Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Despite Failing War, White House Says December Review Won't 'Change Channel'
The violence-prone, fraud-marred parliamentary election in Afghanistan is only the latest failure in the nine year-long US war, but it's looking less and less likely that the White House is seriously thinking about changing gears. So far, at least, it appears as if President Obama isn't prepared to cut his losses in the war and order a sharp drawdown of troops next July, when, at least according to his stated policy, US forces will begin to leave Afghanistan. Worse, it looks like the much anticipated December 2010 presidential review of war policy is being reduced to a rubber-stamp approval of General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency scheme.
At least, if we believe two major stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times by their chief diplomatic correspondents in the last few days.
The first piece, by Helene Cooper, David Sanger, and Thom Shanker of the Times on September 17 was entitled, "Once Wary, Obama Relies on Petraeus." Its central point, bolstered by insider quotes from White House staffers, was that Obama is increasingly in harmony with Petraeus. The president and the general are "meshing well, advisers say," they reported, adding that the president strikes a "deferential tone" toward Petraeus even though Petraeus "has made clear that he opposes a rapid pullout of troops from Afghanistan beginning next July." And the Times team reported:
"General Petraeus, who led the Iraq surge and was a favorite of Mr. Bush, has slowly worked himself into the good graces of a president who was once wary of him."
The article quoted Leslie Gelb, the uber-insider at the Council on Foreign Relations, thus:
"They are joined at the hip, but the leverage lies with Petraeus. And Petraeus has made plain, publicly, that after July 2011, he doesn't think there should be a rapid pullout."
The second piece, by Karen DeYoung of the Post on September 18, was entitled "White House sees no big changes in Afghan war." Its lede:
"Despite discouraging news from Afghanistan and growing doubts in Congress and among the American public, the Obama administration has concluded that its war strategy is sound and that a December review, once seen as a pivotal moment, is unlikely to yield any major changes."
Although outside experts-including a task force organized through Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation-believe "that the administration's path in Afghanistan is unsustainable and its objectives are unclear," reported DeYoung. Obama intends to disregard growing public opposition to the war and keep the strategy in place. She quoted a senior White House official as follows:
"The fundamentals are in the place where they should be. [Any adjustments] will be akin to moving the rabbit ears around a little bit to get better reception. I don't think we'll be changing the channel come December."
Of course, when Obama announced his second escalation of the war last December 1, he made a big deal of the fact that he'd review policy and strategy a year later. Now, if DeYoung's reporting is correct, the White House is signaling that the review will mean nothing at all. Which is exactly what General Stan McChrystal and General David Petraeus argued all along.
Since last summer, Petraeus and McChrystal have engaged in an insurgency of their own, bullying the White House, threatening to ally with pro-war Republicans in a direct challenge to presidential authority, leaking favorable documents to the media, and, in McChrystal's case, engaging in outright insubordination that threatened the very foundation of civilian control of the military. Based on what the Post and the Times are reporting now, their insurgency is even more successful that the Taliban's.
- 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...
13 Comments so far
Show Allmaybe we could have a summary article that could be posted in place of all of these that are so similar...
our path is unsustainable
our objective is unclear
our methods are horrific
even so, we will continue
until we are ready to leave
which will be a while
When a war or occupation ends the miltary industrial media complex's (MIMC)revenue stream slows down or stops.
The MIMC will not tolerate any negative impact on their revenues. Ir-Af-Pak is an eternal occupation that will give the MIMC eternal revenue.
America invaded Iraq to depose a dictator we did not fear so as to deprive him of weapons he did not possess in retaliation for an attack upon us in which he did not participate.
Now, after only fifteen Friedman Units, the tipping point will soon turn the corner and begin connecting the dots on the ink-stained flypaper dominoes in the tunnel at the end of the light.
In short, we lost the day we started and we win the day we stop, but we can't quit now because our friends will not respect us and our enemies will not fear us if we cease acting so bloody stupid. And, besides, since we've already squandered so much blood and treasure for nothing, we must keep squandering even more of both so that everything lost for nothing will not give losing for nothing a bad name.
Finally, we plan to think all this over again in yet another Friedman Unit, except that we already know that no thoughts will occur to us.
Like a badly injured prize fighter, the United States will continue to piss blood until it finally goes unconscious and dies. One hundred per cent of the people of this nation could be adamantly opposed to the endless wars and occupations. It wouldn't make any difference. Swine like Obama and Petraeus will do whatever they want because they are well aware of one simple fact: no matter how disenchanted the people of this nation may be about the political, intellectual and spiritual cancer that is destroying us, they will continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats to control the government. As long as that is true, the warmongers and imperialists have absolutely nothing to fear.
Mordechai, your points are always well made; you do a great job of describing the tragic situation in which we find ourselves.
Still, you crack me up. What an analogy! It seems like a movie script written for Bruce Willis (in his day). Only thing is - Bruce would somehow manage to survive and thrive. Ah, the movies.
Republicans and Democrats don't control the government, and elections do not determine or control who rules the country.
If one hundred per cent of the people of this nation could be adamantly opposed to the endless wars and occupations and it wouldn't make any difference, how on earth could voting make any difference? Are you saying that if there were a "no more wars" ticket on the ballot, and it won, that then warmongers and imperialists would have something to fear, would be stopped?
And I thought this lame-ass buffoonery looked and sounded like Vietnam four years ago:
"The Tipping Point Turns the Corner"
Around the next corner the tipping point turns
As the good ship capsizes and sinks
While the mad metaphors and flawed figures of speech
Guarantee that no one really thinks
So the dots get connected with crayon lines drawn
By the journalists flogging clichés
Like astrologers linking the stars into shapes
Telling fortunes as long as it pays
At the end of the tunnel the dominoes fall
As the oil spots to flypaper stick
With his boots on, George Custer fights to the last man
Making even the strong stomach sick
As they stood up, we stood down -- just not right away
With our shoulders to shoulders we marched
When the morning came corpses piled up in the morgues
Like some laundry loads unwashed and starched
Like the city that shines on the top of a hill
With a thousand or more points of light
Now the current flows only an hour a day
So in sweltering blackness they fight
They've a government, now, freely chosen at last
By the parties that somehow had won
Our ambassador, though, had to choose their PM
When we didn't like what they had done
Sure, they can't leave the Green Zone without getting killed
Our officials, too, travel by plane
Sneaking into and out of the country unseen
By the people who think us insane
But he won't cut and run says the man who ain't there
From his purpose he swears he won't swerve
"Bring 'em on!" taunts the juvenile joker in jeans
Clearing brush on his Texas preserve
As the world watched in horror, he drove off a cliff
Then he stumbled around in a daze
Now he says – after three years of chaos and death –
That he might have misused a trite phrase
"It's as easy as shootin' a bird in a cage,"
Says the Texas stud hamster of quail
When the rodents ride roughshod the feathered will flee
From the drunken dudes gone off the trail
And we've got us some mantras from Vietnam days
Like "we're there 'cause we're there 'cause we're there"
So when once we go somewhere, that means we can't leave
Like that German boot-planting affair
And the logic swirls faster in circles that swim
Like our friends won't respect a retreat
See, they'd rather we kept acting stupid and blind
Till we wind up a pile of dead meat
And our foes will not fear us if we should act smart
Which assumes that they fear us when dumb
An American innocence, surely, that comes
From a depth that you simply can't plumb
The octopus fascist sings swan songs sedate
Reinventing the same words and tune
So the president babbles of going to Mars
When we can’t even get to the Moon
Like the light of an oncoming train in the dark
We see hopefulness ever draw near
We're on track, can't you see, to a glorious dawn
So we'll stay the curse, never you fear
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2006
right on...
Your poem is hilarious.
How long before one of our generals crosses the Rubicon with his troops behind him? It's pathetic really. At least Caesar had actually defeated the Gauls, when he came back to seize control of Rome. These clowns just serve out their tours in various "command centers", then pop up like fun zone target cut-outs on Fox News, wearing a big rack of shiny tin and mouthing canned talking points.
And our Congress, instead of getting out the long knives, prostrates itself in orgiastic abandon, pushing and shoving to get to a free toe they can lick.
Why is anyone surprised. Obama is a cypher. He does what his masters tell him.
Every move Obama makes is Obamas'. Every move all the other players make is theater for the masses. Obama is not a victim. Obama is a violator.
Shuck and jive time is over Jacko! You are not fooling anyone.
a long line of replacement shills are waiting in the wings.
obama's time is almost up. he didn't last as long as his masters hoped but he was a perfect shill for a critical role at a critical moment. he shall be rewarded for that.