Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Propaganda Obama
No Drama Obama is -- in the case of Afghanistan -- no propaganda Obama.
In comparison, of course, with the improperganda used by presidents in conflicts such as the war in Vietnam or the more recent misadventure in Iraq. No fabrications like the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" or weapons of mass destructions are being used to "justify" the planned escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
Why a No Propaganda Obama?
--The President is an honorable man (aren't we all honorable wo/men?), and apparently doesn't want to lie to the American people about the need for more troops in Afghanistan. In other words, he, a man of conscience, refuses to sell his war through crude, manipulative propaganda.
--The Afghan war is not popular among Americans. So glamorizing it is not good politics.
--In his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama stressed that the Afghan war was justifiable (his way of saying that although he was against the war in Iraq, he still intended "to get the terrorists"?)
--Obama doesn't want to look like mission-accomplished Bush, who -- we now know -- so blatantly lied to get public support for his macho-man invasion of Iraq.
Longer-term
From a longer-term perspective we have other possible reasons why Mr. Obama is not acting like a war salesman -- or feels the need to even act as a war salesman -- as he goes about expanding his Afghan war:
--We don't have a nation-wide military draft; and in a time of economic hardship, the Pentagon can be staffed with the unemployed. So, no need to "sell" war to the populace, even if it doesn't particularly like it.
--Robots, rather than men/women, are increasingly fighting our wars. No need to propagandize robots.
--War is good for business -- business being the "military-industrial complex" Mr. Obama has been so careful not to offend (as the administration's bail-out of Wall Street suggests).
Most Important -- And, perhaps most important, war has become as American as apple pie. As Andrew J. Bacevich puts it, "permanent war has become the de facto policy of the United States."
US taxpayers have gotten so used to wars (even those they don't like) outsourced to the professional military that there's no need -- beltway pundits/bandits, perhaps not so imaginary, would argue -- for the US government to promote war anymore.
Not even overseas through "public diplomacy."
Bottom Line
Bottom Line: War is now, like, so, like, totally all-American (have you noticed how many ads on NFL football games are by the military?).
So why does Mr. Obama even need propaganda for his Afghan war?
War, after all, has become, for the U.S., as "natural" as much of the so-called "food" we buy in supermarkets.
Except for American soldiers in coffins. And Pakistani children killed by a Predator drone.
Meanwhile, "President [Obama] is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II," reports National Journal's Government Executive magazine.
- 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...
10 Comments so far
Show All"--War is good for business -- business being the "military-industrial complex...'"
Bingo!
Money is really what all these never-ending wars are about. Obama and the whores in Congress are simply bought-off stooges owned by corporations. Nothing will change until the left wing becomes as radicalized as the right wing is in Amerikkka.
Meanwhile Americans watch TV. One of the many the likes of CSI: the same old story repeated so often it is as familiar as cornflakes for breakfast.
Ah! But they have a new box today!
Americans, boys and girls, you are in deep. And heavens! How can I put this gently? Where you can go and not be killed is shrinking. People now kill you by averting their eyes; with a turn of the shoulder on hearing the accent.
Unless efforts to ramp up that Muslim Terrorist war fever just don't produce the intended results in an economically struggling war-weary nation.
The weird thing about Obama?
He doesn't even seem to care. Even Bush's body language reflected more defensiveness from the knowledge that he was scorned.Obama seems oblivious.
"The weird thing about Obama?
He doesn't even seem to care. Even Bush's body language reflected more defensiveness from the knowledge that he was scorned.Obama seems oblivious."
You think Obama is scorned? By Americans, in general? By the world?
I don't see that. Even Bush is gathering in one hundred thousand dollars a night speaking engagements in front of well heeled business crowds. And the US media is still leaving him alone. And Obama is not suffering either from his decision to insulate Bush from criminal prosecution. So it might be wishfull thinking to see general scorn directed at Obama.
Speaking of propaganda, Obama doesn't even have to bother making good propaganda. How much more open could he be about "no looking back" - at enforcing the laws, Afghanistan - "the good war", universal healthcare - "off the table".
Right now one thing Obama is worried about is how he can pass off the expansion of publicly subsidized private health insurance to around one to ten million Americans as "reform". He will proclaim this to be a win for the Democrats and then they are good to go into the next election.
No, but the point was Bush actually related on level--he seemed aware--or betrayed the fact that he was aware of perceptions. Obama doesn't seem to connect and I think, just based on the polls alone, that you are wrong about what people can be suckered into.
They aren't suckered. They are IGNORED.
Obama may not be as crude as Bush but his actions prove his profound ignorance of history. He is heading for a disaster in Afghanistan and will pay a heavy political price as he should. Americans love wars even stupid wars as long as they are quick and easy and they score them like a football season which means when things go bad the coach often gets fired. It is obvious that the president is either too dumb or too weak to stand up to the real military rulers of the country so he will legitimize the pentagon's wishes and make them a reality even though they are against the true national interest of the United States.
Thalidomide: "Americans love wars even stupid wars as long as they are quick and easy and they score them like a football season which means when things go bad the coach often gets fired." The relevant word here is OFTEN gets fired. But losing teams don't always fire their coaches, it "depends" on the situation. Way back in 1969 I published an article "The Attribution of Responsibility for Organizational Failure" in Sociology and Social Research (I can get only a volume and page reference by googling, you can find it in a research library if by some chance you find yourself there.) In the article, I tabulated every managerial turnover in major league baseball for a 50 year period. I found that the effect of losing on a manager's job depended on the team's performance (league standing) not just in absolute terms but relative to the performance of the team before a particular manager took over. A manager of a perennial pennant winner like the Yankees had a very short window of opporunity to maintain that success before he was canned; whereas a new coach of a perennial cellar-dwelling team (this is how John McGraw began his long tenure with the NY Giants) would be judged a "success" where the manager of a Yankee time should be judged a "failure" for a mediocre performance of his team.
So if you're going to use the sports analogy in current politics, please remind yourself that Obama succeeded a "manager" who (at least in the eyes of people of left and center political persuasion) was a spectacular failure, almost insulating himself against having to suffer the "political consequence" (not being re-elected) that you say will be the result of what I agree will be the ultimate failure of the Afghanistan "plan" however it is dressed out to appear. And that's just the central tragedy of Obama "accountability" to the American people. That center/left coalition that makes up the majority (maybe 60%) of the electorate is going to complain perhaps (almost certainly), but it won't exact the political price of Afghan failure, because it will contrast, for example, a meaningless (and maybe militarily harmful) "exit strategy" or "withdrawal timetable" with the faillure of the "old manager" (Bush) or maybe a likely "new manager" (like Palin) to allow for these marginal "improvements" on the dismal team performance of the Unites States in its military operations in Afghanistan. So look for those supposedly "divided" Democrats to push for something like Obey's "surtax" to pay for the war and, when that fails, fall once again behind their centrist "manager" (Obama) because they see no alternative to support this Demican over any Republicrat that they'd get if they "fired" the boss. I mean whom would they hire? Someone like a McKinney or Nader or Ron Paul or Kucinich who might actually END the military operation? Nah, they ain't qualfied to coach in the big leagues.
I think what I've said might make more sense tomorrow after Obama articulates his "plan" and the spinning begins.
Get ready for a call to "share the sacrifice" of the war, either by a tax or a draft. Here's how we should respond:
Congress members, if you really wanted to revolt, you'd vote against funding these two illegal and immoral wars, not imposing a tax to pay for them. Shared sacrifice? Don't talk to the Democratic base about sharing the sacrifice for wars we tried to stop and you keep funding. Don't tell working people, who are losing their jobs and homes, to sacrifice more than Wall Street sacrifices. Don't tell Americans to share the sacrifice but give up the profits to banks and corporations. Americans sacrifice everyday because of outrageous health insurance and drug prices, home foreclosures, dropping home values, reduced pensions, and unemployment--thanks to you Democrats and Republicans in Congress who sacrifice NOTHING. Your call to working people to "sacrifice" is an insult. We don't want these wars, and in 2010 and 2012 we will not vote for warmongers.
obama will be seen in history as the conductor of the train wreck, one not too far around the track, i'd say. amazing his timidity in the face of the generals, both here and honduras, and the right wing in general. time to go to new hampshire and start picking a candidate who will defeat him in 2012, or at least put pressure on him in the meantime. if obama were a wide receiver, i'd never send him over the middle. he hears too many footsteps!
The problem is that Obama is using PROPAGANDA. That propaganda is that there is a military solution to terrorism. This has been shown to be false by the RAND Corporation study: "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida" (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1/). Sending more troops will create more Taliban fighters against the foreign occupiers and further destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear power. If he wants to make the U.S. safer, making it possible for terrorists to seize a nuclear weapon from a failing state is not the way to do so. Empowering the Afghan people which will isolate the Taliban and cause their downfall and lift the Afghan people from dire poverty ending the threat currently in Afghanistan.
Who cares anyways, Jack Bauer is coming back from retirement it torture terrorists and support Obama's escalation into Afghanistan while the empire inches over the cliff towards destruction. But we all know that and read the dire warning contained in the book "Nemesis". Nemesis is the godess of retribution and will not hold the U.S. empire short of the restorative justice that it deserves.