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, 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 |
© 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.