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.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
© 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.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy