Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Hollow Politics of Escalation
An underlying conceit of the new spin about benchmarks and timetables for Afghanistan is the notion that pivotal events there can be choreographed from Washington. So, a day ahead of the president's Tuesday night speech, the New York Times quotes an unnamed top administration official saying: "He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down."
But "eventually" is a long way off. In the meantime, the result of Washington's hollow politics is more carnage.
The next days and weeks will bring an avalanche of hype about insisting on measurable progress and shifting burdens onto the Afghan army -- while the U.S. military expands the war. In the groove, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, told CNN viewers on Sunday: "The key element here is not just more troops. The key element is shifting the operations to the Afghanis [sic]. And if that can be done, then I would support the president."
That's the kind of talk that I. F. Stone disparaged at the height of the Vietnam War, in mid-1970, when he concluded: "Not enough Asians are going to fight Asians for us even if the price is right."
Now, President Obama's decision to massively escalate the Afghanistan war is confronting people and institutions in the United States with a challenge of historic dimensions.
Among those inclined to be antiwar, it doesn't much matter whether they "support" the escalation. What matters is whether they openly oppose it -- and, if so, how vocally and emphatically.
There's a clear and well-trod pathway for ineffectual dissent from members of Congress who end up passively assisting the escalation by a fellow Democrat in the Oval Office. Avid support for the war effort is helpful but not necessary. Scarcity of determined opposition will suffice to keep the war politically viable in Washington.
At the core of the enabling politics is inner space that's hollow enough to reliably cave under pressure. Typically, Democrats with antiwar inclinations weaken and collapse at push-comes-to-shove moments on Capitol Hill. The habitual pattern involves loyalty toward -- and fear of -- "the leadership."
Early on, during President Johnson's Vietnam War escalation, Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening and then Frank Church were prophetic antiwar pariahs. As years went by, the war's horrors and growing domestic opposition led some others in Congress to find a solid inner core that withstood pro-war pressures. Eventually.
We're now in an early stage of such a progression. Due to careful silences in U.S. politics, many more lives will be shattered. Soon. And eventually.
The essence of a core becomes evident under pressure. It's one thing to voice opposition to sending more troops into Afghanistan -- it's another to really try to prevent the escalation. Few in Congress have gotten serious enough about halting the war's deadly spiral to sign onto Congresswoman Barbara Lee's bill H.R. 3699, which would prohibit any increase in funding for additional troop deployment to Afghanistan.
Among Democrats in powerful positions, some misgivings about the war are evident -- but willingness to withhold spending for the war is not.
The tragic limits of those misgivings were evident last week when ABC News interviewed Rep. David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, who called for a war surtax.
"On the merits, I think it's a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy."
Then came a direct question from the network correspondent: "The White House comes and asks you again to get through this Congress money for an increased commitment in Afghanistan -- are you going to be there fighting to get that passed?"
The congressman replied: "I'm going to be there fighting to get whatever they do, paid for."
But Congress can't stop the war while paying for it.
- Posted in
24 Comments so far
Show AllThank you for quoting I. F. Stone, one of the few sane reporters during the Vietnam era. It is not very difficult to guess what Izzie would have to say today about the current warmongers and their cheerleader-in-chief. His analysis would be devastating.
It would be lovely to laugh. The problem is the idiots do not only escalate, they breed.
It is not enough to disagree with them. The world has to take responsibility for them. Americans of the world are the closest to them and must move on them.
Time to be a real hero!
The military industrial complex which runs the United States has learned its lesson from the Vietnam war which was to abolish the draft and use private armies on a huge scale so as to prevent any massive protests against stupid wars like Iraq or Afghanistan. The results have been excellent from their point of view and now they are much more open in setting American foreign policy and telling the president what to do. Of course this is made easier when the president has little backbone.
Throw in the highest unemployment rate since 1934 and the military industrial media complex now has a defacto draft.
Enlisting in the US military is now the only job available for many Americans.
A defacto draft is a war profiteer's dream !
An additional lesson the military industrial media complex learned from Viet Nam is that when a war or occupation ends, their revenue diminishes or dries up. They will therefore keep the Ir-Af-Pak occupation alive for decades to come to assure an eternal revenue stream.
Well said. Alas, very true.
Who said "Stop the world, I want to get off?"
Sometimes, it feels so utterly hopeless, me thinks that a better solution.
That is the problem it should have nothing at all to do with funding its morally wrong. War is nearly always the wrong way to go in this case its a no brainer - bring them home now.
In other words, Norman, all we can reasonably expect from the Democrats is what the most cynical among us always remind the idealistic dreamers: On this issue, as with all others of real consequence, it will be the same shit, different day. A meager handful will lamely object to escalation, there will be 5 seconds of it covered by corporate media, and the votes will overwhelmingly support Obama's insane and suicidal objectives. The Dems will once again defy history, reason, common sense, or average intelligent responses to this total quagmire Obama is clearly fixated on so he can be a "successful war president" by finishing the job started by an outright and incontestable war criminal.
And Obey shows very clearly that the only "moral" consideration he has is over funding the folly. If he can find a way to pay for it, with a surtax on the rich, then he's fine with the murder and chaos sure to follow. This is the true face of our Democratic Party.
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.
There will be no re-instatement of mandatory conscription (draft). If that happens, the jig is up, even apathetic, lazy and ignorant Americans would protest their kids being sent off as cannon fodder for corporate profits. The kids being drafted would also protest.
We are already paying the price for what Joe Stiglitz (economist) calls 5 trillion dollar wars (likely even higher, when all is said and done). We will be paying for decades to come, this is just adding to mortgaging the future.
