Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Silence on Afghanistan: If Only It Were a Joke
It's April Fool's Day week and my inbox is full.
My favorite prank posting so far comes from the London- based Guardian newspaper which announced (via Twitter): "The Guardian scraps print version for all-Twitter format"
The newly Twittered 140-character-only archive was said to include the following articles: "OMG Hitler invades Poland, allies declare war see [link]," and "JFK assassin8d@Dallas, def. heard second gunshot... WTF?"
What I wish was a joke was some of the rest of what's been coming in...
Like all the mail from supposedly anti-war groups who worked hard to elect Barack Obama on an anti-Iraq war platform, but now, when it comes to escalation in Afghanistan, are lining up in support.
After the president announced the deployment of 4,000 more troops (on top of the extra 17,000 he's already sent) Jon Soltz, an anti-Iraq war organizer with VoteVets wrote in the Huffington Post: "With today's announcement President Obama has shown that he 'gets it.' That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan." They even have a rah-rah petition going.
Americans United for Change ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of anti-Iraq war ads in 2007. But they refused to answer a Washington Post blogger's question about Afghanistan. Anti-war organizers - and plenty of generals agreed -- there was no military solution possible in Iraq. But many of those who got their head round that idea then, seem to believe the opposite is true in Afghanistan, even though Obama's own advisers say the struggle there can't be won on the battlefield.
On the website of the liberal Center for America Progress there are no fewer than five articles supporting the president's policy, including one headlined "Seven Reasons Why We need to Engage in Afghanistan."
On the Afghanistan deployment, as the Center for Media and Democracy's John Stauber has pointed out, MoveOn has thus far been silent on Afghanistan.
When MoveOn's members were recently polled on their priorities for 2009, the subject didn't apparently make the cut.
I wish I could say APRIL FOOLS. But sadly no. Looking at the history of Afghanistan, I'd have to say, the joke, such as it is, is on us.
- Posted in
46 Comments so far
Show AllO'bama where art thou?
Leading the charge to Afghanistan and beyond - Pakistan, Iran, Korea.
The big letdown.
Too hard to face the fact that they've been snookered.
The choice allowed was: Obama or worse-than-Obama.
oh was it now? lesser of two-evils you say? HA!
at least McPalin wouldn't have seduced millions of anti-war posers into subordination, at least they would have kept the fire going, the punches rolling and the dialogue open, rather than destroying ALL MOMENTUM. and maybe, just maybe, McPalin wouldn't have found the support to up the surge, either from legislators, foreign allies, or heaven forbid.......Activists: the very people who are now quite content.
things have changed........Obomber has increased spending (yes, it's true) and he's increased troops....add on the fact that NO ONE cares....certainly not liberals or those Neo-Cons who also wish to believe he's some peace loving hippy......add that on and in fact this WAR PIG IS WORSE!
the choice allowed was:
I suggest alot of the momentum was destroyed by anti-terrorist laws. Long jail terms tend to dampen political dissent.
There is enough information available to create dissent, but Obama's eloquence and relative intelligence is seducing people.
Also people are still excusing abuses due to the short time in office (even though many policies are increasing the abuses).
I find it disheartening that some people defend him by saying the USA is only in three or four wars and with McPalin they would be in five or six.
Maybe a universal Thorazine plan would help.
Glen ,I think a large percentage of people are already on antidepressants,at least the ones with health care.The rest drink, smoke, medicate themselves with alcohol cafeine,sugar,smoke dope,use other drugs.And then there are the "opiates" like television,and religion. I think Thorazine is a little extreme ,no one would even have the energy to type a blog comment in protest.We need to put our bodies on the line,make real personal commitments to change.That takes passion. peas in
Most things that people do for leisure or entertainment are "opiates". Whether religion, television, sports, music, books, plays. There is nothing wrong with "opiates".
Better than psychiatric drugs,exercise body and mind!Ooops forgot sex!I wonder how much pipelines,and Opium affect the decision to occupy Afghanistan.And how to deal with Pakistan,the Taliban and al-Queida the problems are so many no one wants to talk about it. peas in
and, frankly, the dems would have held the congress had mcpalin won. this means that mcpalin's agenda would have been very, very limited. or, we could have hoped limited, assuming that the dems only fight for what is right when they are not controlling the white house.
the war is a big fat retrograde LIE, and ALL decent people know that. the united states has psy-opped itself into worshipping bullying to this whack extent. poor barack was born too late to know we outgrew this shit.
