Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
For Obama It's One (Term) if by War, Two if by Peace
As the world awaits Barack Obama's decision on Afghanistan, a lethal myth has spread. It says that standing up to the military will doom him to be a single-term president.
The "one if by peace" myth comes most recently from Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books. Wills mourns that Obama would commit political suicide by pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan because "the charges from various quarters would be toxic---that he was weak, unpatriotic, sacrificing the sacrifices that have been made, betraying our dead, throwing away all former investments in lives and treasure."
Against all that, says Wills, "he could have little defense in the quarters where such charges would originate."
Coming from an astute observer like Wills, this is a stunning analysis---and dead wrong.
In fact, the only way Obama can begin to think about getting re-elected is to leave the Afghan quagmire and do the same from Iraq.
The key phrase here is "the quarters where such charges would originate."
The battle cries originate with the military which, as Will Rogers once put it, "never saw a war it didn't like." General Stanley McChrystal and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have spearheaded an unsavory, unethical media assault to force a quick escalation.
Their core support comes from the Rogue/Rouge Right now shattering the Republican Party. This media-based Palin paramilitary has just driven the GOP to defeat in a New York Congressional district, Republican for more than a century. It's now assaulting Charlie Crist, the very popular moderate Governor of Florida, and others like him. Any Republican caught whispering that Obama is other than a baby-killing Muslim gay terrorist is being condemned in ways not seen since Salem, 1692.
This might seem good for the Democrats. But Obama can blow it all by escalating in Afghanistan. His core support---a substantial majority of Democrats, and any number of moderate Republicans---wants out. The California Democrats have formalized the message.
National health care and climate change remain hugely important. They are divisive and difficult. And there will be no meaningful progress on either without a draw-down on our overseas adventurism and the larger military budget.
Thus Afghanistan towers above all. The decline of the Democratic Party and the US as a whole dates directly to March, 1965, when Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam. The ensuing decade of futility overflowed with agonized analysis and absurd apologia.
In the end, all the US could do was spend, destroy, kill, die and flee.
So, too, Afghanistan. Be the motive geo-political, anti-terrorist, petro-chemical, feminist, humanitarian, or just plain not wanting to "lose," American bombs from the air and boots on the ground will simply dissolve and disappear in an ocean of shifting sands and ancient enmities.
Whatever his admirers fear might be said about Obama "losing" this hopeless sinkhole will be screamed anyway by the Rogue/Rouge Right, no matter what he does. In their eyes, all ensuing terror attacks, economic downturns, human frailties, stubs of the toe and twists of inscrutable fate will be Barack Obama's fault, no matter what or why.
Standing down in Afghanistan and Iraq would be truly historic. It could end the epoch---dating to 1492---when Europe continually marched throughout the Third World. More narrowly, it would acknowledge, at last, America's inability to shape every corner of the Earth to its overbearing whim.
Perhaps it would finally curb this nation's addiction to squandering blood and treasure on these absurd, hopeless and ultimately suicidal military excursions.
For Obama and 2012, it might make the dream of meaningful health and energy reform financially feasible. It could prevent the liberal base in this country from shattering, as it did in 1968, opening the door to Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush....and now to the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and Dobbs.
Few things are guaranteed in politics. But one certainty is that an escalation in Afghanistan will again poison the Democratic Party and leave Barack Obama an empty political husk. The brilliant, good-hearted Garry Wills begs Obama to do the right thing for the sake of morality and sanity.
But if Obama has any hope of guiding a coherent administration for the rest of this term, or of winning a second one, he has no choice. The Graveyard of Great Powers awaits yet another misguided imperial attacker.
Let's hope, pray, work and fight to make sure that this time, we step aside.
- Posted in
52 Comments so far
Show AllHe won't get my vote again, no matter what he does and no matter who runs against him.
Re: FastEddie's "He never got my vote to begin with.":
After Obambi voted to SHRED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, with his PRO-FISA vote in Summer, 2008, in which he granted civil immunity to the Telecoms who spied on us, at B*sh behest, WITHOUT SEARCH WARRANTS, I knew that, "Constitutional Law Professor" or no, OBAMBI was NOT concerned with his oath to "uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC."
So I "wrote in" Dennis Kucinich, despite the fact that he had already withdrawn from the race.
The ONLY answer is a VIABLE THIRD PARTY.
Draft Kucinich/Dean in 2012!
True Patriot
"The decline of the Democratic Party and the US as a whole dates directly to March, 1965, when Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam."
Some added decline perhaps but "the" decline I doubt. The Great Depression brought the South solidly into the ranks of the Democratic Party. The first crack happened when Truman integrated the Armed Forces and the second rift opened up when Johnson signed the Civil Rights legislation. As I see it, Vietnam accelerated this "loss of base" but did not cause it.
