EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Quagmire for Obama
It is almost as if yesterday’s death of Robert McNamara was a warning to President Obama. The defense secretary for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam War passed away at 93, with his legacy forever tarnished by the conflict that claimed 58,000 American soldiers and more than 3 million Vietnamese. McNamara would finally say, in his 1995 memoir “Retrospect’’: “We were wrong. We were terribly wrong.’’
With no small irony, Obama won the White House by running to a noticeable degree against McNamara’s legacy, in the form of President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, an invasion launched on false pretenses, false promises of quick victory, and no strategy for prolonged chaos. On the campaign trail, Obama invoked the great code word of Vietnam, criticizing Republican rival John McCain with, “So far, all he’s done is follow George Bush into the quagmire of Iraq.’’
But questions are emerging as to whether Obama is slipping slowly into his own quagmire, in another guerrilla war. Obama is taking combat troops out of Iraq, but increasing them in Afghanistan, with questions arising as to whether there is a concrete end to our involvement. The 21,000 troops that Obama is adding brings the total of troops in Afghanistan to 68,000. The Washington Post reported last week that one senior military officer believes that a successful counterinsurgency to root out the Taliban will require more than 100,000 soldiers. The Post reported that Marine Brigadier General Lawrence Nicholson said he was “a little light’’ in troop strength in a meeting with national security adviser James Jones.
The official stance of the Obama administration is that it will be stingy with additional troops. Obama told Newsweek in May that “My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn’t work out too well for them. The British tried it; it didn’t work. We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security in the country.’’
At the same time, the Obama administration is awaiting a midsummer assessment from Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen said in another Post story that he told McChrystal “there are no preconditions’’ to the assessment. “In this assessment you come back and ask for what you need.’’
The assessment is getting more complicated as Afghanistan, by most accounts, appears to not be moving as fast as it should to build its own security force. Yet, anti-US resentment is building in Afghanistan after air strikes and firefights in which American forces are killing many innocent civilians. The US military said that in one incident in May, 26 civilians were killed, but local human rights groups and officials said the death toll was much higher, between 86 and 140. A United Nations report found that the killing of 828 civilians by US and Afghan forces last year is not all that far behind the 1,160 civilian deaths attributed to Taliban.
That makes it a very tricky moment. Two-thirds of the civilian deaths caused by the US were from air strikes. Reducing air strikes invariably means a longer-term effort on the ground. McChrystal admitted as much in June when he said: “Traditionally, American forces are designed for conventional, high-intensity combat. In my mind what we’ve really got to do is make a cultural shift.’’
It also means the temptation to call for more troops. In a conflict where definitions of stability, let alone victory, are a fleeting thing, one of the most important moments in this first year of the Obama administration will be to take the hardest look possible at any assessment beyond the 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. A New York Times story last week reported a district council leader in Helmand Province as saying, “People are hostages of the Taliban, but they look at the coalition also as the enemy because they have not seen anything good from them in seven or eight years.’’ That terrible tension is straight out of the legacy of Robert McNamara.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllObama is a cautious fellow.
Some of us may not like that there are still troops in Iraq and they will continue to be there. But symbolic removal of our control over the Iraqis has been a big step. We may still be calling the shots in some respects, but illusion of Iraqi control itself will build their own confidence. We are risking some of troops there to continue the handover of power to the people themselves. If the people themselves decide to screw each other over even after some stability is achieved, that is their problem.
The attempt is still to let the people of Iraq govern themselves, while lending a supporting hand. What would happen if we withdrew all our troops in quickest possible manner? Many with an indepth understanding of the region predict complete anarchy and formation of more hate groups.
Afghanistan is a more volatile place than the Iraq. Its people have formed hate groups and have sent their mercenaries to various parts of the world before the American takeover. Somewhere in the back of their minds, the administration must be addressing that issue as well.
There is no way to ensure the end to the formation of the hate groups. But Obama must finish what was started by a quintessential moron. All he can do is present some semblence of a humanitarian civilization in Afghanistan before he leaves. If a skinny network of like minded people are given some power here, The United States and the coalition can leave. That has to be the only target. And as president Obama will decide when that is achieved.
Love
Zero
Or Obama's successor, Zero.
Or the president after them ... if this country hasn't totally collapsed economically by then.
Zero thought.
I did.
Love
Zero
Zero, I think you have a very limited understanding, based on spin, of what's really going on. Please make my point by answering two questions:
Zero: The attempt is still to let the people of Iraq govern themselves, while lending a supporting hand.
- do you have any idea whatsoever why we are in Iraq? WMD? Why do you think we invaded Iraq?
Zero: Its people have formed hate groups and have sent their mercenaries to various parts of the world before the American takeover.
- do you have any idea whatsoever why we are in Afghanistan? Bin Laden? Why are we still there eight years later?
That is why we call it Obama's Quagmire.
Oregoncharles
How about Obama's Miasma?
A quagmire is an intractable problem. A Miasma is a great big stink!
The US empire foments "terrorism" so that it has excuses to militarily meddle in sovereign countries, killing innocents so that more terrorists are created, hence, further excuses, installing "friendly" governments so that resources are more easily controlled. The bodies of children are blown apart! Why? What's the mission?
It stinks to high heaven.
ZeroPointField July 7th, 2009 9:30 am...."Obama is a cautious fellow."....He was certainly pretty darn bold during the campaign. What happened?
"Some of us may not like that there are still troops in Iraq and they will continue to be there." Under false and deceptive pretenses through lies to the American public. Those lies have been exposed. Get out.
"But symbolic removal of our control over the Iraqis has been a big step"................Exactly..."symbolic"...We know it in our hearts and THEY know it in reality with all the taxpayer multibillion dollar bases infesting their sovereign country.
"If the people themselves decide to screw each other over even after some stability is achieved, that is their problem."....It's their problem after we invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and destroyed their culture and a million or so of their men, women and children?
"What would happen if we withdrew all our troops in quickest possible manner"...........They would be no worse off then when we invaded their country...minus a dictator and free of our virus.
"Many with an indepth understanding of the region predict complete anarchy and formation of more hate groups.".......Predictions are easy....the reality is they do not want us there.
" Afghanistan is a more volatile place than the Iraq. Its people have formed hate groups and have sent their mercenaries to various parts of the world before the American takeover. Somewhere in the back of their minds, the administration must be addressing that issue as well."................What Obama needs to be addressing is what has given us the right to send OUR mercenaries all over the world (soldiers and economic hitmen) to destroy and make subservient countless cultures.
"But Obama must finish what was started by a quintessential moron".............Obama needs to bring to justice the moron and his cabal that got us into this unholy quagmire.Do what he was elected to do or get the hell out and put someone in there that has some gonads.
Thanks for dissecting my peice.
It is the kind of response I expected. Yours is a little reactionary.
Love
Zero
ZeroPointField July 7th, 2009 10:26 am.. ...Whose response is reactionary?...It helps to learn to use the tools of this forum. Thank you...
Love, cynical
To cynical July 7th, 2009 10:01 am:
You had more patience than I did in responding to Zero.
I will add one remark to yours, with all of which I agree.
As you pointed out, Zero wrote: "If the people themselves decide to screw each other over even after some stability is achieved, that is their problem."
But he also wrote, which you cite as well: "What would happen if we withdrew all our troops in quickest possible manner".
I thought it was "their" problem.
Difficult to discuss matters with a person who is so relaxed about contradicting himself or herself.
The two comments you have mentioned are not contradictory.
Love
Zero
So here the world is with the USA as an example in so many areas. Culture, Art, Politics----'war', but mainly, "repetition"---and the worst kind of 'repetition' that of "mistakes"---------
Much of the world, and almost all of the USA are presently in the 'whirl wind' of Michael Jackson's "funeral show". They mourn the 'loss' of a 'mediocre' talent, and what may eventually be revealed as one of the 'sickest human beings' to have ever inhabited the planet; and they make sure that they have a 'souvenir' of the occasion, T-shirt, Album, etc.
The USA currently involved very deeply in 'one more ' illegal war of aggression, and they do so with a 'new promise' in the presidency---that has revealed himself to be just another 'muppet'--though one not as 'colorful' as one Jim Henson would have 'invented'.
The USA spends trillions to 'bring democracy' to a world that in most part does not want it, while the USA cannot adequately care for the Veterans of the last "liberation war", much less the new ones.
Their economy is in an absolute shambles as a result of the repetition of the very same mistakes that brought them the 'crash and fall of 1929' and the all defining 'great depression' of the 1930s.........that is the 'concentration of the wealth into the hands of a relative few---and they have shown themselves to be exellect examples 'mediocre' talent, with little intelligence, originality or skill.
The two main problems that reveal themselves are simply;
The acceptance of the elevation of 'mediocrity' to the highest levels possible, and the almost fanatical repetition of mistakes. And it seems that the bigger and bloodier and destructive the mistake---the more willing they are to repeat it
There is not enough space available to list all of the short falls and inadequacies the USA has exhibited from their beginning. Not enough space to list all of the damage that the USA has inflicted on the world and not enough space to list the names of the thousands of 'innocents' who have died or been maimed and crippled by the 'repetition the USA is now well known for'. Not even to mention the environmental damage--just one example is 'agent orange' that still causes ecological and environmental damage---more than 40 years after the USA used it on North and South Vietnam---as well as their own. Now they use 'depleted uranium' that they know adversely effected their own in the first "Gulf War"---in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan (where else may never be known).
So here may be the final words the USA will leave for the world.
Unless some drastic changes are initiated---very very soon---the USA will be remembered by history as a negative example; and the most wasteful and horrible the world has ever known.
Good Luck America you really need it.
What do we call people who systematically do not learn from prior experience? Isn't that a type of madness?
The amazing thing is that our hard sciences pride themselves on the effectiveness of the experimental method, and that presumably means, among other things, learning from prior experiments and, thereby, experience (since an experiment involves experience).
It would seem, then, that our Savior Obama, when framing his foreign policy, or, more accurately, his military policies, has not learned anything either from the effectiveness of the hard sciences.
Does such twofold overlooking qualify as double madness?
Well, your first four paragraphs were essentially right. My Congratulations!!!!
NativeSon;very well put.Tony
would love to dissect your comments, zero, but that strays from the target.
so let's start with barackstar: “My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn’t work out too well for them. The British tried it; it didn’t work. We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security in the country." the problem with this guy is that he wants to go down in history as having the gift of gab. he believes that by having the ability to not only speak well - regardless of whether he's speaking a straight line or going in circles, as here - but to see his spoken words translated to print and appear well translates into being an effective leader.
the fact is that his lack of leadership skills have surfaced far quicker than the previous "quintessential moron" -that may be one of the few things i agree with you here, zero - did, principally because the previous quintessential moron had the angel of death, seated in the vice presidential chair, in actual leadership control. in the current case, our vp is just another israeli lackey, as is evidenced by his most recent public pledge of allegiance.
barackstar, what effort are you putting in, right now, as the destabilization in your own country continues to gain momentum? it would be a shame if you weren't or aren't paying attention to this simple fact. and it would be a great pleasure to watch this simple fact gain your undivided attention, much like the previous quintessential moron's shock and awe and bring 'em on campaigns inflicted undivided attention on the countless innocents in iraq.
you are, without any doubt, the greatest disappointment this country has known in it's history of elected gifted ones. history will mark this point.
"...The Soviets tried that; it didn’t work out too well for them. The British tried it; it didn’t work. We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security in the country.’’
-so, he sees the parallel, but it's still full speed ahead just like the last moron
"you are, without any doubt, the greatest disappointment this country has known in it's history of elected gifted ones. history will mark this point."
-not for all of us. Many of us saw through him, however you have a point. Many progressives did believe in him and must be disappointed at this point. So I hear.
I had to re-read this comment by the author several times:
"But questions are emerging as to whether Obama is slipping slowly into his own quagmire, in another guerrilla war."
Is there any doubt that this is true - - except that it is not so slow. I don't get it. Am I missing something. Isn't it obvious. I guess one just changes the words and it comes out better - - quagmire become commitment, escalation becomes surge, slaughter becomes defense, subjugation becomes liberation - - I suppose Orwell had it right. And propaganda works. Mind control through "news" media are effective. Obama is wildly popular, the Democrats are in the ascendancy. I suppose people want to believe that the present situation is not horrible, that Obama is not wrong, terribly wrong.
"slowlY?
OBAMA JUMPED HEAD FIRST into it in his first 2 months.....!
his afghan-pak war has - in less time than it took george bush - caused thousands of dead already , unreported by pentagon of course - and at least a million refugees.
and that's just for STARTERS.
Traditionally, American forces are designed for conventional, high-intensity combat. In my mind what we’ve really got to do is make a cultural shift.’’
LOL (Version 2.0). The United States military, or more accurately, its Sugar Daddy, the MIC, is not interested in a "cultural shift" because there's no money in it. The way to Victory in Afghanistan is to build a new multi-trillion dollar fighter jet with a high definition HUD and a built-in CD player. A few more carrier battle groups are also necessary. Then you will see light at the end of the tunnel. What Obimbo should do is find an actual medium who can reach Robert McNamara at The Gates of Hell and listen to the late and totally unlamented Defense Secretary talk about how he got there.
