Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWelcome to Vietnam, Mr. President
I was wrong. I had been saying that it would be naïve to take too seriously presidential candidate Barack Obama's rhetoric regarding the need to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I kept thinking to myself that when he got briefed on the history of Afghanistan and the oft proven ability of Afghan "militants" to drive out foreign invaders-from Alexander the Great, to the Persians, the Mongolians, Indians, British, Russians-he would be sure to understand why they call mountainous Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires."
And surely he would be fully briefed on the stupidity and deceit that left 58,000 U.S. troops-not to mention 2 to 3 million Vietnamese-dead in Vietnam. John Kennedy became president the year Obama was born. One cannot expect toddler-to-teenager Barack to remember much about the war in Vietnam, and it was probably too early for that searing, controversial experience to have found its way into the history texts as he was growing up.
Innocent of History, and Distracted
But he was certainly old enough to absorb the fecklessness and brutality of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. And his instincts at that time were good enough to see through the administration's duplicity. And, with him now in the White House, surely some of his advisers would be able to brief him on both Vietnam and Iraq, and prevent him from making similar mistakes-this time in Afghanistan. Or so I thought.
Deflecting an off-the-topic question at his March 24 press conference, Obama said, "I think that the last 64 days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we're going to fix the economy ... right now the American people are judging me exactly the way I should be judged, and that is, are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to reopen, keep America safe?"
Okay, it is understandable that President Obama has been totally absorbed with the financial crisis. But surely, unlike predecessors supposedly unable to do two things at the same time, our resourceful new president certainly could find enough time to solicit advice from a wide circle, get a better grip on the huge stakes in Afghanistan, and arrive at sensible decisions. Or so I thought.
It proved to be a bit awkward Friday morning waiting for the president to appear.... a half-hour late for his own presentation. Was he for some reason reluctant? Perhaps he had a sense of being railroaded by his advisers. Perhaps he paused on learning that just a few hours earlier a soldier of the Afghan army shot dead two U.S. troops and wounded a third before killing himself, and that Taliban fighters had stormed an Afghan police post and killed ten police earlier that morning. Should he weave that somehow into his speech?
Or maybe it was learning of the Taliban ambush of a police convoy which wounded seven other policemen; or the suicide bomber in the Afghan border area of Pakistan who demolished a mosque packed with hundreds of worshippers attending Friday prayers, killing some 50 and injuring scores more, according to preliminary reports. Or, more simply, perhaps Obama's instincts told him he was about to do something he will regret. Maybe that's why he was embarrassingly late in coming to the podium.
Another March of Folly
One look at the national security advisers arrayed behind the president was enough to see wooden-headedness.
In her best-selling book, "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam," historian Barbara Tuchman described this mindset: "Wooden-headedness assesses a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions, while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs ... acting according to the wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts."
Tuchman pointed to 16th Century Philip II of Spain as a kind of Nobel laureate of wooden-headedness. Comparisons can be invidious, but the thing about Philip was that he drained state revenues by failed adventures overseas, leading to Spain's decline.
It is wooden-headedness, in my view, that permeates the "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" that the president announced yesterday. Author Tuchman points succinctly to what flows from wooden-headedness:
"Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it...Adjustment is painful. For the ruler it is easier, once he has entered the policy box, to stay inside. For the lesser official it is better not to make waves, not to press evidence that the chief will find painful to accept. Psychologists call the process of screening out discordant information ‘cognitive dissonance,' an academic disguise for ‘Don't confuse me with the facts.'"
It seems only right and fitting that Barbara Tuchman's daughter, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, president of the Carnegie Foundation, has shown herself to be inoculated against "cognitive dissonance." A January 2009 Carnegie report on Afghanistan concluded, "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."
In any case, Obama explained his decision on more robust military intervention in Afghanistan as a result of a "careful policy review" by military commanders and diplomats, the Afghani and Pakistani governments, NATO allies, and international organizations.
No Estimate? No Problem
Know why he did not mention a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing the likely effects of this slow surge in troops and trainers? Because there is none. Guess why. The reason is the same one accounting for the lack of a completed NIE before the "surge" in troop strength in early 2007.
Apparently, Obama's advisers did not wish to take the risk that honest analysts-ones who had been around a while, and maybe even knew something of Vietnam and Iraq, as well as Afghanistan-might also be immune to "cognitive dissonance," and ask hard questions regarding the basis of the new strategy.
Indeed, they might reach the same judgment they did in the April 2006 NIE on global terrorism. The authors of that estimate had few cognitive problems and simply declared their judgment that invasions and occupations (in 2006 the target then was Iraq) do not make us safer but lead instead to an upsurge in terrorism.
The prevailing attitude this time fits the modus operandi of Gen. Petraeus ex Machina, who late last year took the lead by default with the following approach: We know best, and can run our own policy review, thank you very much. Which he did, without requesting the formal NIE that typically precedes and informs key policy decisions. It is highly regrettable that President Obama was deprived of the chance to benefit from a formal estimate. Recent NIEs have been relatively bereft of wooden-headedess. Obama might have made a more sensible decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan.
As one might imagine, NIEs can, and should, play a key role in such circumstances, with a premium on objectivity and courage in speaking truth to power. That is precisely why Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair appointed Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council, the body that prepares NIEs-and why the Likud Lobby got him ousted.
Estimates on Vietnam
As one of the intelligence analysts watching Vietnam in the sixties and seventies, I worked on several of the NIEs produced before and during the war.
Sensitive ones bore this unclassified title: "Probable Reactions to Various Courses of Action With Respect to North Vietnam." Typical of the kinds of question the President and his advisers wanted addressed were: Can we seal off the Ho Chi Minh Trail by bombing? If the U.S. were to introduce X thousand additional troops into South Vietnam, will Hanoi quit? Okay, how about XX thousand?
Our answers regularly earned us brickbats from the White House for not being "good team players." But in those days we labored under a strong ethos dictating that we give it to policymakers straight, without fear or favor. We had career protection for doing that.
Our judgments (the unwelcome ones, anyway) were often pooh-poohed as negativism. Policymakers, of course, were in no way obliged to take them into account, and often didn't. The point is that they continued to be sought. Not even Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon would decide on a significant escalation without seeking our best estimate as to how U.S. adversaries would likely react to this or that escalatory step.
