Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

The Afghan "surge"

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:27:56 AM MST


The news last weekend of the death of White Sulfur Springs soldier, Michael Rogers, in Iraq was a grim omen of Barack Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Rogers' death reminds us that war has a grim arithmetic. More Americans will die because of Obama's decision. More Afghanis will die because of Obama's decision.

Me? I'm not really sure I know what the right decision is. I really like Fred Kaplan's take on the war, not necessarily because of the suppositions, but because he honestly feels gross ambivalence about what to do:

Columnists are supposed to have firm views and express them with steadfast certainty. Since I write a column called "War Stories," the least a reader might expect from me is a clear opinion on whether the United States should escalate or pull out of the war in Afghanistan.

Recently, a friend told me that he couldn't quite figure out where I stood on the issue. I replied that I couldn't quite figure it out, either.

Personally, I supported going into Afghanistan. The Taliban - unlike Saddam Hussein - was connected to al Qaeda, and was harboring Osama bin Laden. Seemed the right thing to do. But now? It seems like our only goal is to keep the Taliban from returning to power. A fool's errand at which we keep throwing troops and money, hoping that the political and cultural system will somehow magically change while we're there. And while we all squabble over health care reform - you know, on programs that actually help people, that improve health and lives - we're throwing a sh*tload of money at a black hole of a war, without knowing why we're there, or what it is we're actually trying to accomplish.

Seymour Hersh was on Fresh Air recently, talking about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. He had this to say in reaction the news that President Obama had demanded an "exit strategy" from Afghanistan from his national security team:

...this could be a...really important step for the president. Because many are concerned...about the fact that he delegated much of the war-making policy to the generals in the field...There isn't a general in the armed forces asked to do that would say, I can't win...So he put himself into a box, and he was very passive for a long time about it. That's why, if you had asked me four days ago about it, I would have thought he was going to make a political decision to do something, to send some token troops, because he doesn't want to lose more independents, he wants to show he can run the war, he can be a tough guy.

But what Obama's done - if he has done what he seems to have done - is he's telling the military, you know what? I don't think it's going to fly. This is huge, because he's basically saying, I'm not going to play politics with the war, I'm not going to do what other presidents have and continue fighting a war that I don't think we can win, and I'm just stalling for time until I can find a way out.

That's what I would have guessed three or four days ago.

Well, Obama's speech last night didn't exactly signal a break from the kind of politicking with the war that Hersh was hoping for - Rachel Maddow even compared Obama's rhetoric to the "Bush Doctrine", the radical rhetoric that endorsed pre-emptive war -   but he did set a kind of amorphous exit timeline, something that hasn't yet been discussed for Afghanistan. Still, it reeks of compromise and politics. Worse, all the support from the same folks who were egregiously wrong about Bush's foreign policy - Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard, say, and other assorted righties -  should give us pause.

The reality is that any justification for us going into Afghanistan in the first place is long gone. We're there to baldly protect our own "national" interests, which obviously have more to do with the exchange of commodities than they do with national security or democracy or anything like that. And while there's a commitment to an exit, I guarantee we'll see this whole debate again when it comes up again in a year-and-a-half, at which time we should expect another "compromise."

But...did Obama promise us anything else during the election? Isn't this exactly what he said he was going to do?

Jay Stevens :: The Afghan "surge"
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Afghan "surge" | 21 comments
i guess I see the "time table" like I saw the "public option." It's an illusion to keep people from (4.00 / 1)
organizing to get what they really want.

Obama promised "no mandate" when he ran, but on matters like our health care he's fine with disregarding his campaign promises.

It's only on issues like sending 50% more troops into battle that he will stick to his guns.

One day we will leave Afghanistan, and it will be worse then than it is now, is my prediction. Propping up the illegitimate mafia government won't lead to good things.

This is what Malalai Joya, the woman and former legislator from Afghanistan has to say about the Obama war surge:

A troop surge can only magnify the crime against Afghanistan

If Barack Obama heralds an escalation of the war, he will betray his own message of hope and deepen my people's pain

After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.

I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.

While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don't believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.

It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies - Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women's rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.

After eight years of war, the situation is as bad as ever for ordinary Afghans, and women in particular. The reality is that only the drug traffickers and warlords have been helped under this corrupt and illegitimate Karzai government. Karzai's promises of reform are laughable. His own vice-president is the notorious warlord Fahim, whom Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch describes as "one of the most notorious warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands".

Transparency International reports that this regime is the second most corrupt in the world. The UN Development Programme reports Afghanistan is second last - 181st out of 182 countries - in terms of human development. That is why we no longer want this kind of "help" from the west.

Like many around the world, I am wondering what kind of "peace" prize can be awarded to a leader who continues the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starts a new war in Pakistan, all while supporting Israel?

Throughout my recent tour of the US, I had the chance to meet many military families and veterans who are working to put an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand that it is not a case of a "bad war" and a "good war" - there is no difference, war is war

More at link...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

"Afghans know what to do with our destiny."


I don't think he convinced anybody - (0.00 / 0)

I actually watched The Great Leader last night.

He was trying to look like a Commander-in-Chief, with West Point Academy as a backdrop, but it reminded me of the Temple they erected to him at their (The Dems) convention - it looked staged all the way -

The only times the cadets applauded was when he addressed what would be typical conservative things -

And his message was ridiculous, and unbelievable - to sum it up, he'll start sending more troops there next month, and start bringing them back in 18 months -

anybody here believe that?

He's sending more troops, because politically he has to.

And he's promising in the next breath to bring them home right away, because he has to appease the anti-war bunch in his own party.

And now the Taliban are in control - all they have to do is remind everybody that when the Americans leave in 2011 that they (The Taliban) will still be there - so don't help the Americans or else -  


What's your solution? (0.00 / 0)
7 years of Cheney and Bush put us in this position. So obviously republicans, conservatives and neocons haven't any idea what to do about Afghanistan. So they punted to the next president, which happened to be Obama.

So, it's easy to criticize Obama, but where were you and all the other supporters of the Bush Doctrine, when it came to actually getting something done, or raising some criticism of Bush's efforts?

I hear hypocrisy and political opportunism. You ready to start paying for the continued implementation of Bush's policies? Or are you ready to do something different?


[ Parent ]
I'm ready to predict that (0.00 / 0)
if Obama further escalates the troop levels in Afghanistan, or delays his withdrawal, that he is political dead meat in '12.

That's all I got to say about his speech last night to justify his decision.

Jes' sayin...


One caveat (0.00 / 0)
"It's the economy, stupid".

(I'm not calling you stupid, JC.  I hope you know that.)


[ Parent ]
Sure, it's the economy... (0.00 / 0)
it always is.

But Obama is going to need all the help he can from the base that propelled him over the top last year. Without them positioning him to take advantage of Bush & Co's inability to stave off the economic collapse until after the election, we'd have the Johnny and Sarah show running things.

And that base is getting horribly disillusioned with Obama's centrism, as different as it may be from Bush/Cheney. Joan Walsh said it very well after watching last night's noble [sic] performance:

"Obama has governed like the centrist he told us and showed us he is, from his early flip-flops on FISA to his Goldman Sachs-friendly bailout policies to compromising on the job-creation parts of his economic stimulus to his tepid backing of a healthcare reform public option...

[Cheney is] Obama's best friend, because he reminds the left that as disappointing as this president is, on so many, many fronts, he's not Cheney. Small comfort tonight, but it's something."

And again, in last week's Missoula Independent piece, "Rethinking the Vote:"

During a visit to the University of Montana Oct. 8, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina spoke briefly about the political fire ignited among America's youth by President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Their passion, sparked by the unconventional tools of the digital age, helped sweep Obama into office.

But Messina's comments painted a discouraging picture for the future of that movement. He said voters ages 18 to 29 continue to rally around the issue of climate change, but the enthusiasm generated by the Obama camp has cooled over the last nine months...

Messina offered no explanations why that passion subsided so rapidly. He only cited anecdotal evidence that it has. Cody Bloomsburg, a 23-year-old journalism grad student at UM, remembers pressing the issue with Messina.

"I asked him about it. I said, 'Well, are you seeing a lot of the youth vote walk away?' He replied, 'Yeah, people got busy. They were happy that Obama got elected, and then they kind of returned to their lives. We've seen a decline in young people working for Organize for America and being involved.'"

And that spells trouble for Obama going forward. If he doesn't begin to feed his progressive base activists, they won't be there for him in '12. And I don't see much on the plate yet. Sure, he's got 2 1/2 years to turn that around, but the signature progressive and youth issues--FISA, torture, health care, gay issues, climate change, afghanistan, etc.--all have moved away from them. And the progressive base isn't going to listen to political posturing about why they have been ignored, when it comes time to get them excited about the next elections.

Well, it always may be "it's the economy, stupid." But will it be enough? Or will it even be...???


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link to the journalism students (0.00 / 0)
I was struck by this statement:
"It's tough to just go out on the street and engage people in a political discussion," Bloomsburg says. "We're trying to steer people toward the website and get the Missoula community involved there."

I thought journalists and reporters investigated by going out on the street?  What happened to interviewing people in diners, on corners, in line to the movie theater?  What is this newfangled idea of waiting for the news to come to you in your room or on your phone?

One of the most viewed  videos right now is the interview of people standing in line for a Sarah Palin book signing.