The Democratic Zero mindset is beautifully illustrated by Zero. These so called liberals were against Bush and the war back in the days of Democratic hand wringing over the fact they were powerless to stop the war in spite of having enough Senators to filibuster.
Next, they implored us to vote for the Democrats in 2006 so they could take over the Congress and end the wars. After that didn't happen, they continued to oppose the wars and claimed if we just elected Obama he would end the war. They would often cite his ancient 2002 anti-war speech as evidence he was the anti-war candidate. Obama supporters would then attack Hillary for her vote to invade Iraq.
Now that the Democrats control both houses and the White House their arguments have come crashing down like a house of cards. They are now left with having to support Obama's War and attempt to spin the pullback of troops from cities into bases as a great accomplishment. They claim the war in Afghanistan is about protecting the people from the Taliban.
Zeroes are like frogs. They remained in the Democratic water so long their brains are now cooked. They now have to support what they purported to oppose. They beautifully illustrate the advanced decay of Amerrikan liberalism typified by The Nation and their ilk who have largely dropped opposition to the war from their pages.
Thanks, Tailcap.
You conclusions from the upside down black hat are quite amazing.
My comments are only about an approach taken to solve a massive problem that we already find ourselves in. You can take your jet ski and run while titanic slowly sinks. But the captain has to consider weight of the world in his shoulders. We have created this situation, and we have many wounds to heal before jumping ship.
I am amazed at the thoughtlessness of the respones on this page today.
Love
Zero
You are welcome my friend. I asked you two questions and you didn't respond. Please answer this for me:
- do you have any idea whatsoever why we are in Iraq? WMD? Why do you think we invaded Iraq?
- do you have any idea whatsoever why we are in Afghanistan? Bin Laden? Why are we still there eight years later?
Zero plays a zero thought game.
Sorry Zero, but your superficial conclusions appear to echo those of an arrogant, orientalist British imperial administrator of 100 years ago (eg., Lord Cromer). The Empire has a responsibility to these poor savages right? It is for their own good right? The wealthy white elite have a duty to sacrifice the lives of our young people and the lives of innocent civilians in order to bring Western Civilisation to these poor savages right? The shallow captain of the ship metaphor you provide must have a bad case of the White Mans Burden. Read any Kipling lately?
So much for the surface, as Ric asks what are the real reasons for our occupation?
By the way, are you willing to die for the Empire?
As a leftist/radical and member of the Green Party I couldn't agree with you more on your post above those spineless and lying Democrats and their equally lame-ass supporters.
The Democrats have blood on their hands now just like Bush and Cheney did in their eight years.
The Obama administration led by the Democratic House and Senate voted to continue to fund the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the Obama administration's Chief of Staff threatened freshman congressmen and women that there would be no funding for them if they voted no against that war funding.
Democrats and their suck-ups who continue to support Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton's war-mongering can no longer be seen as antiwar but every bit as prowar as Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Gonazles, Hadley, etc. were.
-- What would happen if we withdrew all our troops in quickest possible manner? --
I thought this about Vietnam, but hey, I was ten years old.
-- Afghanistan is a more volatile place than the Iraq. Its people have formed hate groups... --
Interesting assumptions. Wrong, but hey, you think like a ten year old.
What makes us think that we will be more successful in Afghanistan than the Old Soviet Empire was? Of course, we were the ones who supplied the muhadeen all the weaponry to defeat the Soviets. One of the biggest mistakes the Soviet's did was kill the civilian population, what are we doing? Killing civilians right along side of the Taliban. Who are the people going to turn to to "protect them"? Yep, you guessed it....the Taliban.
People there are no different that here...they will go for the quick and easy answer to defend their lives and families, they will vote against their own self-Interests. Maybe, since they are so like us Americans we should offer them citizenship and make Afghanistan the 52 State?
Obama and his gang ought to be impeached for continuing war crimes and assaults on the U.S. Constitution!!!!!! Obama has continued with the Bush Doctine of pre-emptive war and secret detentions, and not repudiating the Patriot Act!!!! Obama like Bush is a law breaker of U.S. Law and International Law. Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Leon Panetta are all War Criminals and many more in that administration are too, as well.