So, hats off, I suppose, to you, Gen. Petraeus and those who helped you elbow the substantive intelligence analysts off to the sidelines.
What might intelligence analysts have said on the key point of training the Afghan army and police? We will never know, but it is a safe bet those analysts who know something about Afghanistan...or about Vietnam would roll their eyes and wish Petraeus luck. As for Iraq, what remains to be seen is against whom the various sectarian factions target their weapons and put their training into practice.
In his Afghanistan policy speech on Friday, Obama mentioned training eleven times. To those of us with some gray in our hair, this was all too reminiscent of the prevailing rhetoric at the start of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In February 1964, with John Kennedy dead and President Lyndon Johnson improvising on Vietnam, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara prepared a major policy speech on defense, leaving out Vietnam, and sent it to the president to review. The Johnson tapes show the president finding fault:
LBJ: "I wonder if you shouldn't find two minutes to devote to Vietnam."
McN: "The problem is what to say about it."
LBJ: "I would say that we have a commitment to Vietnamese freedom ... Our purpose is to train the [South Vietnamese] people, and our training's going good."
But our training was not going good then. And specialists who know Afghanistan, its various tribes and demographics tell me that training is not likely to go good there either. Ditto for training in Pakistan.
Obama's alliterative rhetoric aside, it is going to be no easier to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat" al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan with more combat forces and training than it was to defeat the Viet Cong with these same tools in Vietnam.
Obama seemed to be protesting a bit too much: "Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course." No sir. There will be "metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable!" Yes, sir! And he will enlist wide international support from countries like Iran, Russia, India, and China that, according to President Obama, "should have a stake in the security of the region." Right.
Long Time Passing
"The road ahead will be long," said Obama in conclusion. He has that right. The strategy adopted virtually guarantees that. That is why Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan publicly contradicted his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, late last year when Gates, protesting the widespread pessimism on Afghanistan, started talking up the prospect of a "surge" of troops in Afghanistan.
McKiernan insisted publicly that no Iraqi-style "surge" of forces would end the conflict in Afghanistan. "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is ‘surge," McKiernan stated, adding that what is required is a "sustained commitment" that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.
McKiernan has that right. But his boss Mr. Gates did not seem to get it.
Late last year, as he maneuvered to stay on as defense secretary in the new administration, Gates hotly disputed the notion that things were getting out of control in Afghanistan.
The argument that Gates used to support his professed optimism, however, made us veteran intelligence officers gag - at least those who remember the U.S. in Vietnam in the 1960s, the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and other failed counterinsurgencies.
"The Taliban holds no land in Afghanistan, and loses every time it comes into contact with coalition forces," Gates explained.
Our Secretary of Defense seemed to be insisting that U.S. troops have not lost one pitched battle with the Taliban or al-Qaeda. (Engagements like the one on July 13, 2008, in which "insurgents" attacked an outpost in Konar province, killing nine U.S. soldiers and wounding 15 others, apparently do not qualify as "contact.")
Gates ought to read up on Vietnam, for his words evoke a similarly benighted comment by U.S. Army Col. Harry Summers after that war had been lost.
In 1974, Summers was sent to Hanoi to try to resolve the status of Americans still listed as missing. To his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, Summers made the mistake of bragging, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."
Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
The Military Brass
I don't fault the senior military....Cancel that, I DO fault them. They resemble all too closely the gutless general officers who never looked down at what was really happening in Vietnam. The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the time have been called, not without reason, "a sewer of deceit."
The current crew is in better odor. And one may be tempted to make excuses for them, noting for example that if admirals/generals are the hammer, small wonder that to them everything looks like a nail. No, that does not excuse them.
The ones standing in back of Obama yesterday have smarts enough to have said, NO; IT'S A BAD IDEA, Mr. President. That should not be too much to expect. Gallons of blood are likely to be poured unnecessarily in the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan-probably over the next decade or longer. But not their blood.
General officers seldom rise to the occasion. Exceptions are so few that they immediately spring to mind: French war hero General Philippe LeClerc, for example, was sent to Indochina right after WW-II with orders to report back on how many troops it would take to recapture Indochina. His report: "It would require 500,000 men; and even with 500,000 France could not win."
Equally relevant to Obama's fateful decision, Gen. Douglas MacArthur told another young president in April 1961: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined." When JFK's top military advisers, critical of his reluctance, virtually called him a traitor-for pursuing a negotiated solution to the fighting in Laos, for example-Kennedy would tell them to convince Gen. MacArthur first, and then come back to him. (Alas, there seems to be no comparable Gen. MacArthur today.)
Kennedy recognized Vietnam as a potential quagmire, and was determined not to get sucked in-despite the misguided, ideologically-salted advice given him by Ivy League patricians like McGeorge Bundy. Kennedy's military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor said later that MacArthur's statement made a "hell of an impression on the president."
MacArthur made another comment about the situation President Kennedy had inherited in Indochina. This one struck the young president so much that he dictated it into a memorandum of conversation: Kennedy quoted MacArthur as saying to him, "The chickens are coming home to roost from the Eisenhower years, and you live in the chicken coop."
Well, the chickens are coming home to roost after eight years of Cheney and Bush, but there is no sign that President Obama is listening to anyone capable of fresh thinking on Afghanistan. Obama has apparently decided to stay in the chicken coop. And that can be called, well, chicken.
Obama and Kennedy
Can't say I actually KNEW Jack Kennedy, but it was he who got so many of us down here to Washington to explore what we might do for our country. Kennedy resisted the kind of pressures to which President Obama has now succumbed. (There are even some, like Jim Douglass in his book "JFK and the Unspeakable," who conclude that this is what got President Kennedy killed.)
Mr. Obama, you need to find some advisers who are not still wet behind the ears and who are not brown noses-preferably some who have lived Vietnam and Iraq and have an established record of responsible, fact-based analysis. You would also do well to read Douglass' book, and to page through the "Pentagon Papers," instead of trying to emulate the Lincoln portrayed in "Team of Rivals." I, too, am a big fan of Doris Kearns Goodwin, but Daniel Ellsberg is an author far more relevant and nourishing for this point in time. Read his "Secrets," and recognize the signs of the times.