Also, journalism student Bloomsburg missed an opportunity to follow up with Messina and ask "Well, if they "got busy" and "returned to their lives", why were they not busy last year and did they have no lives then?"  


[ Parent ]
This bothers me, alot (0.00 / 0)
There are way too many folk who desire desperately to paint this picture of 'Obama continuing Bush policy'.  I can only assume they do that for personal reasons, but it's bullshit.  Yes, I wrote bullshit.

Bush's policy was to start a war and then abandon it for more profitable death markets.  Leave the rhetoric aside and look at what happened.  BUSH abandoned Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in favor of attacking Saddam.  That was his policy.  Because of that, Afghanistan/Pakistan is now a colossal mess, one I have little faith that Obama can successfully clean up.  The surge in Afghanistan is not Bush policy at all.  This is something different (probably futile for being far too little far too late).  I agree with those right and left now claiming that this is Obama's war.  That's because it's different than what Bush did.


Jingoist (0.00 / 0)

 I'm not surprised you didn't know that the invasion of Afghanistan was Illegal and Wrong, Stupid and for profit.

  Only a bellicose Republican would have been for the invasion ! they're for invading and conquering and no taxes.

  It's nice Mr Stevens can tell on himself. What a pity he didn't know the invasions were Wrong and Stupid - just look at the ppl who carried out 9/11 none were from Afghanistan ... No Country Attacked US. Mr. Stevens is one of those centrist - practicing random acts of revenge. Even knowing this Stevens was still for the invasion... and still concludes there was justification in the 'first place'. how corrupt and sad.

      Nothing Left about this, nor is LitW.


Define "left" (0.00 / 0)
You don't own the left, Darwin. And I don't see how you can say the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11...despite the fact they were housing al Qaeda at the time.

What would you have done differently? I'm definitely curious. 9/11 was a pretty big deal. What would you have had us do in response? It's fun to try and oust me and the blog from the "left" for initially approving the military response,  but, really, absent a coherent alternative, you just sound incoherent.


[ Parent ]
Answers (0.00 / 0)
What would you have done differently?

Sung Kumbaya?  Give Peace a Chance?  Nuke the whole region?  Taken from the rich (Suadis) and given to the poor (Afghans, who then would have been forced at AK-47 point to give those riches to the Taliban)?  Collectivize the Afghan polity into a non-syndicalist commune who would take turns as executive officer of the week?  Kidnap people, hold them indefinitely and torture them for faulty information?  Wait, we did that one. Given every single Afghan child a puppy?  Killed their leaders and convert them to Christianity? Spread rumors throughout the Middle East that "you better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout, I'm telling you why.  Santa Clause is coming, to town!"?  The possibilities are UNLIMITLESS!

Jay, for whatever reason, Darwin has gone bye-bye.  The invasion of Afghanistan was not illegal.  It was signed off on by the UN.  It was not stupid.  It was the appropriate response to a theocratic government which fostered attacks against many of the nations that had already come to fear al Qaeda.

And despite Darwin's night terrors, you nor LITW, are responsible for the fact that it was done badly.  BushCo bears that mark of shame.  All we can do at this point is hope that Obama doesn't brand himself with it as well.


[ Parent ]
"Ambivalence" is a luxury in matters of war and death. (0.00 / 0)
Your essay started correctly with the death of a young soldier from Montana, Michael Rogers. And  we should continue the discussion of the deaths of Afghan and Pakistan citizens of which there are many.

This terrible mess started a long time ago with Richard Holbrooke during the Carter administration and now he's in charge again.  Also:  http://www.truthdig.com/report...

The current president's military point man, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, served in Carter's National Security Council and knows that Obama is speaking falsely when he asserts it was the Soviet occupation that gave rise to the Muslim insurgency that we abetted. Gates wrote a memoir in 1996 which, as his publisher proclaimed, exposed "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen-six months before the Soviets invaded."

Read Tim Weiner's exhaustive history of the CIA "Legacy of Ashes".  Mark and Steve are correct in identifying our ongoing foreign policy as one that protects our corporate interests whether it is United Fruit, Exxon or Halliburton and Bechtel.  It's not a secret cabal.  But they do try to avoid transparency. It's our job as citizens and citizen journalists to keep ferreting out the information and educating who we can.  

So, yes, Obama is continuing the status quo of "protecting our interests" i.e. controling other people's stuff primarily by using military force. Whether he wants to or is forced to, I cannot say with certainty.

Phil Ochs once wrote a song about liberals and the refrain was "love me, love me, I'm a liberal".  Liberal can mean all kinds of things.  But traditionally, a lefty is one who believes in trying to end the triple evils that Martin Luther King talked about; militarism, economic injustice and racism all three of which we are practicing in the Middle East.  I have no ambivalence about this.  

 


The Afghan "surge" | 21 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox