Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
All-Too-Familiar Line on Afghanistan
The President talked about America’s enduring values again at West Point Tuesday night, and then he laid them out, a whole lot of values one can only wish would endure a little less.
The President began his address to the nation on Afghanistan in the traditional style of his predecessor, setting the tone for troop deployments by recalling 9-11 and terror and fright. Then came the retelling of the traditional Al Qaeda story, the one that omits any mention of Saudi Arabia or Israeli occupation or post-Gulf War US bases — in fact any mention of politics.
Sadly, our new president seemed to share George W. Bush’s appreciation for the value of a simple villain and not asking questions. So much for those who seek a new narrative, one that might include the debate that exists around the world about the merits and real demerits of war as a response to a criminal terrorist act.
Having declared legitimacy, the president then claimed responsibility, a special American responsibility and authority to invade, police, and act in ways that other countries may not.
Amazingly, the nation’s first Black president retold the simplest national founding story: “Our union was founded in resistance to oppression.” (For his wife’s ancestors it was not.) And he made the classic claim of innocence “We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources.” (The US has a long history, of course, of helping our corporations do just that, from Chevron to United Fruit.)
As tradition requires, Obama claimed progress is being made. Maybe so, but it’d be more convincing in Afghanistan were it not for all those US-backed Afghan warlords gearing up to fight each other with US weapons, fueled by a heroin trade that the CIA stands accused of letting rip. Obama’s words were too familiar — so too his silences.
Finally and worst, for those who’d thought they’d voted for the death of the Bush Doctrine. Sorry. Bush/Cheney live on in the new president’s embrace of the idea that the US has a right, not only to respond to attacks, but also to deploy men and women in anticipation of them.
“New attacks are being plotted as I speak,” said Obama.
Do I hear an echo? So much for those who had the audacity to hope.
- Posted in
19 Comments so far
Show Allyeah,...but... the rows and rows of cadets, in their grey chairman mao outfits, were eating it up. That's his "base" he was speaking to ;)
It is funny how the prominent Democratic supporters in America, only notice their party's similarity to the Republicans, AFTER each election. Wouldn't it be something to see them support a real peace candidate?
It seems he used the cadets as 'props' for the imperialistic, militaristic, jingoistic show. That's entertainment.
They got one cadet (or an actor playing the role of a cadet) to pose with a book about GETTING BIN LADEN.
It's like a cartoon show. I'm surprised Boris Badanoff didn't skulk offstage.
Wouldn't it have been wonderful if the first 'black' U.S. president was also a person of conviction, courage, and action? He would have increased the numbers of American supporters for his programs, the government, his political party, and an end (someday) of racism. He could have pulled the country together, including all in the pursuit of common goals. He could have led the nation toward a more admirable moral status in the world's view.
It wasn't that hard - everyone was tired of the Bush admininstration - and each progressive step could easily have been framed as 'correcting Bush2 missteps' in political, economic, justice, educational, med-care, foreign relations, etc.etc.
He could have made a difference. As it is, our job is much, much harder since we have to fight not only the well-rooted Bushian legacy but also nearly every act by Obama. All he's shown is that a younger, well-educated, well-spoken (more or less), person of color can be just as odious and misguided as the old white politicians. Sigh.
Mumia Abu Jamal was right when he said (in figurative terms) over 6 months ago that Obama was a "house Negro" who turned his back on us "field Negroes".
He is an articulate, half-white, man who is acceptable to white folks. In the process of Uncle Tom-ing himself, he had to turn his back on black folks, brown folks, working folks, poor folks, even many middle-class folks etc. In short he serves the interests of the Banksters and corporate elite who bought him the election.
I agree with Jamal's opinion.
Jamal is paying for that statement.
The guvmint is accelerating pressure to put him to death!!!!
But I could be wrong !
'Cause Obamanible has the mendacity of hype.
Gee, but I thought those bad ol Neocons were gone.
Why does Obomber say the same exact things as Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Perle/Kristol/Kagan/Bolton? Is this just a bad dream?
veni, vidi, ego constructum an oil pipio
"New attacks are being plotted as I speak....."
They were always being plotted, both long before and after 9/11/01. Always will be.
The problem is, military force is powerless to deter plotting.
Only highly professional undercover police work can achieve that.
Invading, killing, and occupying the locals, in turn, makes it even more difficult to undertake effective police work amidst the locals.
Why is this simple cultural dynamic so hard to grasp, or for politicians to talk about?
Bill from Saginaw
"Why is this simple cultural dynamic so hard to grasp, or for politicians to talk about?"
Because they don't want the "war on terror" to ever end. As was the "World Communist Conspiracy Threat" of the 1940's through the 1980's, it's a guaranteed re-election meal ticket (FEAR!!!) for them as well as for the war profiteers - the Military/Academic/Industrial/Media (MAIM) Complex and its subservient Tools & Lackeys in Congress, the White House, and Supreme Court.
Why would they bite one of the many hands that feed them (along with Wall Street, Insurance, and Big Pharma)?
Our entire political/economic system is corrupt and must be scrapped.
But how?
Check Glenn Greenwald's recent piece for Salon matching 0's words against Bush's.
Still Mickey D's whatever kid they have in the hat at the counter.
Whether we need a 3rd political party; massive civil disobedience; leveraging every possible technology and activist resource; exposure of corruption; protests that affect the corporate pocketbook- the time to think that top down change will occur was over a very long time ago.
I could go on- but what is the point? I think (or hope) I took the red pill a long time ago. Obama may have overdosed on the blue.
ED writes---
"Because they don't want the "war on terror" to ever end."
As I was reading this thread that was my thought pretty much exactly.
A corollary to Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine is the Politics of Scarcity. An eternal War on Terror equals an eternal Mobilization and thus overriding control of ALL physical resources by the Executive of the beleaguered country.
We are living in Orwell's Oceania. I know that's trite, even banal, which is what they want. Scarcity is as scarcity does.
Geez, all those sociological tropes from the 20th century are coming forth...like the inverse correlation between standard of living and too many children. Face it. Whatever the current market manipulations, the era of cheap oil is over, and thus ALL those paradigms of Human Development from the last century that did NOT account for Scarcity of Energy (whether natural or planned) are obsolete.
Around a century ago, Henry Adams, a prodigal of two U.S. presidents, opined that if Empiricism had proven that Marx was correct, Academe would deny it until hell froze over.
So many make so much money from assuring obfuscation, you know, like Richard Holbrooke, our "pointman" in afghanistan.
All the usual suspects have been brought forth to defend the impossible.
-30-
At some point most of the oil will be gone. The militaries of the world are already fighting over oil. The militaries of the world use huge amounts of oil. At some point all the oil remaining will be used only by militaries fighting over oil. This is the logical conclusion of the current paradigm.
"Then came the retelling of the traditional Al Qaeda story, the one that omits any mention of Saudi Arabia or Israeli occupation or post-Gulf War US bases — in fact any mention of politics."
You mean the narrative that disappoints the likes of al-qaida, hoping we'll all get out the trampoline whenever they say jump? Act like beaten wives so THEY may dictate OUR foreign policy?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
Interesting how few comments here. It seems the Obamabots and Duopoly apologists found it too uncomfortable
Hey Kent Shaw,
I think you're on to something there!
Think DARPA nano-drones...
And to "socialist," I see you are adopting MY moniker, Obamabot!
You are correct, meanwhile; the article is rather blunt, in a feminine---not feminist---sort of way. The author really is seeking a new "narrative" here, I think.
"I do not think; therefore I am."
-30-