There is still time to put the brakes on this disastrous policy. One key lesson of Vietnam is that an army trained and supplied by foreign occupiers can almost always be readily outmatched and out-waited in a guerilla war, no matter how many billions of dollars are pumped in.
Professor Martin van Creveld of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the only non-American military historian on the U.S. Army's list of required reading for officers, has accused former president George W. Bush of "launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them."
Please do not feel you have to compete with your predecessor for such laurels.
74 Comments so far
Show AllThe economy is a war economy.
Cash from Afghan and Columbian drug sources is a major crutch for the house of cards.
The whole thing is not run to make sense or make anything safer or better, but to keep the same superclass in power.
War concentrates wealth and power, and they're clinging to it like a bloody life preserver.
That being said, BHO is surrounded by war monger murderers, but isn't he our best, if not only, bet? If not him, then who? Go to whitehouse dot gov and tell him how you feel.
Dennis Kucinich would have us already getting completely out of Iraq (especially the more than 100,000 private contractors) as well as Afghanistan if he were elected president. Yet Obama signed up Blackwater (under their new name) for another no-bid contract for continued presence in Iraq. What a crime!
I would like to first say that I hope you are doing well Mr. McGovern. You're a brilliant man, and thank you for being so candid about this misguided direction we're taking in Afghanistan.
Yet more innocent people who'll be killed and maimed, and further destruction in the Middle East.
Until the American people say enough, enough of these horrid wars, then we'll remain bogged down in this morass.
Well, McGovern's piece is good but it seems many of the posters here are well ahead of him--acknowledging that it really is not credible that Obama is getting into this war in Afghanistan out of ignorance or stupidity. And as Sioux Rose noted, there seems to be a rule that the US must have a war going at all times--anyone who wants to be president must agree to that well in advance.
But the arguments about electoral politics are stale and useless. Yes there is some little difference between Dems and Repubs, yes the Greens etc are much more pure, yes there is no chance whatsoever that either McKinney or Nader could get in. So what it comes down to is that it really doesn't matter much who's the president (except that this time, letting McCain in would have meant a stupid, amoral idiot with a bunch of crazed Rapture Ready zealots behind her, being just one of a dying old man's heartbeats away from access to that big sexy red button). If we want our country to stop killing people in other countries, it will require a revolution--and how to foment that when the majority are still staring slack-jawed at their TVs, I don't know. It will take a financial apocalypse, perhaps, which is the good news--looks like that's on its way, as Obama has promised his Wall Street backers that they can make all financial policy even when that consists of them looting the treasury at will. The one positive thing Obama seems to be doing is reforming environmental policy, perhaps because he looks forward to a future in which his family is part of the ruling class, despite their color--and he is not disturbed by the prospect of a future in which there is no more pretense of Constitutional rule or justice, in which other nations are bombed into submission, forced to allow US based oil and gas and other corporations to help themselves to whatever resources they want--but without action on climate change and some other environmental wrongs, it will be a bleak future even for the Masters of the Planet.
Read Obamas new book.."The Audacity of Blowing Up Pakis"
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"Gen. Douglas MacArthur told another young president in April 1961: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined."
Yes...Gen Mac was soooooo sane himself, he just wanted to start a nuclear war with both China and Russia instead....no ground troops though...
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Thanks for your insight, just too bad it won't get to the msm for those veggies to get an education.
Chalmer Johnson, Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter, most trusted names in informaion about the military industrial congressional complex for me, well there are others but after reading CJ's blowback triolgy I can't think of better sources of information about this and it is terribly frustrating to have the newly elected president continuing w & dick's imperial wars. That is one of the reasons why the people of this country did not elect mccain and unfortunately it did not matter. Well, maybe obama will see the light of day eventually and do something.
Wonderful piece, Ray. My father who died several years ago would have been proud. He was a delegate at the '68 convention and a well known Democrat. I met Hubert Humphrey while he was the candidate, I was eleven, and I still remember my father telling him that if he wanted to win the election to come right out against the war, that any other position was useless. He told him that with the sort of verve that MacArthur must have used. My father, a journalist, a former captain in WWII, but also a carpenter built a basement apartment in our house for draft dodgers. And we did have a draft dodger living there for quite some time.
Unfortunately, you are giving Obama too much credit when you think that it's his advisors leading him astray. Not long after Obama's first convention speech, I began researching his so called community service years but found myself in the same sort of black hole as Bush's military service. Obama, it seems, has never actually done anything for another human being, (and if somebody would post some concrete examples of things he's done, I'd appreciate it, for example people whom he helped as a community organizer way back when who have come forward). His rise to power was for power's sake, nothing more, not to serve a greater good. Had he been interested in that he would have left a trail of evidence of it on his way up the ladder. I've said all along that this type of personality does not stop seeking power once in office. The next logical step is a military campaign and the step after that is military escalation. I've been dead on about him so far. I have not been surprised by his neo-con-like actions any more than I've been surprised by the economy. (I shorted housing in 2005).
Last year I wrote on the pages of many liberal blogs that Obama was a militarist and I was booed off the platforms.
Now I am saying that this Afghan escalation is but the tip of the iceberg for this man. He's just beginning. He has many more wars to go before he sleeps.
Sioux Rose
FENNER: So much for "The White Man's Burden."
Thank you everyone who understands that Obama already planned this long throughout his candidacy. I find the author less credible on this alone though I appreciate his writing often times.
P.S.:
I've seen this site before as a remote customer friend of mine who usually posts here as JWVerez introduced me to Alternet, CommonDreams, HuffingtonPost, etc ... Some of the users on this site look familiar as I've seen their names on Alternet so some probably know me. I do apologize for getting too emotional over my support for Nader and showing my grief and anger over our dysfunctional electorate. I wish Obama well but I just can't stand the way he goes out of his way to appease the Republicans. I saw him doing this all through his Senate tenure and this includes Afghanistan. Yet, when I try to tell even my friends and coworkers who call themselves "liberal" and yet fall for Obama's seductive "hope and change" mantra that Nader, Mckinney, and even Barr and Paul are our real hope for change, I get a lot of hostile attacks. I don't mind who people support but when they make such a big deal about it especially when much of their support is based on false info, I'm not afraid to speak my mind and try to get some truth injected into otherwise Obamabot discussions. I did make quite a lot of cool friends on Alternet.org and they could use you people there. Well, more to say later but I look forward to reading more of your excellent posts and sharing my replies where I think I can.
