SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Barack of Afpakia"
Feb 17, 2009
Today's Wall Street Journal suggests that
if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in
Afghanistan, he'll have to fall back on the support of "Bush
Republicans and neocons." In its lead editorial, it says:
Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist
Richard Reeves, "Why are we in Afghanistan?" The President's friends at
Newsweek are helpfully referring to "Obama's Vietnam." Mr. Obama may
find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support --
to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.
The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:
The regents are on the ground and commanders are
crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge
in Afghanistan. Let's hope he's willing to see it through when his most
stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.
In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions
haven't yet been set in stone about Obama's Afghan policy. How many
troops he adds, if any -- whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed
during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want -- isn't
decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and
oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are
raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem
at Get Afghanistan Right.
Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs,
Obama's spokesman: "I would expect the presidential decision could come
shortly." Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama
will make a decision within "days." But why would the president decide
to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote
earlier, it's a classic case of "Ready, Fire, Aim."
There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: "New US troops in Afghanistan see combat." MSNBC's headline is:
"3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge." Strictly speaking, these
troops aren't the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation
of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC's report notes:
The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge
of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under
President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack
Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Nation
Bob Dreyfuss
Bob Dreyfuss is an independent journalist based in New York City and Cape May, New Jersey. For the past twenty-five years, he's written extensively on politics and national security for a wide range of publications. His work has appeared in Common Dreams, Rolling Stone, The Nation, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, The New Republic, The Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, and many other magazines and websites.
Today's Wall Street Journal suggests that
if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in
Afghanistan, he'll have to fall back on the support of "Bush
Republicans and neocons." In its lead editorial, it says:
Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist
Richard Reeves, "Why are we in Afghanistan?" The President's friends at
Newsweek are helpfully referring to "Obama's Vietnam." Mr. Obama may
find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support --
to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.
The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:
The regents are on the ground and commanders are
crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge
in Afghanistan. Let's hope he's willing to see it through when his most
stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.
In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions
haven't yet been set in stone about Obama's Afghan policy. How many
troops he adds, if any -- whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed
during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want -- isn't
decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and
oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are
raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem
at Get Afghanistan Right.
Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs,
Obama's spokesman: "I would expect the presidential decision could come
shortly." Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama
will make a decision within "days." But why would the president decide
to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote
earlier, it's a classic case of "Ready, Fire, Aim."
There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: "New US troops in Afghanistan see combat." MSNBC's headline is:
"3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge." Strictly speaking, these
troops aren't the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation
of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC's report notes:
The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge
of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under
President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack
Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.
Bob Dreyfuss
Bob Dreyfuss is an independent journalist based in New York City and Cape May, New Jersey. For the past twenty-five years, he's written extensively on politics and national security for a wide range of publications. His work has appeared in Common Dreams, Rolling Stone, The Nation, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, The New Republic, The Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, and many other magazines and websites.
Today's Wall Street Journal suggests that
if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in
Afghanistan, he'll have to fall back on the support of "Bush
Republicans and neocons." In its lead editorial, it says:
Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist
Richard Reeves, "Why are we in Afghanistan?" The President's friends at
Newsweek are helpfully referring to "Obama's Vietnam." Mr. Obama may
find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support --
to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.
The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:
The regents are on the ground and commanders are
crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge
in Afghanistan. Let's hope he's willing to see it through when his most
stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.
In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions
haven't yet been set in stone about Obama's Afghan policy. How many
troops he adds, if any -- whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed
during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want -- isn't
decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and
oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are
raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem
at Get Afghanistan Right.
Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs,
Obama's spokesman: "I would expect the presidential decision could come
shortly." Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama
will make a decision within "days." But why would the president decide
to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote
earlier, it's a classic case of "Ready, Fire, Aim."
There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: "New US troops in Afghanistan see combat." MSNBC's headline is:
"3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge." Strictly speaking, these
troops aren't the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation
of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC's report notes:
The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge
of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under
President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack
Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.