Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Cloud of War
President Obama's speech to Congress last week concluded on a moving and uplifting note, an evocation of the late Senator Kennedy’s appeal to the nation’s character and moral purpose as the ground of change. All at once, with his forceful display of leadership, the president had made the transformation of American society, beginning with health care reform, seem possible. But, like a dark storm cloud edging in from the horizon, memory intruded on the high-minded moment.
“Because it is right, because it is wise, and because for the first time in our history it is possible to conquer poverty,’’ another president told the same audience, “I submit for the consideration of Congress and the country the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.’’ Lyndon Johnson’s proposals for the Great Society represented the last time that a president held out such promise as the nation saw in Obama last week. Indeed, today’s health care reform takes as its starting point LBJ’s success in establishing Medicare and Medicaid. Obama is often compared to John F. Kennedy, but Johnson may be the more apt analogy - if not yet because of shared legislative accomplishments (in winning appropriations for Head Start, Vista, Model Cities, and the Job Corps, Johnson erected actual pillars of the Great Society), then because Obama’s opportunity for historic social transformation is also about to be squandered by a misbegotten war.
Or rather, two wars. The elephants in the congressional chamber last week were not the scowling Republicans, but Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which was mentioned. In both places, American wars are quite clearly spinning toward catastrophe. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, after rigged elections, is an illegitimate ruler, and American collusion with him corrupts whatever good intentions we had. The Taliban is more powerful than ever, responding to Kabul’s corruptions and US escalations as if they are insurgency growth hormones. All that American commanders can think to do with their failed strategies is redouble them.
In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is headed toward his own dubious election, coming in January, as his Shiite coalition crumbles, Sunnis openly sympathize with insurgents, and Kurdish alienation adds to the decentralized chaos. Meanwhile, Iraqi security forces are overwhelmed by renewed violence, and the US determination to keep the three blocs together in one nation is overseen by Vice President Joe Biden, who spent the two years of his presidential campaign passionately denouncing the idea. US commanders have no clue how to extricate their forces from this mess.
Colin Powell famously echoed Tom Friedman’s Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you own it. But Powell was wrong. We broke Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they own us. The main effect of our intervention in both places is that endemic conflicts (which predate our presence) are now being fought with unimaginably more lethal firepower. Especially dangerous is the Taliban’s transformation by its war with America from a crackpot cult with local reach into a mythic resistance force drawing ever wider support.
The scale of President Obama’s military mistake is becoming clear exactly as the moment of his greatest opportunity to improve American life has arrived. The tragedy, as with Lyndon Johnson, will be the destruction of his proposed social transformation by his simultaneous opting for war, as his core supporters among liberals and Democrats feel bound to oppose him. The day after Obama’s unifying speech on health reform, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, sent a foreboding warning on Afghanistan, ahead of an all but certain request from the Pentagon for a major escalation there. The storm cloud approaches.
In citing Ted Kennedy last week, the president said that health reform is “above all a moral issue’’ involving “fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.’’ But that exactly defines what is at stake in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops being uselessly killed is a moral issue. That internecine violence among sects and factions a world away grows worse because of us is a moral issue. Obama has continued the Pottery Barn carelessness of his predecessors. For the sake of social justice, American character, and the hope of his own presidency, the time has come to stop it.


27 Comments so far
Show AllIt's sad for someone like me, a Vietnam-era veteran (who did not see combat) to watch the country go down the same path. I was being drafted while LBJ was escalating the war. It was always "just a few thousand more troops and we can do a mopping up, finish this thing off, and bring our boys home."
Al Qaida-style terrorism has been recast in the role once held by the "international communist conspiracy" -- except that's seemingly alive and well here at home, trying to gain control of us through taking over our health care, if you believe the point of view the near-lynchmob shoutout conservatives are expressing.
Osama bin Laden hasn't been seen in years, Al Qaida is now a freelance brand name and we keep thinking some more troops will make the difference. It'll make a difference, all right, but not one that causes things to get better.
Great article....
Terrorism and war have become our obsession as an economy and goals.
On this course we are doomed.
Kill care vs Health care. We may have enough money for one or the other.
James Carroll closes in saying, "Obama has continued the Pottery Barn carelessness of his predecessors. For the sake of social justice, American character, and the hope of his own presidency, the time has come to stop it".