FDR could probably have passed a sweeping Health Care Reform during the 1930's with the support of quite a few Southern Representatives and Senators. The racially-tainted leaving of the Democratic ship by turncoat Republican rats has radically changed the legislative landscape with much of the South still opposed to "Washington". The rats have no intention whatsoever to return.
I will not vote for a Democrat. I don't trust them and I don't trust Kucinich with them. If he runs independently, perhaps I'll change my mind.
Howard Dean a "liar," according to Dr. David Himmelstein.
Himmelstein is a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He has been very outspoken on this issue. He was referring to Dean's comments about the "Obama health care reform," when he said that it's like single payer when it was nothing of the sort.
and Dean thinks we should be in Afghanistan!
Good reasons to stay clear of this man.
Same here. My sentiments exactly.
Barack Obama has the opportunity to become the first prominent African-American to be uniformly despised for something other than his race, yes he can!--and that is change we can all believe in!
Poet
I believe in it. Yes, I do!
Wow, you mean the right-wing chickenhawks will *start to* attack Obama and Democrats as weak on national security and defense? I never thought such a thing would ever happen...
Yeah, it's the new paradigm. The Democrat pays not the slightest bit of attention to his supporters and instead cock's his listening ear towards the thoroughly discredited right wing-nuts who have an approval rating of around 19%. And we're supposed to believe this? "They will bring him down!" "They will tie his hands!" "He has to say these things, he must kill innocent children to get elected!"
What are we in this country, a bunch of certified idiots?
Although I couldn't vote for Obama, having signed the Voters for Peace pledge and meaning it, I did rather hope the Democrats would win big over the Republicans, just so Democrats would have a triple, filibuster proof majority.
I commented here numerous times before Obama was elected: "What will the Democrats use as an excuse, once they are forced by the voters to stand stark naked in the light?"
I think we have an answer: They'll continue to use the right wing nuts as an excuse. And .... drool, drool, hehehe, - maybe the American numb skulls will go along with the scam ... again.
rvrwalker sez: "What are we in this country, a bunch of certified idiots?"
***
well, frankly ...
Why is it, exactly, that I should give two craps how these wars effect Obama and the Dems..?
Why is it, exactly, that I should give two craps how these wars effect Obama and the Dems?
Yeah, exactly! I'm done with the effing Democrats and will never never never again vote for a Democrat. What the Democratic party stands for has now been set in cement by the Clintons and Obama. It stinks like excrement. You need an electron microscope to tell the difference between the R's and the D's.
Obama could still pull things out, but he had better hurry! Either he ends the useless "wars-of-choice" on the other side of the world or he can kiss that second term goodbye. I will never vote for a Repub for any office, but a third party vote the next time around is a real possibility .....
They are "wars of choice", but "useless"? It depends on whose perspective we consider. For the average citizen, the wars are useless, albeit this doesn't sound bad enough for the extreme criminality, destruction, bloodshed, ... of these wars. Nevertheless, let's say that they're useless for the average citizen. There's another party to consider though, the corporate oligarchs behind these wars. They don't think these or any of their wars "of their choosing" are useless. And they're right, in a sense. They're not useless wars; they're extremely counter-productive. That's the problem; they delusionally think that counter-productive is not descriptive of their wars, believing that they'll be highly profitable, instead. It doesn't take an Einstein to realise that they're awfully delusional.
However, while they delude themselves about the above matter, they're evidently "right on the ball" in terms of knowing that they've been able to get the majority of voters to believe that they have a real democracy when it's really a sharade. So the delusional corporate oligarchs still rule over a delusional population of voters. Well, it keeps the oligarchs happy, anyway.
Obama is what? . . . no, not president, a politician. And a politician wants to do what? . . . no, not help ordinary people but stay in power. Every second of every day, Obama is surrounded by the corrupt, the incompetent and the immoral, as well as a legion of those who are quietly in a panic that the American empire is under threat.
He'll escalate!
Then he'll be defeated, not because of Afghanistan or Iraq. He'll be defeated because this foolish country will once again swallow the mountain of fear and bullshit the Republicans will feed them in '012.
It is amazing how easily we are distracted from entertaining having multiple parties in this country. even the so called progressives throw their hands up and look to the next dem. or repub. candidate to be our do nothing hero.
No matter how much political ground Obama concedes to those opposed to his administration, they will not cut him any slack.
Obama should stop looking for some mythical middle ground, accommodation, cooperation, or negotiations with the opposition.
Crush them.
Get out of the wars now. In two years, there will be a peace dividend to buy voters.
No matter how vigorously Obama might pursue the war effort, the opposition will accuse him of not doing enough.
Cut them off.
There is no such thing as a 'viable third party'!
All a third party cn do (with its 4% og the vote) is swing. try to swing, a final outcome in favor of one of the two BIG parties.