Maybe if Obama makes friends with the Russians, he can use them as advisers in Afghanistan.
We gotta be fighting somewhere so that we can keep the u.s. weapons suppliers busy. What better place than Afghanistan, a guaranteed quagmire.
This sure is change we can believe in. A change in rhetoric.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/politics/02web-baker.html
"Like all the mail from supposedly anti-war groups who worked hard to elect Barack Obama on an anti-Iraq war platform, but now, when it comes to escalation in Afghanistan, are lining up in support."
Obama never claimed to be anti-war. He was the very first politician I recall recommending invasion of and attacks inside of Pakistan. This was while he was still on the campaign trail. He has always also said that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan. How can anyone claim he was anti-war? And he is not ending the Iraq occupation. He is just the opposite. He is as much a warmonger as George Bush.
EKATON:
You say, "Obama never claimed to be anti-war."
And, "How can anyone claim he was anti-war?"
I am unable to find anything in the article,
or in the sentence you quoted from it,
where the author claims that Obama was
anti-war, or makes reference to a claim
by Obama himself that he was anti-war.
So, what exactly are you talking about?
"Like all the mail from supposedly anti-war groups who worked hard to elect Barack Obama on an anti-Iraq war platform, but now, when it comes to escalation in Afghanistan, are lining up in support."
"The summer activist and the sunshine dissenter will, in this crisis, shrink from the protest of his country's wrongdoing; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
The mush-and-milk organizations named, including the Democratic Party auxiliary MoveOn, were never radically opposed to war, exceptionalism, and imperialism.
They were just fussing until a more pleasant-seeming warmonger took charge.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Listen to my radio show with Ray McGovern:
Obama's Vietnam
http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/LISTEN.html
Some of us are not silent, nor will we ever be!
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Black Sabbath
Afghanistan was the "good war" remember? before George Bush distracted us in Iraq and bankrupted the nation, destroyed the US image worldwide and created more fundamentalist hatred than ever. Obama is just trying to get the US Empire back on the road to benevolent murdering and maiming, for a more noble cause.
And as far as Iraq? the non-combat combatants will remain to continue their vigilance to make sure peace doesn't break out.
There was some speculation that he had to do a war strut to win, to frame Iraq as less legitimate than the honorable pursuit of Al Queda. Some hoped he would back off after he won. Instead he stepped back from his hope of change (other than a change from Bush)slogan to embrace business as usual.
It is sure to be his ultimate undoing because things will only get worse and only so long can a slick banter of honorable sounding bullshit fool people when the evidence isn't in their lives. He seems to believe that optimism is the cure all. It doesn't take a genuis to see what a swindle it all is.
This is what happens when the ruling elite are allowed to create a "good war"! Afghanistan is our "good war". It was the Soviet Union's "good war" too. Bad as it was, the Soviet allied authoritarian regime in Afghanistan built roads, schools and hospitals. It put teachers into remote areas, only to have Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters" attack them, burn them alive, rape them and throw acid in their faces for having the temerity to educate girls. So, sure the Russians had their "good war" too.
There is no coherent progressive position on Afghanistan or Iraq and now Pakistan and Iran - except get out as quickly and completely as possible. This, the empire has no intention of doing. Whoever and whatever Barack Obama really is and no matter what he said, he sold himself to the empire a long time ago. Yeah, I voted for him. It was that or Mad Dog and Miss Perky, two of the most adle-brained, unqualified ding-dongs in our sorry history.
It's an ugly thing to say, but I think it must be said. Obama is looking more and more like an imperial lawn jockey on the White House front yard.
I think it's possible to critique Obama's actions without using horrible racist metaphors. Please. We must be above that.
"'al Qaeda,' he lied," would be a redundant statement.
Any discussion of strategy in the Middle East that doesn't discuss Persian Gulf oil or pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea is simply propaganda.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-questions-for-obama-via-bill-moyers.html
Doesn't history work in wondrous ways? For all of us who have hungered and thirsted after peace and justice, shouldn't it have been obvious that the election of (an even somewhat) progressive Administration would be a positive step in the direction of the fulfillment of the desires of our hearts? And yet, the forces for change in the direction we seek, both in peace in the world and economic justice at home, seem actually to be immobilized by the Congress and the President whom we really did elect---and more to the point by a change-hungry populace who duly line up behind escalations in Afghanistan and Wall Street bailouts at home. Had we (shudder!) elected the Mad Dog or Miss Perky mentioned by jareilly, the anti-war demonstrations as well as those planned against the bailouts next week would no doubt have attracted immensely more popular support because these were, after all, "Bush's war" and "Bush's bailouts." When Obama's name is inserted, the demonstrations against exactly the same travesties sudden fall silent. If people believed as they say that the real forces behind change are in social movements rather than electoral victories, the "lesser" evil argument for electoral choices loses all sense or reason. It almost reaches the point of irony that the "best choice" between competing parties for control of the legislative and executive branches is the choice of the "greater evil" since, as the intense opposition to Bush policies illustrated, that evil brings out the "greater energy" in the social movement.