Jennifer, you cite nader as "our real hope for change," if he has recieved less and less votes every 4 years, which is the case, I wonder how he can be our "real hope?"
Emotions aside, what is the logic of that?
I think Cynthia is wonderful, I have not heard though of a grass roots movement to empower her. In fact, the last I saw, she was sadly marginalized. How, logically, can she be our "real hope," given this?
The LESS one is empowered, the MORE critical one can be, to become empowered requires compromises of loyalties as one grows politically. Fealty sworn or the path to political power is aborted. Thus the conundrum-anyone can stand on a soap-box and point out what is wrong. But getting in a position to change things, becoming a senator say, means having a track record of compromise that does not threaten the status quo. This is the conundrum. Peace.
Stop listening to the corporatist propaganda and take off those party labels and then you'll get it !
You are a gem. I, too, did NOT vote for mccain or obama. Mccain was a no brainer decision but obama turned me off with just his pandering to corporate america, the repubs and izrael and maintaining the Iraq and Afghan wars after the people elected him to get out of both wars. And I have been waiting for the day when obama will use the existing laws to break up the conservative ownship of our msm by just 4 or 5 owners that control the information that a big portion of this country still does not get, so that, to me, means if that monopoly is busted up, the veggies will have to start absorbing a lot of disconcerting information and facing a different reality.
But, all in all, I have more trust in Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter and Chalmers Johnson because all 3 and many more have been writing about what is wrong with much too many people not listening because the conservative corporate media don't want them to listen. And, just Chalmers Johnson works alone are valid enough to bring our sorry government and corporate world into a more exposed light. Anyway, all 3 of these people are in or have been in positions to know real information that the people should have had a long time ago.
I voted for Nader since Ron Paul wasn't on the ballot in my state and I still support obama because he is president and maybe, just maybe, he might open his eyes and mind one day and realize why the people elected him. I have been kicked off alternet, I think because I used the word s**t in a comment. No big loss as I have several sites to go to but I do give it a look see every now and then.
Thank you samosamo and pleased to meet you too. i wish Obama well and all but since we're usually the type who votes on the issues and not on personality and/or party, I can see how easy it is for us to get pelted at. I'm not holding my breath on Obama given his tenure in the Senate, his campaigning, and his governing so far. I got kicked off Alternet once myself for getting into a nasty fight with an Obamabot who bragged about being an army wife of her husband who proudly "served" in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now retired by luck. I have toned down slowly so maybe they won't kick me out this time. So far they haven't. People usually cuss there, myself included, and they usually don't get kicked out. I still have my strong convictions and courage for Nader but I've decided to calm down some and quit being too upset over a horrendously lost opportunity to push for real change last year. While I have reservations on Ron Paul's takes on race, abortion, and even on some of his takes on the economic issues, there's a lot I like about him because he's actually consistent and is for a truly free market. I love his fight for small family farms, getting rid of the ban on hemp and he's introducing the Hemp Farming Act of 2009 again, and getting us out of this bloody war. If Obama proves himself capable of turning things around, I might vote for him but so far I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.
I am not a supporter of Nader, but I will say that I too feel totally alienated from my many, many liberal friends who cannot see that this man may be more dangerous than Bush himself. People around the world excused the U.S., or at least tried to, for electing Bush. It was almost as if they didn't believe he was elected fairly. But with Obama fairly elected and now acting like Bush, I believe we may be in more danger as a country. But I've never in my life seen anything like the idolatry surrounding this man while he goes straight ahead and breaks international law and commits war crimes.
Hi Fenner,
I understand. I think it's just too much partisan politics continued. My same supposedly "liberal" friends who vote Democrat regardless along with my parents and their friends who are conservative and usually vote Republican except that most of them voted Obama this time around often find themselves never able to answer the simple question "What if this were a Republican doing this?" A bad action is a bad action no matter which party that leader is in. I voted for Nader based on the issues and positions and while I had a tough time deciding between Nader and Mckinney, I thought Nader was going to be harder against both parties. Besides, Nader and Mckinney are straight about their plans and actions. As for Obama breaking the international law and committing war crimes, he already made his position clear all throughout his campaign and yet most of the voters went for it anyway. With Republicans, you know what's coming your way but with most Democrats, usually the BlueDog and DLC types, they're about as unpredictable as they can be.
What War President (or Military General) could ever resist the Tar Baby trap?
Philip II did not drain his state revenues by failed adventures "overseas" but by his wars in the Low Countries and against the Turks in the Mediterranean. He (actually his successor)lost the war in the Low Countries. In the Mediterranean the result was deadlock even after the victory at Lepanto.
Col. Tu, Summers made the mistake of bragging, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."
Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
Speaking of irrelevant, any chance that we could get a president to worry about our own country? These effers get in and they're like testosterone teens with a hot car: "Let's see what She can do!" And the rich old men who put these idiots into office just smile all the way to the bloody Swiss bank.
Obama, after you "win" in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Stans, Eastern Europe, Africa and Mexico (excuse the partial list), and you finally notice that outside your palace there is nothing but smoldering wreckage, will your victory in having defended us still be relevant?
If it's true, as Mr. McGovern writes, that there's no NIE to contradict Obama's course in Afghanistan, then it seems rather futile to write a letter in protest. The policy is fixed internally. All of that "openness" Obama professed was just PR.
It's refreshing to hear Mr. McGovern say that he didn't think Obama would go through with his election promises to escalate the Afghanistan war. Many other writers posted on Common Dreams simply stumped for Obama during the campaign, conveniently forgot about Obama's war escalation plans, and then suggested that Obama could be pushed.
If someone knows of an instance where Obama changed course due to popular pressure, please point it out. I can't think of anything. I just remember him holding the line against popular pressure for single-payer healthcare. He also told the U.K. government to shut up about disclosing U.S. torture practices. He's planning to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq, rather than withdraw, etc.
