle Class back to work. That is certainly true but without the Middle Class at work and paying taxes the maintenance of IAC’s in Eurasia will become essentially a gigantic gamble if not impossible.
The “War of Pipelinistan” is eerily similar to the “Colonial Wars” of the 19th Century. The players then were Great Britain, France, the US and, to a lesser extent, Germany. Today the players are the US, the EU, Russia, China, and India. Will the “War of Pipelinistan” evolve into another World War?
Nicely expressed, crowsnest.
That Pepe Escobar article is a very good first-hand look at U.S. empire expansion plans from the standpoint of oil pipelines.
Here it is: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/25-1
-TIA