The first of those two sentences is true, while for the second? Who's going "to stop it"? Certainly not the Obama administration, Congress and/or the Senate, so who else might be able to stop it? The People? Good luck.
Also, wherein he says Iraq and Afghanistan own us, this should be explained, for on the face of such words, he's awfully mistaken. U.S. corporations "own" and control, rule the U.S. government and these wars are for them; Big Oil (and Gas) and MIC, Wall Street, bankers, financiers, .... This, the major profits from international drug trafficking, and geostrategic power are what these wars are about.
I guess the current bad guys are Osama Bin Forgotten; The Toilet ( english for Al Qaida ); and The Taliban whose country we illegally occupy for the hegemony of the American Empire.
Sioux Rose
Mr. Carroll says, " All that American commanders can think to do with the failed strategies is redouble them."
Does this not bring to mind the arrogant male driver who cannot admit he's lost so drives on further and faster towards the destination of the damned? Also known as MARS RULES, and/or "The definition of insanity." What doesn't work, gee, let's invest in more! No matter that 18,000 US citizens die a year from preventable illnesses; but why spend money on that when defense means killing innocent persons who happen to reside where a resource critical to the captains of US industry also happens to exist. With priorities like these, the nation does not require mental institutions. It has become one!
"With priorities like these, the nation does not require mental institutions. It has become one "! Unfortunate, but so true! I wonder if this is the way the sane people felt in Nazi Germany in the 1930's! " All the American commanders can think to do with the failed strategies is redouble them ". The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
Sioux Rose
PAUL REVERE: I guess if they do a remake of the grand film, "King of Hearts" it will need to be shot in our very own homeland security state...
We've chosen to rename our next antiwar rally "Healthcare Not Warfare" to link the 2 administration policies.
Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org
Right on! And see if you can find those bumper stickers, "War is Terrorism With A Bigger Budget".
Ted Kennedy made a cogent statement. We are an amoral society. I know he thought that we were moral, but we are not.
A moral society would be opposed to killing, all the time and not just pre-nataly.
First let me belatedly beg my fellow citizens to read Jim Carrolls book House Of War. This is just the kind of comprehensive look at the development of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex that we have been too short of with all the emphasis on cultural history over the last twenty years. Its time for a return to the political, and Carrolls book packs of lot of comprehension in one book.
Secondly it is worth noting the obvious but unmentioned difference btw. Obama and LBJ. The latter was still working within the framework of the New Deal Coalition, while the latter became president 28 years after its death. This in itself answers the question of how hard Obama is willing to fight for his domestic "reforms".
I too recommended the reading of James Carroll's House of War. Furthermore, if you are not familiar with James Carroll also Watch the movie Constantine's Sword or read it. Even his novels are filled with moral and political dilemmas that give great insight to the workings of the war apparatus. I'm just about to finish his novel Memorial Bridge-a quasi biographical work, however if you want an indepth description of the Pentagon, House of War is it. James Carroll is a remarkable human to stand up to all the three branches of society- the family, religion, and to governmen. His consistent words remove illusions on multiple fronts.
"But, like a dark storm cloud edging in from the horizon, memory intruded on the high-minded moment." –(James Carroll).
Sadly the "dark storm cloud" had obscured the "high minded moment" even before Obama's vacuous rhetoric had drifted into the transience it deserves. The duplicitous insincerity of the President's gilded words is consumed in a beauty–shamefully and obscenely employed– in the service of barbarity. One would almost prefer to hear George W. Bush's brutalisms, in their stead, rather than Obama's golden oratory– when both serve the same horrific ends.
James Carroll has always been sensitive to the truth in the nuances, having come out of the Vietnam catastrophe; he understands the costs of moral quagmires. One can almost see the shadow of an extreme moral disappointment, steeped perilously in his memory–one he seems ashamed of ever having to admit to again–snake through his soul.
Of perhaps all American pundits, James Carroll deserves better. Barack Obama deserves only condemnation and moral opprobrium for once again, aestheticizing hypocrisy. As impossible as it was to watch George W. Bush, Obama leaves an even worse sense of dread, if that is even possible. Having said this, I feel James Carroll 'pulls his punches,' and finds it impolitic to condemn Obama outright; if anyone, he should have learned better by now. Such is the cost of holding a job in mainstream American journalism.–(Jill Bains)
Sioux Rose
AMFORTAS: Once again I marvel at your writing style and powerful use of words. You are an artist with a profound and incisive vision. Thank you for your contributions to this forum.