-TIA
Didn't Obama say he wanted to be surrounded by people who would question his decisions? Well, Biden questioned and he went with the old way of thinking.
So much for that.
Azjoe,
I read in the newspaper this morning that the mosque that was blown up by the suicide bomber was frequented by the police and government military (our guys) that are stationed in the region. My guess is that this is why it was targeted.
Thank you nosurrender.
Crane Brinton, in ANATOMY OF REVOLUTION, says that before each major historical revolution there was a "desertion of intellectuals" that tended to remove all ideological support for the reigning regime (think Rousseau and the French revolution). Reading through this amazing string of comments, I can only think that, if we CD posters are in any way representative of "intellectuals" today, Obama and the larger bipartisan power elite that he currently represented is clearly "deserted." I find only one tepid comment here in Obama's defense; chinesedemocracy's (!) "give him a chance" comment, apparently the last refuge of supporters of a "failed" presidency. Whether our disillusionment will get to "the streets" as many here advocate will depend on factors extrinsic to the viewpoint of intellectuals. To cite one other Brinton revolution factor, that these occur in periods of "rising expectations" which are doused by the realities of the time, I see a really explosive possibility for "street" response by people who were carried into ecstasies of euphoria by the bogus "hope and change" promises of Obama, only to be faced with the reality that the supposedly well-clad emperor is going about in his skivvies.
Hello Jerry Rose.
Do you think John McCain's election would have hastened a revolution in the US?
If you sense a trick question you are right. If you choose to answer it, may I ask you this, how about an Endless Succession of GOP Presidents? Would this hasten a revolution?
Obviously, If you say the parties are the same, you are saying an endless line of bush's would take the same amount of time as endless years of Democratic polices to make people rise up and take back the wealth of this country as described by Karl Marx.
This is not born out by history. The revolution as described by Marx would happen when the 1% & corporations had 'stolen' enough wealth that the masses were going hungry and losing what they have before their own eyes. Republican tax-cuts alone, heavy, radical, massive updrafts of wealth....GOP policies more. GOP, Faster to the revolution I think. Do You?
Hey, azjoe, you seem to me to be one of the few CD posters who haven't "deserted" Obama and I'm glad to try to answer your "trick" question.
Under which party, GOP or Dem, is "revolution" the most likely to come quickly? I thought I made it clear enough in my last paragraph that revolution will come more quickly under a Democratic adminstration, since these are the people who make promises and raise expectations, but like the GOP are unable to deliver on those promises because political outcomes are determined by the same forces that determine those if the GOP is in control: it's the same money, the same lobbyists, etc. It's the Dems who are the great pretenders of politics. So if you want revolution and revolution in a hurry keep electing people who are making promises they can't keep: vote Democratic! (an "endless succession" of GOP administrations doesn't get into this rising expectations syndrome because they promise less.) Or so it seems.
Interesting Jerry Rose, Marx can't be right all the time.
I thought Karl said The Revolution would be a function of socio-economic factors and class struggle.
It does not Surprise me though to learn on Common Dreams that actually The Evile Democrats, NOT Class Struggles & Wealth Concentrating determine the rate at which we gallop towards this epiphany.
HHhhmmmm.... So The Motor of History-the dynamic forcing revolutions...is mitigated exacerbated, sped or slowed...by....political parties.....Our voting choices?
I agree. And you've agreed the parties are different, albeit wrapped in a cloth of "the Democrats are worse," but I'll happily take different from any CD poster after all this "they are the same" nonsense, thanks, Joe.
Because of the hidden powers that be, I doubt sufficient oppositional thought can ever be really counted on in Washington, DC. to bring about radical social change. The Obama Administration is now proving that.
Obama is extremely bright, well educated, seasoned as a community organizer, and most of all, he has proven to be fully capable of deep self-reflective thought. Now if he cannot bring a deep change in Washington D.C. thinking, I don't think anyone can.
History has proven that all radical social change must come from massive public demonstrations. We the people must make democracy work in America!!!
Only until you see millions of Americans in the streets will you find a change in thinking in Washington, D.C. With all this greed, financial collapse and endless war, you would think this would be happening.
The problem is....the monopolistic corporate MSM has kept our great nation a confused and bewilded nation. We the people must get over this confusion and hit the streets.
Bring America Back !!!!.......Ray McGovern brings us this awful tasting TRUTH,
that our newly elected leader is eminently King George's 3rd term of Office !
**I was guessing Bill Clinton's 3rd term , but No, it is surely "W"s, again !
**In his short 65 days of elected Office, Barak Obama not only has completely failed to deliver on any of those inspirational campaign promises, but has
demonstrated his willing heart to continue the False Flag so called
Fantasy War on Terror !!!! Increasing the Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
and complete failure to END the Iraq War as he Promised !
**Obama has given in to Big Bailouts, Big Telecons, Big Pharma/BigMeds,
and Big Oil !!!! His JUstice Dept continues to block investigations into
Bush and Cheney Crimes, and his Neocon Repubby Warlord Robert Gates
continues to run the Dept of Defense !
**Clearly Obama likes those smart salutes from the White House honor guards,
and he wants to play soldier with them--they are re-sizing "W"s flight
jumpsuit, but they are keeping the same 'Mission Accomplished' Banner.
At just the right time, the Banner will rise again !!! Why end the War now,
when Obama can come marching home from Tora Bora with the head in hand of
that hated boogieman, bin Laden ???? The Banner will then fly again !!!
**In just 65 days, Prez Barak came to realize all those campaign rhetoric
were just weak lies, trick oratory, false hopes==and especially that in just
4 years He has NOT a ghost of a chance to change anything of the culture of corruption or lobbists inside the DC Beltway. Particularly, when it involves
the military industrial complex, Obama now knows it is better to join than
oppose ....!!! Ho Ho Ho
**Rather than even profess any kind of real Change, Obama has put all his
Easter Eggs in one last Basket==that is the basket of eggs which holds on to
the time tested adage that....Americans never fail to re":elect Wartime
Presidents==ergo; Obama's self preservation concept is now to continue all
the Bush wars way into his second term as the Minority President !!
