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
Obama's 'Finish the Job' Talk Sets Stage for Afghan Troop Surge
Nov 25, 2009
President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision
with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for
a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.
But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new
course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead
"stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.
Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job"
speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended
commitment to the American people."
Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.
Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his
war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear
rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our
goals, that they will be supportive," he said.
But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many
Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer
the country deeper into a quagmire.
As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists
stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that
would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the
troops home.
In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699,
which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops
to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim
McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.
Tom Hayden, the former California
legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as
prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space
for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the
country during the next six months."
That's right.
Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.
And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President
Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that
indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment
toprop up Karzai's regime.
Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey,
the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations
Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a
mistake to deepen our involvement."
Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax
on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the
health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who
will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand
the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that
the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've
had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and
everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional
challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues
that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.
Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative
we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if
Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for
nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an
increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to
pay for it."
The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.
But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.
And his warning is stark and necessary one.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision
with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for
a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.
But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new
course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead
"stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.
Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job"
speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended
commitment to the American people."
Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.
Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his
war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear
rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our
goals, that they will be supportive," he said.
But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many
Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer
the country deeper into a quagmire.
As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists
stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that
would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the
troops home.
In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699,
which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops
to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim
McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.
Tom Hayden, the former California
legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as
prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space
for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the
country during the next six months."
That's right.
Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.
And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President
Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that
indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment
toprop up Karzai's regime.
Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey,
the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations
Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a
mistake to deepen our involvement."
Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax
on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the
health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who
will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand
the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that
the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've
had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and
everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional
challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues
that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.
Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative
we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if
Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for
nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an
increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to
pay for it."
The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.
But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.
And his warning is stark and necessary one.
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision
with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for
a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.
But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new
course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead
"stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.
Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job"
speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended
commitment to the American people."
Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.
Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his
war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear
rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our
goals, that they will be supportive," he said.
But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many
Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer
the country deeper into a quagmire.
As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists
stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that
would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the
troops home.
In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699,
which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops
to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim
McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.
Tom Hayden, the former California
legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as
prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space
for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the
country during the next six months."
That's right.
Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.
And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President
Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that
indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment
toprop up Karzai's regime.
Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey,
the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations
Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a
mistake to deepen our involvement."
Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax
on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the
health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who
will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand
the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that
the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've
had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and
everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional
challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues
that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.
Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative
we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if
Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for
nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an
increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to
pay for it."
The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.
But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.
And his warning is stark and necessary one.
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.