It would be far better to swing its 4% into one of the two and reshape it to meet the expectations wanted. Either one of the two, but the GOP is so deeply in debt to the wants of the monied backers it would be very hard to do. The better choice is to swing into and take over the Demo party, and begin by working to toss out the blue dogs and those who take cash from the corporate WAR LORDS.
Personally I like Feingold/Kuchinich. Or the flip side of that.
The Republican Party was a viable 3rd Party.
3rd parties that do not become canonized may be more viable than those that do. They have often gotten more than 4% of the votes. In '68, for instance, Wallace carried significant electoral votes in the formerly "solid Democratic South." More's the pity, but it's true. Most of the votes that went to Nader in 2000 and 2004 would have likely gone to a better funded candidate with a progressive or even a genuinely moderate program, had such a thing existed.
Look how little decent, smart progressive Dems accomplished in 06 and 08 by voting in the current crop of felons.
Aren't the results of voting Democrat in 06 and 08 the problems we're trying to solve?
Why couldn't progressive and moderate Democrats take over their own party in 2006 or 2008, despite being a considerable majority of the rank and file membership?
Would this not be because party illuminati like 0bama and Pelosi lead the party because they belly up to sponsors?
The party machine that you would harness seems the very engine that denies what you would accomplish.
I'm willing to entertain the notion that a little C&H Pure Cane treatment in the gas tank wouldn't make that engine a lot sweeter. Maybe you can provide a viable argument, but I don't see it yet.
How are you going to take control of the Democratic Party from Exxon, Wall Street, General Electric, CNN, Monsanto and similar?
Obama only has once chance at re-election, and that is to keep the promises he either made or implied to the left wing of his party.
No matter what he does, the rabid right wingers will NEVER support him.
If he further pisses off the left, he will lose in a landslide.
following in the footsteps of the last progessive president that was too timid to follow through...Jimmy Carter.
"If he further pisses off the left, he will lose in a landslide."
He's toast. Realistically, there's nothing left to salvage his presidency.
Too bad. He had such a great opportunity to set things right. I feel sorry for the ones who really supported him. Especially the kids.
There is NO RIGHT NO LEFT.It's all rubbish NANCY MAE PELOSI'S HUSBAND OWNS KBR(HALLIBURTON SUBSIDIARY)Bu-shites partner Carlyle and own thousands of acres of natural gas lands beside Bolivia AND the rights to the Afghan pipe line gas, given to them by,you guessed it, Karsai.In return Karsai gets to be president and enrich himself off of his people.(just like ABBAS and ARAFAT) and his brother gets to be the number one drug lord of the trillion dollar annual heroin trade.Gore is a billionaire.Cheney of Halliburton may be a trillionaire and on and on. Clintonistas,Obomba,they ALL get their rewards for their corrupt obedience to the filthified rich.The Jimmy carters and Dennis Kuciniches,they are the lesser potatoes in the scheme of things.The reality is, ALL washington politicians serve the elite and each other and jump when told and jump as high as they are told to,according to the pecking order.Breczinski mentors OBOMBA and mentored Carter.These days,getting elected is the trick of the Diebolds(as evidenced by the billionaire busculoni, of Italy's win,using American Diebolds and media propaganda and lies.Obomba has many dirty little secrets,as they all have and they are carefully tucked away for that rainy day.
you said it Mujeriego,
"freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
You don't think Democrats are capable of cheating, stealing elections? think again. If they can sign off on killing hundreds of thousands of human beings, why should they stop at stealing a hundred thousand votes or more?
philf 11:55 am: "Obama could still pull things out, but he had better hurry!"
___________________________________
I'm not knocking philf for making this point, but it's worth noting that this has been the gist-- or perhaps I should write "the grist"-- of most of the Obama-related opinion articles published on CommonDreams in the past few months.
Especially those from "The Nation" and its ilk.
And yet Obama hasn't been "pulling" a damned thing. He's weakly pushed a few things, like getting his Big Win in the form of landmark No Insurer Left Behind legislation.
IMO, this is another indication that Team Obama really sees his "first term" as primarily a campaign for his second.
As can be seen in the disappointing Bill McKibben article published on CD today, there remain moderate progressive Useful Idiots who are chum to the predatory "pragmatic" Team Obama sharks like Rahm Emanuel.
McKibben is a great "catch", and reinforces the traditional Democratic approach of manipulating moderate progressives and taking them for granted.
I don't mean to get iconic sports figures mixed up, as though they all looked alike. But during the campaign I put up with persistent apologies for Obama's "running to the right" because he was Jackie Robinson! He was set to Make History by Breaking a Color Barrier-- so perilous a High Wire that we had to cut him some slack for stepping cautiously "at first".
And besides being Jackie Robinson, Obama was Muhammed Ali using a trademark "rope-a-dope" strategy! Once he'd exhausted his opponent and was sitting pretty, he'd come roaring back to take names and kick ass!