Not to mention the constant war crime of threatening other nations with military force if they do not do X, Y or Z. Yes, those are commonly known as Hitler Laws in which a nation threatens another with the use of military force and death. Obama is GUILTY as Charged on this one as his minions like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden continually threaten Iran and so too has Obama done it as well. These are war criminal actions by Obama and his administration. Thus, yes, Obama ought to be impeached for violating international treaties enshrined-ratified into the U.S. Constitution, let alone his continued practice of torture, and secret detentions around the globe.
OBAMA is a BIG FAILURE & SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AS A WAR CRIMINAL JUST LIKE BUSH-CHENEY AND THAT CRIMINAL SYNDICATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF OBAMA is Not a BIG FAILURE, then he is an excellent puppet or imposter or empty suit, or just one GGGRRRRRREEEEAAAAATTTTTT STOOGE!!! Perhaps Barack "Fraud" Obama is the correct term to describe his lies.
Yes, Obama has shown himself to be totally incompetent and Bush-lite, because he now plays the role of stooge for the fools and morons in America!
The premier of Afghanistan is Karzai,,,Karzai went to school in this country. He spent a week in the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, getting
programed about the oil pipe line and he became a member of
the Bush Family corporation called, "The Carlyle Group".
Obama has taken up the Bush Cartel's business in that country, and we are paying the price for that new game in town.
Old boss just like new Boss.
All this from the Candidate who was against the Iraq War in order to win the election,just like the Single Payer Health system.
Time for us to abandon "Move-on" and adopt "Move-out" of the Democratic party and sit out the next election, and watch the DLC and the others lose to the Republicans again.
They can no longer take us for granted, the internet will help
us destroy the enemy.
Wow
What a lot of hate.
Who needs the Taliban in Afghanistan, we have our own suicide bombers here.
Until next time, when we are more apt to discuss issues.
And on it goes.........
Love
Zero
ZeroPointField July 8th, 2009 12:34 am......We discussed issues...BUT, you chose to ignore the facts.....
Love, cynical
Dear Lord Zero,
It would be a splendid idea if you went to Afghanistan and the NWFP; you could teach these poor savages the merits and ways of Western Civilization and the glory of the Empire. Of course, if we have to kill the wretched buggers in the process, so be it. It is for their own good and they will thank us for it one day. Please inform me upon your arrival in Kabul.
Yours Sincerely,
Sir Mortimer Durand
Yes, it's definitely another quagmire that belongs to Obama this time.
Regarding comments about Bush versus Obama:
Bush was incompetent and disingenuous 7/24. Obama's not incompetent but there hasn't been a word coined yet that pins down what or who he is. The word that comes closest is "fraud" but he's more than just that. For me, once an avid supporter, Obama's been a kick in the stomach.
We have three and a half years before the next presidential election. With what this guy has done--and shamelessly not done--in his first six months, leads me to suggest we cut our losses now and work toward a truly liberal Democratic challenger. He/she needs to be as brash and forthright as the Republicans are bigoted and obstructionist.
Feingold, anyone?
Obama became a war criminal the day after he was sworn in as president because he failed to stop the war crimes that are occurring under US authority.
But I guess it is off the table.
so it goes.
It's stunning to recall that, just a few months ago, progressives were telling us Obama was the answer to everything.
Obama was going to save us from the evil DLC and the wicked corporate Democrats--remember?
I know self-criticism hurts, but we need to face the fact that Obama was the progressives' guy. The catastrophe of the Obama Adminstration is very much a catastrophe of the left. They had their first shot at the big-time in decades...and they f!cked it up completely.
Perry,
Obama was never the "progressives' guy". He was the lesser of evils they were compelled to back in order to keep the Republicans out of the presidency. If you remember, the progressives backed Nader, Kucinich and Edwards.
Only the right-wing kool-aid drinkers and the gullible uninformed Fox gawkers believe Obama is a leftist, liberal, or most ridiculous of all, a socialist. These are the same folks who buy into the Right's myth of "liberal media".
He is none of the above. Only a good corporatist company man gets into the White House.
If the Democratic Party was liberal instead of moderate/right corporatist, maybe we'd see real change, but liberalism has been long extinct in the US government. Obama's embrace of state secrecy, protecting Cheney's secret testimony, support of Bush's FISA Amendment, censorship of evidence of detainee abuse, and the entire "looking forward" charade is a clear record of the continuation of executive abuse of power.
Even if progressives are elected (both of them) the US Government remains primarily an institutionalized right wing engine of empire and an agent of Big Money.
And if Obama is a liberal, then Nixon was a hippie.