Thanks Sioux Rose. These blog postings and the threads drift off so quickly, subsumed and supplanted by ever new material, it is a miracle some bother to read them–much less provide feedback or compliment. It often feels like posting here is a purely private act, with no audience. Again your support and praise sustains the efforts. –(Jill).
Sioux Rose
JILL: You are most welcome, and I look forward to your future posts. If you are not a professional writer, you certainly have THE gift. I presume it's used in whatever career you are established in. Thank you again for sharing your insights in this diverse forum.
The only difference between George and Barack is: their rhetoric!
I share James Carroll's views completely but I cannot see how we will get out of Afghanistan and Iraq for the foreseeable future. The absence of a draft and the reliance on mercenaries makes any widespread public opposition unlikely.
The Viet Nam war only ended when Nixon began to slowly pull out US troops under the guise of "Vietnamization" of the war - and that after ten years of heavy US military involvement. Only then, and after Nixon himself had resigned, did the North Vietnamese army begin its final offensive on Saigon.
The question is: will Obama find it in himself to pull off something comparably hypocritical and necessary or will the wars bring him down as they did LBJ? Sooner or later, some American president will have to find a way to lose this war and I am afraid that it will not be Obama.
I share James Carroll's views completely but I cannot see how we will get out of Afghanistan and Iraq for the foreseeable future. The absence of a draft and the reliance on mercenaries makes any widespread public opposition unlikely.
The Viet Nam war only ended when Nixon began to slowly pull out US troops under the guise of "Vietnamization" of the war - and that after ten years of heavy US military involvement. Only then, and after Nixon himself had resigned, did the North Vietnamese army begin its final offensive on Saigon.
The question is: will Obama find it in himself to pull off something comparably hypocritical and necessary or will the wars bring him down as they did LBJ? Sooner or later, some American president will have to find a way to lose this war and I am afraid that it will not be Obama.
I share James Carroll's views completely but I cannot see how we will get out of Afghanistan and Iraq for the foreseeable future. The absence of a draft and the reliance on mercenaries makes any widespread public opposition unlikely.
The Viet Nam war only ended when Nixon began to slowly pull out US troops under the guise of "Vietnamization" of the war - and that after ten years of heavy US military involvement. Only then, and after Nixon himself had resigned, did the North Vietnamese army begin its final offensive on Saigon.
The question is: will Obama find it in himself to pull off something comparably hypocritical and necessary or will the wars bring him down as they did LBJ? Sooner or later, some American president will have to find a way to lose this war and I am afraid that it will not be Obama.
As long as our all-powerful Military Industrial Complex maintains its stranglehold on America, we will be ceaselessly engaged in "a war!"
Well said. I think if you made a list of US Policy decisions for the past 100 years under the heading of "Good Intentions" it would be a VERY short list.
The MOTIVATIONS for all these decisions are critical to understand what is going on and ascribing the WRONG motivations to these despots is as harmful as their actions.
As example an article just the other day suggesting that the reason Bush?Cheney resorted ot torture was out of FEAR.
Absolute rubbish.
Note: I posted this on a related article today too:
The only way these "Go to War" scams work is for both the Republicans and Democrats to be in on it.
So how does the scam work? Theory: Only the Senate needs to in on the scam and top House leaders. It is that way because with only 50 Senators, it easier to control them versus hundreds of Representatives. Giving the Senators powerful committee positions ensures they have power, receive lobbying contributions, and stay in power for many terms. Reduced turnover ensures stability of policy. Note that the less disciplined House often passes bills only to be effectively scrapped by the Senate during reconciling. On the House side, the parties only allow "acceptable" leaders to get elected, e.g, Pelosi.
Note: Why didn't the Democrats dump Liebermann after he turned against the party during last year's election? He has some leverage on the Democrats. Is it knowledge of what is going on?
James Carroll, good article as usual.......But how do we stop this? Yes James Carroll, how do we stop it? I would like this to be the subject of your next columnm. We all say this madness must stop, but how?
All of a sudden this is news??? Obama stated he was going to continue the fight BEFORE the election. I didn't google Mr. Carroll's previous writings, but did he write objections to this policy BEFORE Mr. Obama was elected. Or did he, like so many other "liberals" remain silent on this?