**Obama's speech 2 days ago was the last straw, for me, as a lifetime
Democrat I am resigning my party affiliation. I need to find a viable
Progressive or Independent Party, which can make a difference locally, and
with future ties to a Candidate which can defeat Obama in four years, Not
eight years !!!!
Truthknoller, I was also a 50-year veteran of the Democratic Party who had my "last straw" moment about a year ago when Obama, in collusion with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, the Democratic Party and the mainstream news media moved to exclude Dennis Kucinich from the presidential debates. I worked for Cynthia McKinney, though clearly she had no chance to defeat Obama; nor does the Green Party show much ability to "make a difference locally." So, like you, I am looking for just that candidate and party that can accomplish Obama's defeat. I'm wary of would-be such groups like The Way Forward and much more so MoveOn.org because of the past histories of their founders and officers. Can you and I (and a few million of our friends or friends of our friends) start a network of similarly-disposed people looking for an avenue for expression of our political frustration? I'm only one person and a small minnow in a big ocean at that, but you gotta start somewhere, so how about you and any like-minded person reading this contact me and let's see what group we could join or start? Couldn't hurt, could it? (I'm an egg-head and not a street person---in the revolutionary sense--so my activism is going to be centered around my computer). jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. (That number is eleven, I don't think CD will mark that address for a click.)
Jerry D;my name is Tony at sandnton@comcast.net and am 73 and don't feel up to doing the street thing anymore but I did before and after bush took us into Iraq.Count me and my computer in to see what we can do.Tony
Thanks for contacting me, Tony; hope others will as well. I'll be e-mailing you shortly and also be trying to re-constitute a fledgling "commttee of correspondence" in this vein that I tried to start last year. Other interested folks could contact me (or I guess Tony) at the indicated e-mail addresses. Let's talk, folks! Jerry
Assistance Please? Can anyone help me w/ the suicide bomber's MOTIVE that took out the mosque near the Khyber Pass killing 80+ people yesterday???
I try to understand the dynamics in AfPak, but I'm not sure whose interests are served by this. Thank You, Joe.
I think the relevant paragraphs from CNN and the LA Times are the following:
"The bombed-out mosque had been frequented by Pakistani security officials who work at checkpoints along the route used by NATO to carry supplies from Pakistan into Afghanistan."
"The mosque was close to the main highway and was frequented by locals as well as travelers. It was also a popular place of worship with police and paramilitary troops stationed at a nearby checkpoint."
Thanks Prof.
Give Obama a chance. He is way more popular then GW Bush ever was and President Obama has a mandate. We elected him. The media told us all every single day how progressive and cool, Mr. Obama is. And he is better then McCain. Lets get back in line. We voted for Mr. Obama now we live with it.
Bring America Back !!!! ....Hey !! That might be chinesedemocracy, but Obama was elected clearly to END THE WAR !! You see any end in sight ????? Like the Great Wall of China the Prez has now assured us the Fantasy Bush War on Terror will go on forever.........or, so you still believe a cave-dwelling boogieman is still
plotting against US in the caves at Tora Bora ??????
...Obama has us to believe in his Holy Crusades ????? This poor guy has absolutely no clue as to why the American people put him in Office !!! That stinks !
We should not be in the business of imposing ourselves on other peoples in their own places, for their resources. One look at the terrain of Afghanistan, and it looks like a "now you see me, now you don't, but I can see you" type of place. Peaceful and respectful negotiation for whatever we are fighting for needs to be implemented and give up this notion of empire...consider how indignent we'd be if the tables were turned, and they were invading us and disrupting our lives for our resources or oil pipe lines. Looks like another case of 'our oil under their soil' mentality...we should not be imparting our culture or greed on anyone. I wish Barack would walk away from all the bad advice and death mongers...the golden rule still applies.
This article assumes that Oreobama is actually the president and could set policy if he wanted. He is as much a puppet as Karzi in Afghanistan, maybe even moreso as Karzi has actually endangered his position by speaking out about the bombing atrocities the US and NATO have inflicted on his people.
By the way, "Karzi is a Slang term for toilet. Believed to have entered the English language via the British Army during its sojourn in British India."
...Urban Dictionary
Obomba is a well designed marionette, designed to get elected and then to read speeches fed to him by teleprompter. Making policy is just not part of his programming.
Only time will tell how the Urban Dictionary will eventually define "Obama."
Sioux Rose
BLACKFEATHER: Like yourself, I notice that Obama following the same blueprint of Bush is just TOO coincidental. Nor would Hillary or McCain deviate from "the script." Noting that all the potential contenders differed merely in matters of style, rather than content, only the blind could not see that anyone groomed for the chief executive office, to serve as CEO of brand America, must get their pass from the powers behind the throne. Likely they consist of families of the banking caste (as seen in who's been getting the preferential treatment during this worldwide fiscal debacle) added to those of the warrior caste whose interests dovetail and intersect with those of the old aristocracy.
Riches of this earth may seem tempting, but anyone positioned with power through political office and/or great sums of wealth who used their power to harm others will be paying a high price over many lifetimes for this trespass against humanity.
The Pashtuns are loving every minute of this. Brother fights brother, brothers fight cousins, cousins fight neighbors, neighbors fight invaders. It's a way of life.
Graveyard of empires; lets hope the death is quick and painless; all those poppy fields should help.
With all the endless analyses by all the presidential advisors, and all the tedious puffery by press pretend pundits, one truth hardly ever gets mentioned.
Even with the most benign intentions (never the case) there remains one irrefutable fact of life:
THEY DON'T WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY!
Ray McGovern, what you are either not recognizing or overlooking is how our democracy has become merely like the frigile, papery outer layer of an onion. The deeper one penetrates the less it resembles democracy and the more it becomes a militaristic empire.
Both Presidents Washington and Eisenhower warned us that the "military-industrial complex" threatens "our liberties" and our "our "democratic processes." Today we have over 800 military bases outside of the United States. This collsion between the military and the corporations that suport it dominates our national government. We have created a monster and it must be fed. This requires what George Orwell predicted: "continual war." No President can overcome this hungry monster.