So Laura Flanders, clearly Afganistan is no "joke," but the whole irony of human stiving for unattainable goods is demonstrated, as I think Will Shakespeare said, in just such episodes in which the gods laugh "for their sport" at our childish strivings.
Thanks for pointing out the weaknesses and inconsistencies in these supposedly progressive groups and think tanks. Until they get fixed, the Democrats will feel free to keep selling out. I'll bet these same groups will be totally sorry when the US loses very badly to Afghanistan by the end of Barry's first term or at latest into his 2nd term provided he can win by 2012.
It will be a war of attrition... which will slowly bleed America dry over decades...
This fits nicely into the pipeline pipedreams, since it will justify our troops continued presence in the region, and cover for the military and intelligence contractors running the opium and heroin, and be another forward operating base in our containment strategy for China and Russia & Iran... Barak will give us 8 years of Clinton, who can kill as many iraqi children with his neo-liberal trade sanctions and embargos and weekly bombing campaigns as the Bushes with their invasions, and be loved by the liberals for being better than Bush...
Yet Clinton signed some good legislation and balanced the budget, so it will be interesting to see what chump change occurs under Obama...
the anti-war movement was all about hurting Bush. That is all. And it hurt our troops but that was OK as long as it hurt Bush. We could invade Pakistan and the left would rah rah rah all day. When we leave that 50,000 or so "non-combat" troops in Iraq they will be sitting ducks, and then what? We elected Obama, we got what we asked for.
No offense intended, chinesedemocracy, but you might want to consider changing your nym to "chinesefiredrill".
· Yr Obd't Servant
you let me know when the troop are home. Remember that slogan "troops out now?" Why did that slogan disappear on Nov 4th, 2008?
The anti war movement was (and is) all about ending war.
I fail to understand how our troops were hurt by a movement intended to bring them home? Care to explain?
We could invade Pakistan and the left would go ballistic, at least on this planet. Perhaps things are different on your home world?
Whether or not 50,000 heavily armed combat troops, err peacekeepers, will be sitting ducks, or rather would be any more or any less so than those who came before is a question without an answer, yet.
I wonder if you are trying to be cryptic or just have a strange sense of humor, at least the word 'sense' is in there.....you are simply not making any.
was and is?!?!? so where is it now? you show me? MoveOn says the war is OVER, and has no comment on Afghanistan at this time. What happened to the front page news coverage "die-ins." Don't see them anymore? What happened to Code Pink and Mother Sheehan? I don't see or hear them anymore. They all were used as pawns for the Democrat Party to get back in power. The anti-war movement is DOA.
The language used against the wars by the so called anti-war movement under the last administration were and are very degrading and inflammatory. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations and military recruiters. How is that good for the troops?
Maybe you would go ballistic if we invaded Pakistan but your Democratic pals would call you a kook.
If you really believe the whole of the anti-war movement circa 2002-2008 weren't all Bush bashing then tell me where is the movement now? And if they were really anti-war, why all the racist Jewish and anti-Israel stuff in those "peace" parades.
This effort makes as little sense as did your last. You failed to address the dichotomies I pointed out in your rant and, instead, added more rant and less coherency. This makes a conversation very difficult.
I have read both Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan on this very site quite recently, but I guess you missed them both. How these two were pawns when they opposed both the direction and the leadership of the democratic party is anyones guess
The "language" against the wars" doesnt meet with your approval I see, well, who gives a shit, frankly. I am unaware of any "attacks" whatsoever on recruiters or their offices. I am aware of efforts to stop those recruiters from contacting high school age children without parental consent though. Is that what you meant? How is that harmful to the troops?
I am unaware that the democrats are friends of the antiwar movement, perhaps you know something about that but I suspect that you are rather lacking in knowledge at all, at least about politics. The "racism and anti Israel" positions you babble about omits the fact that questioning both Israeli policies and actions against the people of Palestine as well as the ties between Israel and the USA is a legitimate argument as both lead to the instability of the entire Middle East.