The sad truth is the only "choice" we will have will be between two corporate war vultures. That is the case about 95% of the time. Just think about how many members of Congress did not vote for the last round of imperial funding. Ron Paul, Dennis K. Barbara Lee and a few others. That's it.
The need for a conscription based draft will only arise if the current defacto draft (created by the worst job market since 1934)ends. That will only occur if the job market recovers and we are being told to expect a jobless recovery.
Judging from Obama and Congress' financial industry, health care and stimulus actions of the past year, the defacto draft will be with us for years, if not decades.
Our jobless recovery--wage war and give the jobless jobs fighting it.
His Excellency, The Great Obama is a prophet of deceit and the basest, lamest, most destructive and lethal form of cowardice. He lives in the poisoned bubble of the White House and national politics at its highest level. He eats Five Star Cordon Bleu bullshit nonstop and cannot get enough. Like George Wanker Bush, he is being eaten alive by visions of Glory and Victory. He has passed through the gates of the cemetery where his presidency will be buried. He will lie in the grave and cover himself with dirt. He is about to give a speech where, in the grandest, lowest and most despicable fashion, he escalates the Afghan war and yet, at the same time, says we are getting out and expects us to believe this whoppingest whopper of all the lies that have rolled off his tongue. How low can you go? Keep digging!
"..the New York Times quotes an unnamed top administration official saying:..."
This is what passes for "news" thee days. Information is deliberately leaked by the Govt, the press is all over it (without checking their sources), and then the Govt will quote the article that appears in the NYT.
Seen this before? You betcha!
BTW, anyone know what is going on in Iraq? Have we left yet? There is nothing said on Iraq anymore in the "news".
Does everyone forget that the 30's Great Depression and its attendant high unemployment was only resolved with the WWII war economy?
It seems we still do not have any other products to offer the world than blodthirsty warfare and the utensils to enable that conduct.
Take a long look around you. Our primary exports are the weapons of war.
A series of massive non-violent work slowdowns and work stoppages against all tentacles of the defense industry is needed to slow down or ,hopefully, end the spiral we are on.
But I could be wrong !
I wish non-violent slowdowns and/or stoppages would work. They certainly did 40 years ago.
I have been at the forefront to organize a national strike, notably Tue Sep 11 2007. IT was a dismal failure. Perhaps the blame lay in the fact that is was not about a single issue. It was not an anti-war protest, a civil rights protest, an election fraud protest. It was not about torture, surveillance, corporate media, the 9/11 cover-up, or the environment. This strike was about all these issues and more.
But it failed, miserably. It is estimated that only a few 10s of thousands heeded the call, which was not enough to dent the coffers of the Elite.
I love the concept of a general strike, but there is so much malaise in our country. College students don't bother. Today's WTC protests draw more people interested in seeing police clashes rather than protesting the issues of globalization.
We are too fat (figuratively), lazy and safe. What it will take to motivate Americans is a complete reduction to zero. When America is no longer a safe, happy and pleasant environment for the majority to lead out their selfish lives, then you may have a movement.
Cur 4:37 --- I think you are wrong, I've read that Mr. Hopkins created a few million jobs in a matter of months.
The day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 11%. It took a decade and the Herculean effort of the New Deal to lower the rate from 25% to 11%. If WWII hadn't happened who knows if it would ever have gotten any lower. Fifty million people worldwide died in WWII, 27 million in the Soviet Union. Because we were the only belligerent nation to escape unscathed, we emerged (temporarily) as Numero Uno with the A-Bomb. That's all long, long gone and we're sinking like a stone. Sic transit gloria mundi, eh Barack.
obama has no courage. he needs to go see the wizard. even the cowardly lion of oz yore would stand sturdier against the likes of beck, the generals, the bishops, and the media than obama has. we need a president with a good brain; so we have one. unfortunately, it's nowhere near connected to his spine.
Norm, this column is way too complex. It's not about pressure from the base. How much pressure from people would be enough for Congress to change course? Did hundreds of thousands of antiwar protesters deter the Iraq war?
No, it's really about the money. Obey is trying to tell you that. Congress funds its districts back home through military contracts and war spending. Dems and Repugs do the same in that regard.
If you wanted something different, you'd have to gain a foothold by voting for a third party. You're going nowhere trying to make the Dems be something they aren't. They're corporate shills, Norm, and there's money to be had in these wars. I'm sorry you believed otherwise, but it's time to wake up and stop writing columns like this one.
-TIA
Isn't this war still all about the central Asian oil?
At least that's what I thought has been our motive.
Yep, that appears to be the mission of U.S. Central Command (Centcom). Protect oil routes and expand NATO into Central Asia. The book, "Blood and Oil," by Michael Klare talks about this somewhat. It's maybe not the best book out there, but it gives an overall picture and a motivation - namely, U.S. dependence on dwindling foreign oil supplies.
-TIA
I guess what you are saying is that it is time for Democratic politicians to stop putting money where there mouth is supposedly not...
Yesterday Dan Rather who had just returned from Afghanistan was interviewed by Rachel Maddow. The attending "action pictures" showed Mr. Rather in combat dress talking to military personnel. Apparently he never talked to one of the numerous tribal leaders of the country. Why, then does this clown pretend to know anything about Afghanistan other than what the army commanders tell him?
The hollow politics of Norman Solomon: the DNC delegate who urged us to vote for Obama whilst denouncing those critics that warned this was going to happen, that Obama was a slimy war supporter with no backbone.
And now he wants us to believe that Congress will stop this war. That will never happen. Never.
The only way this war will end now is on the ground in Afghanistan or in the streets of the U.S.