Sioux Rose
WHITMAN: Good points. It's as if EVERY American president has to choose a region to bomb into submission, generally because it possesses some natural resource useful to influential US corporations. It's as if there MUST be war to confirm a president, that in this Mars-ruled nation, the baptism of others' blood is a requirement; and even when the genuine reason for conflict (apart from bearing gifts for the MIC) is clear as day, the PR magi go to work fabricating the latest warm sounding slogans that reassure Americans they are good, on the all-important winning team, and incapable of the same evil they are quick to point out in acts taken by leaders of foreign lands.
What's interesting, too, is McGovern's stance that it's RARE for a military "leader" to stand up to higher authority to uphold the truth. Ironic because generally when we think of soldiers, we're expected to think of their bravery. No where is cowardice more in evidence than in those who maintain their niche of comfort knowing their withholding of truth (or key information) will result in the wonton death of others! All this seizing about for the next target nation when so many are of 3rd world status is not much different from the rich kid beefed up with great food attacking the town's skinniest, hungry and poor child who is incapable of defending himself.
I long for the day that militarism is no longer seen as something heroic, and when citizens' hard-earned pay (taxes) is not cannibalized by this machine of death. As the world economy oscillates on an axis about as stable as a 8.5 quake on the Richter Scale, it makes sense to rethink the things our money is invested in. Like war!
Well said!
Right on the money, Ray!
President Obama’s stated rationale for sending more troops and providing additional aide to Afghanistan is that we're there to prevent Al Qaeda/Taliban from attacking the US. How many times have I heard this: From Russia, to China, to Korea, to Vietnam, to Nicaragua, San Salvador and on and on--same old story. Everybody is waiting to attack us--these evildoers will slip a bomb in their luggage and leave it in a Times square bus stop--and BLAM--we're done for.
Moreover, if we’re afraid of a terrorist attack on US soil from Afghanistan, we need to also consider possible attacks from any number of teetering-on–the-brink countries: Haiti, Somalia, Moldavia, Mexico, etc. In this globalized age a Bin Laden’s can operate from anywhere and short of going to war with the entire world, we need a smarter strategy than invading and occupying.
Then there’s never a mention energy (oil, gas) and Afghanistan in the same sentence. The country is strategically located atop major energy routes. In the past the Bush administration negotiated with the Taliban on delivery routes for these vital resources. Is this a current possibility?
I'm no expert but I can tell you the Obama plan of re- invading Afghanistan is DOA. Just ask the master of foreign armies dying in that country, Rudyard Kipling. The place is still part of the "Great Game"--countries near and far want a piece of the action--energy routes, geopolitical control. So India fights Pakistan (solve this one and the whole region will quiet down!), the Taliban/Pushtuns fight Russia, USA, Iran. The place needs a grand bargain--make it neutral like Switzerland, offer a little something to everyone.
R. Kipling on these "foreign adventures":
And the end of the fight,
Is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased.
And an epitaph dr'er,
"A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East,"
I recall General MacArthur commanding the American Army in Korea a decade before JFK took office.
Korea of course is a peninsula; it is also most certainly "the Asian Mainland."
The General also had a nifty plan to drop A-bombs on more than twenty Chinese cities during the course of the Korean War.
Harry Truman said, "I don't think so."
And eventually recalled (fired) the good General.
So perhaps it's not altogether a bad thing that we don't have General Douglas MacArthur around today.
Obama is an arrogant fool.
There is no case in history where a Guerrilla/Insurgent Force has been defeated, by the invader.
When there are philosophical/religious motivations for resistance there will be a new generation to take up the "banner", and this is already manifest itself by the many references the Muslim world uses in reference to the USA as "crusaders/invaders/infidels".
In Mr. Obama's recent speech, he states that the defeat of the Al Qaeda/Taliban were the motivating factor of his continuance of both wars. In reality, these groups are simply "old ghosts" dug up from the past-----and they seem as effective, even now, as they did in Medieval times. They are just as committed to their philosophy/religion as the USA/NATO-coalition members are there own. Each side is dedicated to shedding as much innocent blood as possible---in their quest for "victory" and that is the one reason why they will fail.
Whatever forces drive the resistance to this latest invasion, "by infidels", they will never be defeated. In fact these people were not defeated by Alexander, or the Romans--- long before there were Christian--- and now Jewish antagonists, in the form of the USA and Israel.
That GW Bush and his supporters were fools, there is little doubt. They repeated every mistake that the previous invaders have, but in their case they were simply able to created more death and destruction in a shorter span of time. What remains to be seen is whether Mr. Obama is one.
As long as these Bronze age deities and their 'descendants' have any dominance in any culture and/or over the minds of human beings---- the same fools will repeat the same mistakes over and again; those fools are now in power on both sides.
Tell that to the Greek guerrillas who fought the Nazis during WWII.
right..that is why Greece is a Nazi enclave today?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Point is, since you pretend not to get it, that the invaders (Nazis) were not defeated by the guerrillas (Greeks).
It took something called WWII (look it up) and the Allied Forces to run the Nazis out of Greece.
Oh and was the insurgency completely quelled before the Allied Forces reached Greece?
Just because the Germans were still there doesn't mean the guerilla insurgency had been defeated.
Are you idiots who voted for him satisfied with having been fooled and lied to? What a fraud Obama is, why is he expanding Bush's Wars?
And why is he protecting Cheney and Bush for their war crimes?
Obama needs to be dragged off to The Hague for war crimes before he causes any more damage, along with his white clones Bush, Cheney and Hillary.
Do you really imagine that John McCain is capable of getting anything right?
McCain or Obama, what's the difference? Tweedledee and Tweedledum, two corporate criminals.
right on. maybe the only difference is that McPalin wouldn't have charmed 30-40 million "progressives" into supporting war crimes and state sponsored acts of depravity like Obiden has.
it's upsetting, but i am now totally comfortable with defending McCain as the lesser of two evils. at least he'd of the kept the momentum alive, kept the coversation going instead sidetracking us into having to chat about why things are the same. totally disgusting.