Look, chinesedemocracy, this is certainly a place where views can be exchanged and differences debated, but you owe a certain logic and a better familiarity with your subject if you expect any further discourse.
or...you need to open your ears and eyes. You do know we just sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan. or is that babbling?
WTF does that have to do with the antiwar movement? Excepting of course to note its ineffectiveness so far.....
Bingo, good buddy! what kind of crowds and support you gonna get now, now that Barack Obama is our President? I am guessing.....not very much. That is my whole point. What happened to the anti-war movement after about Sept of 2008?
What happened to the anti-war movement after about Sept of 2008?
The same thing that happened to it in 2003 after millions marched around the world in protest of the coming invasion of Iraq. The same thing that has always happened to that movement. The left has always been fragmented and polarized, and what we see are many small groups working to overcome both ennui and the false sense that Obama is the savior. Their work will be helped greatly by the economic debacle and the increasingly third world status of this nation.
Because we see no mass demonstrations ( until recently over the G20 summit) you posit an absence of effort. What the reality is escapes your narrow and agendized opinion. I for one reject your cynicism and pessimism and think your political views an obstacle. This is a revolution in progress, it moves slowly but inexorably and does so apparently without your help.
The anti war movement was and still is abut ending war as a way to solve conflicts. MoveOn was never part of that movement. MoverOn is simply a Democratic party front group. It is true that we elected Obama and we got what we deserved. We could have elected McCain and gotten the same thing. We need to stop voting for the lesser evil and vote our consciences. We also need an authentic anti war movement without pretenders like MoveOn and with groups like Code Pink and Answer who talk about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and all wars. Then maybe we can get what we want, need, and deserve.
Obama promised us an Afghani war during his campaign. We were only fooled a little. The questions is, whether it was a gross betrayal or whether he is simply keeping an ill advised campaign promise, what are we going to do about it?
Rep. Jim McDermott believes Obama is under pressure from the GOP who are calling him soft on terrorism and is being seduced by a trigger happy military. I think it's our job to neutralize these forces.
What are we going to do to make our voices more powerful than the power brokers who goad him and surround him?
What are we going to do to make him understand that the nation does not support this war and will not tolerate it?
How do we make very clear to him that we didn't grit our teeth through 2 stolen elections and eight years of h---, struggle to elect a new president only to have him continue the same misguided, violent policies of an illegitimate administration?
Forces more powerful than a mere US president are working to see the Afghan War amped. Their leaders met a couple of days ago, Kristol, Kagan & the FPI w/ McInsane the Keynote speaker holding onto the podium and frothing at the mouth as he advocated for More War, not just AfPak & Iran either.
The FPI's a reincarnation of the scum that brought us the Iraq War. Their power in the media, Congress and as Lobbyists is immense. They brought us Iraq.
Obama IS wrong. But with the neoconincarnates pushing to amp AfPak, it is a done deal.
Get out of the way Obama.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are the seeds of the next world war, the middle east versus the rest of the world. Obama and gang are trying to contain it. If Islamists take control of enough nations, world war will happen, but this time it'll happen with nukes.
I fear that the actions and policies of this and previous administrations towards the aims of a minority of religious extremists in that region actually exacerbates rather than contains such extremism.
Of the nations you cite only Pakistan has nukes, Iran claims, and Russia verifies, that only electrical generation is the goal of that countries nuclear program. In any case, military presence in Muslim nations cannot hope to win friends and influence people. What it has done is to make stronger the claims, and the popularity, of the very terrorists and extremists we seek to defeat.
MoveOn and Center for American Progress are not anti-war, they are partisan. If Obama tells them that war is peace, that's good enough for them.
The corporate-funded Democrats voted for both wars and have consistently voted to send hundreds of billions more in funding. Obama's vaunted Iraq plan is the same as George Bush's plan - how 'bout that?
The Green Party is the only political party that opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan from before they started.
To my friends who oppose war in all its forms: get active with the Green Party and start opposing the bipartisan war machine.
Green means nonviolence, social justice, grassroots democracy, and sustainability.
COME HOME AMERICA Get out of the empire business. COME HOME AMERICA and tend to us... get jobs for Americans, and not military jobs.
WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN???????????????
COME HOME AMERICA...Let's get all our people home by the 4th of July.