My own cynicism disqualified me from buying in to this wishful thinking. And it's been vindicated.
If Jackie Robinson had wound up having this lame of a rookie season-- trying to get by with bunts and dogging it on the basepaths-- he'd have become a historical embarrassment. Even a Nobel MVP Award wouldn't dazzle the fans if the stats aren't there to back it up.
And so far, only the Global War on Terror permanent detainees and a few wedding parties in Af-Pak have witnessed Obama Stinging like a Bee.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Voters vote to institute policies, but political parties operate to elect candidates, so loyalty to party is foolish.
If the Dems get progressive, I will gladly vote for them and gladly take advantage of the party machine to achieve greater representation in Washington.
What would that change look like? My God, I imagine a train at 200 miles per hour flipping around on track.
Let's try this, as an exercise:
1. Leave Iraq.
2. Leave Afghanistan.
3. Leave Pakistan in peace.
4. Stop buying Israeli genocide.
5. Leave South America in peace.
6. Quit supporting the coup in Honduras (with $$, despite the public pussyfooting)
7. Replace Frankenstein's Insurance Bill with a healthcare bill, preferably some form of single payer.
8. Take the bailout money back in some form.
9. Make the Fed either transparent or scarce.
10. Lift the embargo on Cuba.
The list does go on, doesn't it? Oh, man! I haven't even touched energy and climate! Given the scarcity of representation in American government, I might settle for even a couple of these or something similar or some kind of halfway measures.
Since 2006, Democrats have not supplied improvement on any single point here, though their constituency is in favor of all of them and green jobs against climate change besides.
Whyever should I vote Democratic if I am in favor of the above (given that I have no Dennis Kucinich within thousands of miles)?
If they cannot flip the train, let their publicity warlocks at least get a good feel for the crash that follows.
As a quasi-libertarian quasi-green, I like that list. Actually though, to sum it up, get government out of the way and save us plenty of lives and money.
We need to unite against the corporations too, though. In the absence or in certain reductions of an official capital G government, they will remain quite willing to continue governing without a constitution to govern around and the resultant trials and sense of entitlement or all the bother of pomp and show for elections.
One-Termer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYKN-vsuorY
Exxon and China and India need the oil from that proposed
pipeline to the Ocean. Obama is a prisoner of his own
upbringing and schooling..
Mr. Wasserman is fantasizing when he claims that the Obama adm'n "could end the epoch" of "1492" (i.e., Western imperialism). The returns are already in on this one. Nine Dollar Barry (Obama) has already rendered fealty in every way required by the National Security State. Even if a complete withdrawal from Afganistan were declared--and this will not happen--the move would be in the nature of a strategic redeployment, not the end of empire. (Recall the significance of the Israeli "withdrawal" from Gaza a few years ago . . . .) Mr. Wasserman's misjudgment of the character of the Obama adm'n is a sad measure of the intellectual quality of what passes for the Left in these times--always hopeful, easily conned, always blind to the systemic imperatives behind the politicians' maneuvers.
Wasserman sez: "The Graveyard of Great Powers awaits yet another misguided imperial attacker."
***
The U.S. has already been laid out in its plot, the headstone erected and the flowers planted. Each day it remains represents another scoop of soil that it shovels down upon itself.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Obama is interested in a second term. He'll be a very rich man regardless; paid by his handlers to do their bidding - which appears to be the defrauding of America, looting of the treasury (the largest transfer of wealth in history), and the abandonment by the oligarchy - who will move on to greener pastures.
We are so screwed.
genicon
The Reps. will have Sarah Palin and maybe Jeb bush in 2012
What will the Dems. that are so angry at Obama for his no change first term do? The lesser of two evils thinking will trump all the disappointment, and once again the corporate-war party wins either way.
I agree in theory with the author of the article, but reality forces reconsiderations. It could turn out that if, only supposing if Obama withdrew the U.S. from Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of his first term, then it might really be his last term due to subsequent assassination for disobeying the corporatocracy that rules the government of the USA and its foreign policies, "national security", "national interests", ...; or if not assassination, then still making sure he's not potentially re-electable.
But it also is awfully dreamy to think his administration plans on withdrawing the U.S. from either of these wars; too dreamy for me to bother entertaining the far-fetched hypothetical possibility of him doing this just because it's humanly possible for a person who's President to take this stand. When I say humanly possible, I'm not saying it's Obama'ly possible; just that a human of really good, honourable conscience and spine could and would take this stand, including at the known risk of people assassinating or attempting to assassinate him or her. Whether it's Obama'ly possible; now, I won't bother trying to entertain this very, very remote possibility (so remote it's not viewable).
He knows who he works for and knows very well that it is not The People of the USA. He knows its the ruling corporatocracy, the corporate oligarchy.
"Cover-Up: The Truth About The Anthrax Attacks",
by Barry J.C. Kissin, Nov 15 2009, submitted Oct 2 2009
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23969.htm
That's a very, definitely important article and like it says in the conclusion, it doesn't matter who is U.S. President or what party he or she is from, the corporatocracy rules. The two main parties basically are merged, as Pepe Escobar has correctly stated; because they both work for the same corporate oligarchs.
Western so-called democracy is a LIE, a fiction, in the U.S., very much in Canada, and so on. The corporatocrats keep the sharade of democracy going, because our governments, by law, are democracies; therefore, the corporate oligarchs know they mustn't just come out and tell the population that it no longer has a democracy, that a corporate oligarchy is taking over as a full dictatorship. The democracy strategically must be nothing more than a sharade though, for real democracy is a major threat to them.
Why was Dennis Kucinich unconstitutionally prohibited from being able to participate in Dem. Party presidential candidate debates last year? It's because he is a real threat to the corporatocrats, but even this blatantly unconstitutional banishment of him was accepted by the majority of Dem. Party supporters, who thereby played the role of dumb sheep for the sharade of democracy that's for, of and by our corporate oligarchs. They clearly see that a phony democracy isn't a danger for them, knowing most voters are too dumb, unconstitutional, i.e., irresponsible, etcetera, to care about what's really in their and everyone else's best interests.
Suckers every time and the corporate oligarchs know it. They have very developed knowledge of the voting population and therefore know they can manipulate most voters.
And if too many voters get too noisy, then maybe a small-scale bio.-weapons attacks will "accidentally" happen against them. Frightening "stuff" that the bio.-weapons R&D labs are and have been working on; very frightening.
The following is something urgent for the Obama administration to immediately put a stop to before it happens ... soon. The U.S. can stop this criminal execution of over a hundred Iraqi women with little time needed to get the Iraqi government to STOP before it starts this series of murders.
"STOP the Execution of 126 Iraqi Women",
by Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman Blues, Nov. 15, 2009
http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=60103
QUOTE:
This is an urgent appeal regarding a piece of very serious information I have just received.
A decision has been taken to execute on the Eid Al Kabeer (in 2 weeks time) -- the Muslim feast marking the end of the Hajj pilgrimage the same time that President Saddam Hussein was murdered -- 126 Iraqi women on charges of "terrorism." These Iraqi women all hold higher University degrees and have worked as high cadres in the previous regime. That is their only crime.
Among the 126 women to be executed are: are the ex Head of Nuclear Energy Center (who was detained by the US occupying forces) and the ex minister of Work and Social Affairs.
This information was published on an Iraqi website called Iraqihurr in Arabic and that same piece of information was published in English by Women Solidarity for an Independent and Unified Iraq.
Please circulate this as widely as possible and check the addresses on the Women Solidarity website above -- to send your appeals to.
END QUOTE
Here's another thing that the Obama admin. can immediately correct.
"Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan",
by Dahr Jamail, IPS, Nov. 13, 2009
http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=60097
QUOTE:
VENTURA, California, Nov 13 (IPS) - U.S. Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother, is being threatened with a military court-martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan, despite having been told she would be granted extra time to find someone to care for her 11-month-old son while she is overseas.
Hutchinson, of Oakland, California, is currently being confined at Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, after being arrested. Her son was placed into a county foster care system.
Hutchinson has been threatened with a court martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, Nov. 15. She has been attempting to find someone to take care of her child, Kamani, while she is deployed overseas, but to no avail.
According to the family care plan of the U.S. Army, Hutchinson was allowed to fly to California and leave her son with her mother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland.
However, after a week of caring for the child, Hughes realised she was unable to care for Kamani along with her other duties of caring for a daughter with special needs, her ailing mother, and an ailing sister.
In late October, Angelique Hughes told Hutchinson and her commander that she would be unable to care for Kamani after all. The Army then gave Hutchinson an extension of time to allow her to find someone else to care for Kamani. Meanwhile, Hughes brought Kamani back to Georgia to be with his mother.
However, only a few days before Hutchinson's original deployment date, she was told by the Army she would not get the time extension after all, and would have to deploy, despite not having found anyone to care for her child.
Faced with this choice, Hutchinson chose not to show up for her plane to Afghanistan. The military arrested her and placed her child in the county foster care system.
Currently, Hutchinson is scheduled to fly to Afghanistan on Sunday for a special court martial, where she then faces up to one year in jail.
Hutchinson's civilian lawyer, Rai Sue Sussman, told IPS, "The core issue is that they are asking her to make an inhumane choice. She did not have a complete family care plan, meaning she did not find someone to provide long-term care for her child. She's required to have a complete family care plan, and was told she'd have an extension, but then they changed it on her."
Asked why she believes the military revoked Hutchinson's extension, Sussman responded, "I think they didn't believe her that she was unable to find someone to care for her infant. They think she's just trying to get out of her deployment. But she's just trying to find someone she can trust to take care of her baby."
Hutchinson's mother has flown to Georgia to retrieve the baby, but is overwhelmed and does not feel able to provide long-term care for the child.
According to Sussman, the soldier needs more time to find someone to care for her infant, but does not as yet have friends or family able to do so.
Sussman says Hutchinson told her, "It is outrageous that they would deploy a single mother without a complete and current family care plan. I would like to find someone I trust who can take care of my son, but I cannot force my family to do this. They are dealing with their own health issues."
Sussman told IPS that the Army's JAG attorney, Captain Ed Whitford, "told me they thought her chain of command thought she was trying to get out of her deployment by using her child as an excuse." '
Major Gallagher, of Hutchinson's unit, also told Sussman that he did not believe it was a real family crisis, and that Hutchinson's "mother should have been able to take care of the baby".
In addition, according to Sussman, a First Sergeant Gephart "told me he thought she [Hutchinson] was pulling her family care plan stuff to get out of her deployment".
"To me it sounds completely bogus," Sussman told IPS, "I think what they are actually going to do is have her spend her year deployment in Afghanistan, then court martial her back here upon her return. This would do irreparable harm to her child. I think they are doing this to punish her, because they think she is lying."
Sussman explained that she believes the best possible outcome is for the Army to either give Hutchinson the extension they had said she would receive so that she can find someone to care for her infant, or barring this, to simply discharge her so she can take care of her child.
Nevertheless, Hutchinson is simply asking for the time extension to complete her family care plan, and not to be discharged.
"I'm outraged by this," Sussman told IPS, "I've never gone to the media with a military client, but this situation is just completely over the top."
END QUOTE
I disagree with her wanting to deploy to the criminal war, but the Army needs to give the soldierette a break and let her see to finding someone to look after her child, too.
IF AMERICANS ARE SMART ...AND actually as moral as they claim to be - and if SOLDIERS are smart - as well as the families and young ones contemplating a Military Career are smart ;;;;
they will ALL BY NOW - just by this single example , if all else before has not taught them , REALIZED in FULL , without further ado, without further second thoughts , that the USA ARMED FORCES is a gigantic "bait and hook and switch" machine - as well as a BLACKMAIL industry.
it baits and hooks families and young people to 'be all you can be'...promising them glory and adventure ..but delivering mainly or even despite ANY "benefits" - ONLY , ultimately DEATH, or MAIMING for life, destroyed families, a FAKED patriotism, a FAKE sense of honor , even GUILT as time goes on, LOST futures and lives , and financial RUIN...and if they DON"T "continue to serve"
they are THEN BLACKMAILED with legalisms such as "court martial" based on a system of cruel, senseless "loyalty to the army" games that are all designed for the enlargement of the American Empire while THESE - the soldiers fight the wars of their masters who WON'T GO to the battle fields themselves.
in short - americans are FOOLED by their militaristic culture - and THEN when they realize it's not what they want after all, or even merely try to "serve" but ask for some consideration to ORDER their lives SO THAT THEY CAN SACRIFICE THEMSELVES more "efficiently" -- such as this young mother tries (foolishly, sorry to say) -
they are THEN BLACKMAILED :
":dishonorable discharge" minus the benefits of course,
PAY BACK the college or job training costs....you're on your own.
what a SYSTEM , eh?
now - why wouold the REST of the world for a LONG TIME ALREADY always have SAID - despite its general inability to counter american AGGRESSION (although that seems to be changing) - that the USA is an IMPERIALIST and the WORST of them all?
it shouldn't be a surprise because the USA DOES IT TO ITS OWN PEOPLE even while it puts them in UNIFORMS.
it is like a pregnant BEAST that CONCEIVES evil little monsters - that burst out ready to maul anything in sight - and then spreads them out to do their business...
and when it feels like it will even EAT its own little beasts or anything that stands close by inside its own crib - the nation itself.
The View from China
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 11/17/2009 @ 08:53am
When Yiang Jiemian, president of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, gets together with his brother, Yang Jiechi, China's minister of foreign affairs, they don't talk strategy or politics. "We talk about our grandfather," he says, with a smile.
We're sitting in a conference room at SIIS, though, and Yang Jiemian is talking strategy with a few visiting journalists. I ask Dr. Yang about China's view of US policy in the Middle East and central Asia. What, exactly, is his opinion of the notion that the United States is seeking to control that crucial region, including its oil and natural gas reserves, as part of a strategy of containing China? President Obama has just left Shanghai, the sprawling city of 19 million people, and he told China that the United States does not want to contain or limit China's influence in Asia or the world. Yet the United States and China don't always agree on Iran, Afghanistan, and other questions.
"There might be a slight difference of understanding between our two cultures, our two languages," says Yang, who is flanked by a team of strategists and area specialists. ""When America talks about strategy, it implies military, security, confrontation. In China, we have a much broader view of the idea of 'strategy.' We mean something that is long-term and systematic."
Is he concerned about the idea of US hegemony in the Middle East? Could it be a detriment to China, which is excruciatingly dependent on that part of the world for its energy? "If you ask different people in China, you will get different answers," he says. "Personally, I'm concerned about the possibility that these things could be part of a plan to 'contain' China." But, he adds, China's view is to work cooperatively with all countries in the region, and with the United States, to deal with what he calls a critical transition that the countries of central Asia and the Middle East need to make.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
==========================================
On Iran, Yang made it clear that, despite his pleas, Obama isn't likely to get much support from Beijing over confrontation and sanctions against Iran if the nuclear talks don't move quickly. "China and the United States have similar views on some issues regarding Iran, and we have some differences," he says. He points out that China has supported limited, targeted sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council in recent years, and he notes that China and the US both support the strengthening of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. "We will work together to persuade Iran to become part of the mainstream of the world community," he says. "But China supports Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and we oppose a military solution to the problem." Adds a colleague, "Most of us believe that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful uses."
In a separate conversation, an expert from another thinktank says that Iran's negotiations with the P5 + 1, including China and the United States, may go on for a long time. "The important word is patience," he says. "Not sanctions." The talks are just starting. When I tell him that Obama is under pressure from neoconservatives and hawks in Congress to end the talks quickly if there is no immediate result, he scoffs. "We must approach Iran with patience. It is not just a question of months, but perhaps of years. And perhaps, in two or three years, the leaders of Iran will change." In that, he is echoing the notion of some US and Israeli diplomats with whom I've talked, who suggest that the political turmoil in Iran means that the "political clock" in Iran is ticking faster than the "nuclear clock." Iran, US intelligence believes, is several years away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, if that is indeed Tehran's intention.
China, overwhelmingly concerned about economic growth and domestic political stability, is worried that instability in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, including Afghanistan, could threaten China's energy lifeline and undermine China's surging economy.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
========================================
What's true of Iran is also true of the war in Afghanistan, China believes. Wang Xiaoshu is vice president of the Shanghai Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, a kind of "foreign minister" for the city of Shanghai. The US intervention in Afghanistan is "not wise," he says, adding that no country has successfully invaded Afghanistan in centuries and that NATO cannot solve the problem militarily. He stresses that because of the US invasion and the current stalemate, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very dangerous. "China's interest is stability in the region, and a crisis there means that the entire region could become inflamed," says Wang.
Yang, of SIIS, expresses concern over Obama's turn from Iraq to "AfPak." "It is natural for us to think that there is now a US and NATO presence at China's Western border." (Afghanistan and China share a border in China's far west.) "We hope," he says, "that the United States respects China's interests." In conversations, though, the Chinese officials and experts seem to believe that, in essence, Afghanistan is America's mess and that there is little or nothing that China can do to help the United States clean it up.
That's unfortunate, because under the right circumstances China might be able to help convince Pakistan, China's ally, to reign in the Afghan Taliban and brings the Taliban to the negotiating table. But that, of course, won't work unless Obama signals that he's prepared to draw down US forces there. As long as the United States is escalating the war, China's isn't going to providing any help. It's our quagmire, not theirs.
Share this article
Comments (37)
1.
It's obvious that to China, its interest is best served by NOT meddling in other countries. And when it does, it uses foreign aid....irregardless how Western Libs think of the despotic regimes China seeks to befriend. Pragmatic to a fault and its people love it!
Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 09:01am
THANK YOU TEDDY
This is the fourth time I have tried to reply, the miners keep erasing it.The body language of Hillahun,was glaring.Obomba looked as though he had been called to the principal's office and Hu looked as though he was the principal.The bottom line is,I don't think the Obomba snake oil trick worked .China is not going to lend America any more spending money.China is going up and America is going down.China is not going to help resuscitate the doomed dead dollar.
China is in a strong position and can break the space nuke satelites and America has not figured out how to prevent that.Therefore America can't bully China.Sino American Space competition may even be neck and neck.China,in the last decade raised their university science and technology curriculum to a higher level, to exclude liberal arts and focus intensely on science.
THANKYOU TEDDY.I will continue.I know very little about China but am very interested.
China has a heavy presence in South America and Africa.Both are imperialist prizes.Hugo Chavez,who receives arms ,subs, planes etc from Russia and China and is particularly vigilant, post his own near coup and the June coup of Zelaya in Honduras, seems to be keeping on top of things.He sent 15,000 troops to the Columbian border (Columbia being the Israel of South America)to protect his coltran mines.Columbia's Uribe,is in tight with the Bush fam.and recently agreed to seven new American military bases,for a mere 46 million dollars.I wonder how much of that Uribe took for himself? Probably four million and six million for each base.(oops to protect us ,up here in the US) Coltran,vital for satelites,missiles cell phones,computers blah blah blah.The largest coltran area is in Congo and the civil war ,manufactured by the Canadians/Americans/Belgians, to facilitate their greedy exploitive corrupt thievery there. The terror that they perpetrated on those poor people in the civil war atrocity/charade is disturbing.
China now leases the manta port in Ecuador ,which it took over ,right after president Raphael Correa kicked out the Americans.the port can facilitate their huge ships and tankers which are almost too large to pass through the Panama canal .The Panama canal has also become extremely expensive.This opens up also a huge market for the Chinese(Brazil being the same size as the USA,if you take away Alaska.
MORE ABOUT CHINA IN ECUADOR.China plans to build a road/railway across Ecuador into Brazil(rich in oil)a logistical engineering nightmare,which has been put on hold.I am guessing, until they have a more solid engineering perspective.
Thus the tepid response to obomba's unctious efforts towards Hu and his entourage of whatever, advisors? Considering the American aggression obsession,the world position of contempt for the American global genocide policies and the Chinese's interest in their own country's transition into the 21st century and their extraordinary accomplishments ,there would seem to be a dual dichotomy.The young country versus the old one and the American aggression versus the Chinese posture of peace and prosperity.(However sincere they may be) .
It is amazing that the media liars even brought up Obomba/China's record on human rights,He,Obomba,the war criminal drone killed (a chinese ally),pakistans', innocent civilians, in excess of seven hundred ,in the first days in office and continues to drone kill innocent civilians and children
OBOMBA has approved the largest military budget in history.OBOMBA HAS ESCALATED THE AFGHAN AND THE IRAQI NIGHTMARE.OBOMBA HAS COMPLICITLY ENDORSED further genocide in Africa and Gaza.OBOMBA HAS NOT CLOSED GUANTANIMO AND TORTURE THERE HAS GOTTEN WORSE ON HIS WATCH. BAGRAM TORTURE PRISON IS DOUBLING IN SIZE Holds hands with fellow war criminals.Holds hands with the devil.
People shouldn't post whole articles when it takes up three posts at CD. Instead, excerpts should be posted along with the links for the full articles, followed or preceded by whatever the person making the post wishes to add in his or her own words. It's often or usually much better for reading format, too, that is, full web articles, for most websites post full articles with reasonable width, instead of making them very narrow. With multiple posts at CD, we go from narrow, but okay, to narrower and narrower ... for every additional post required to post the whole article or whole text of an article a person wants to post.
FWIW, I agree with this.
I thought about raising this point many times, but as a typically long-winded commenter felt vulnerable to the pot/kettle objection.
I also didn't want to provoke some Bobo the Simpleminded-- there's always one-- "solving" the issue by declaring that EVERYBODY should only post comments of twenty-five words or less.
But since the comments thread, for whatever reason, is confined to a narrow "channel" that doesn't expand sideways, it's not suited to reproducing entire articles. There IS a "SPAM" effect, even if the material is good enough that it deserves to be posted.
The other day-- can't remember which article-- a comments thread contained a lively exchange that dwindled to unreadable scripts about an inch wide.
· Yr Obd't Servant
People did not vote Obama in so he would continue the W. Bush model of war escatalion. THey voted him in to bring sanity back to this country by focusing on the problems HERE at home. The most pressing issue at the moment is the economy, and that is directly tied to whether or not we continue to escalate a draining, endless and pointless war. It's unfortunate, but Obama will pay for his impotence toward our econonomy, starting next year when his party loses more seats. He will pay dearly in 2012 when our country gives the white house back to the republicans as a result of his failure to act. Even the half witted out there are intelligent enough not to keep a do nothing empty suit in office. He has accomplished nothing to improve our situation and I don't expect him to start anytime soon. If only we could resurrect FDR to clean up this mess.
I guess you can wake up late and still think that you can do something. Maybe realizing that you have been screwed again by the democratic party leadership is a step in the right direction. But maybe it is too late to realize that voting for Obama was voting against your best interest. You don't always get a second chance.
Obama will be elected next time, or someone worse, but in either case it won't be someone who is protecting the basic rights of the common man.
What is your local elected official talking about?
Are they protesting the war?
Are they speaking out against the current health care deform?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool the 1,000 times, call me a democratic party supporter.
OBOMBA'S CHINA ASIA TOUR WAS A BIG BUST FOR HIM.THEY DON'T LIKE HIM.CON ARTIST WITH A SHADY PAST.You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool ALL of the people all of the time.OH I Wish I Had Been a bilingual chinese mouse in the corner!