Simply an excellent analysis by Ray McGovern of how Afghanistan can become Obama's Vietnam. The question that Mr. McGovern poses is most relevant: will Obama listen to advisers who are not hawks? Just as pertinent, will Obama even allow advisers into his inner circle who are not inclined to pursue solutions by military means? Perhaps the only quibble I have with Ray McGovern's essay is that Obama does have someone on his team who had been in Vietnam and that is special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. When he was 22 Holbrooke worked for the U.S. Foreign Service in the Mekong Delta as well as the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Unfortunately Holbrooke, like so many of his predecessors, does not seem to have learned much from the past as he is on record as stating that the war in Afghanistan is one "that we are determined to win." That statement, of course, echoes what was said by the United States during the debacle in Vietnam.
Just as troubling is the fact that no NIE was given to Obama concerning the effects of a "surge" in Afghanistan. Perhaps the thinking is that if no analysis was given to Obama then he could claim that he was not aware of how dire the situation was in Afghanistan. Mr. McGovern's reference to Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly is well taken as Obama seems to be determined to show how wooden-headed and obtuse he can be. Yet Obama kept pushing the claim during the presidential campaign that he was going to be an agent of change. But as this article incisively points out, Obama seems intent upon showing the world that he can be just as militaristic and just as imperialistic as LBJ and George W. Bush.
Bring the troops home-ALL of them-now.
If we are going to use the same book we trained the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN)with, we are going to get the same results.
I can already see the choppers evacuating the US embassy in Kabul.
ray - jfk is killed for wanting out of vietnam
lbj is destroyed by vietnam
lbj quotes:
1. Being president is like being a jackass in a hailstorm. There's nothing to do but to stand there and take it.
2. A President's hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right.
3. I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President
lbj felt that jfk stole the nomination from him in 60
was so freaked out with the offer of the vice pres he actually accepted
passed civil rights to show he was better than jfk
thought he would be the best president ever
after being a jackass in a hailstorm for 4 years declined to stand for re-election
repaired back to texas for his declining years, letting his hair grow long as was the fashion in those times
with that in mind - i am trying to picture obama with an afro........
This is the biggest lie regarding the Vietnam war -- that Kennedy was somehow not in favor of it (the escalating war) and was about bring the "advisors" sent from the Truman and Eishenhower Administrations home. In fact, Kennedy escalated the war in 1962 by launching a massive air attack against the South as well as the criminal use of the defoliant agent orange, all of which led to the continuous expansion and eventual ground invasion in March 1965 by his (Kennedy's) successor Johnson. And the quote regarding Johnson favoring "freedom" for the South Vietnamese people -- the "freedom" to rape, pillage and plunder a poor, peasant population. None of these warrior presidents gave a rat's ass about the Vietnamese people. The same is to be said about Afganistan and Iraq. GW Bush nor Obama care anything about the people who are the inhabitants of these countries but care rather for their own self interests PERIOD! THEY MUST BE STOPPED - THE TIME FOR MASS ORGANIZATION IS NOW!
When Lyndon Baines George Wanker Bush Johnson assumed the presidency, he told himself three things:
1. I will bring prosperity to all Americans.
2. I will give the minorities their rights.
3. I will defeat the communists in Vietnam.
And when I have done this I will go down in history as not just the greatest president of the 20th century (greater than FDR) but the greatest president of all time.
LBGWBJ then promptly ran into the buzz saw of reality and died a deservedly broken man with a nitroglycerine tablet under his tongue. Fuck LBJ and fuck George Wanker Bush. I doubt Obama has learned the lesson because at this very moment he is standing in front of a full length mirror, wearing an MA-1 jacket covered with military insignia patches and holding two ivory handled 45's.
What a future.... Now is everywhere.
I THINK OBAMA KNOWS WHY WE ARE OPPOSED BY THE MAJORITY OF OUR OCCUPIED poor countries.
HE HAS BOUGHT INTO EMPIRE... HE SEES HIS JOB AS SAVING THE SYSTEM WE ARE IN.
But because the financial bad bets of the billionaires will get most of the cash, he misses the chance for revolution and just stalls the worst to come for another day later.
The Hawks are stone faced lined up behind him,
If Peace is not in his plan for the Taliban, Obama will bring us all down with his new war.
add one thought
i was listening to a russian military analyst the other day talk about how the russians won 99% of every battle fought during their occupation of afghanistan
they hardly ever lost
but he laments that the very next day there were new fighters standing in the drying blood of the old
though they tried - they couldn't kill them all
they did succeed however i destroying themselves
An Afghan general on NPR averred: "We've been fighting foreign occupiers for 6000 years. We'll keep on."
Every decent Afghan (and Iraqi, for that matter) has a patriotic duty to kill Americans. As Americans, dedicated to liberty, how could we object to that--a feisty people standing up to illegal invasion and occupation by a distant and brutal empire?
"We will defeat you." Whom will we defeat? How will we know?one old atheist
Godistwaddle
I absolutely agree. So many Americans, liberals as well as conservatives, are so quick to emotionally state that one must support the troops. No, one does NOT have to support the troops since those troops, as you correctly point out, are killing and brutalizing Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis. If Americans had an ounce of empathy or imagination they would realize that they should instead be supporting the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan [and how many other countries the United States decides to illegally and immorally invade and occupy].
Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis-resist the American empire.
Right On!!
Another great piece by Ray McGovern. I sure hope that Obamachange has somebody in his staff reading such analyses.
Since we can no longer accuse the President of being stupid, one might only conclude that he is complicit in advancing american empire. He serves the same masters that Dubya did.
Obama has to serve the same masters as Dubya if he wants to stay alive. The same crime family has ruled American foreign policy for years. They have assassinated many foreign leaders with integrity, that could not be bribed and the President is no different and has to play "ball". JFK is an example of how powerful the crime family that really runs the Government, in the shadows and behind the scenes really is. They deal in drugs, torture, assassinations, bribery, ect. just like any crime family.
Any insight into who runs this "crime family"?
Thanks,
adhoc
We are in complete agreement.
Obama does not want to end up like JFK, so little changes. Mostly the lawn at the White House, as it now sports a new swing set.
Perhaps he had a sense of being railroaded by his advisers.
Obama is railroading himself. He doesn't need any advisers. How different is "We will defeat you" from "Bring 'em on"?