Obama Readies Afghan Escalation

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Obama Readies Afghan Escalation
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 09/08/2009 @ 10:17am

Don't look for surprises from President Obama on Afghanistan. During the two year campaign, and since taking office, he's been consistent. For Obama, Afghanistan is the right war, and he's staked his presidency on winning it. In order to placate the liberal-left and its allies in Congress, Obama is putting out the word (from the National Security Council) that he's willing to listen to all points of view, including those who believe that it's time to cut and run. Listen, he will. Cut and run, he won't.

The big papers today are full of showdown talk. "US Buildup: A Necessity?" headlines the New York Times, citing George Will-style alternatives such as fighting Al Qaeda long distance, via intelligence, Predator drones, and US special forces. The Times likens the conflict to a "quagmire with a muddled mission," but it then cites a litany of experts from the terrorism-industrial complex explaining why the US can't scale back its commitment. The Washington Post headlines Afghanistan as a "pivotal moment" for Obama. But after raising questions about US strategy, the Post answers them, too, suggesting that the US can't back down because of "the stakes involved and the investment already made." Also in the Post, columnist Anne Applebaum stresses the importance of the war, adding: "Obama needs to cajole and convince campaign, in other words, and campaign hard."

A passel of neoconservatives, under the leadership of the Foreign Policy Initiative -- a group founded earlier this year as a reconstituted version of the Committee on the Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century -- has written to Obama urging him to stand fast. It's ironic, since unlike 2001-2004, when they had plenty of co-thinkers inside government, this time the neocons are on the outside looking in, with few if any friends inside the White House. But that doesn't stop them from providing free advice, calling on the president to "fully resource" the war, i.e., to escalate it. In its letter, the FPI crowd, including Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, warns:

Since the announcement of your administration's new strategy, we have been troubled by calls for a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan and a growing sense of defeatism about the war.

And they add:

There is no middle course. Incrementally committing fewer troops than required would be a grave mistake and may well lead to American defeat. We will not support half-measures that repeat the errors of the past.

There is, of course, a middle course, and that's the path that Obama (unfortunately) is likely to take.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-6

[CountAllVotes]

1. . . .

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST/AFGHANISTAN NOW!!!!

:dem:

[CRojas]

2. Reply

I think Obama has to set better relationships with the international community though the Department of State. (Hard work to Hillary!!)

[Orwellian_Ghost]

3. Bump

for a kinder-gentler neo-liberal imperialism.

Always money for this warfare.

[Arctic Dave]

4. STOP CALLING IT A WAR!!!!

This is an occupation. This is nothing more then trying to strangle the Middle East into a submission hold so we can rape their resources.

[TBF]

5. K&R n/t

[blindpig]

6. How is this not like 'Nam?

Other than the resources issue, nothing at all, imperial hubris. And of course, there is money to be made.

[G_j]

7. Obama's Quagmire Looks a Lot like Vietnam

http://www.alternet.org/world/142565/obama%27s_quagmire_looks_a_lot_like_vietnam/

Obama's Quagmire Looks a Lot like Vietnam
By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted September 11, 2009.

The way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency.

True, he doesn't seem a bit like Lyndon Johnson, but the way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency. LBJ also had a progressive agenda in mind, beginning with his war on poverty, but it was soon overwhelmed by the cost and divisiveness engendered by a meaningless, and seemingly endless, war in Vietnam.

Meaningless is the right term for the Afghanistan war, too, because our bloody attempt to conquer this foreign land has nothing to do with its stated purpose of enhancing our national security. Just as the government of Vietnam was never a puppet of communist China or the Soviet Union, the Taliban is not a surrogate for al Qaeda. Involved in both instances was an American intrusion into a civil war whose passions and parameters we never fully have grasped and will always fail to control militarily.

The Vietnamese communists were not an extension of an inevitably hostile, unified international communist enemy, as evidenced by the fact that communist Vietnam and communist China are both our close trading partners today. Nor should the Taliban be considered simply an extension of a Mideast-based al Qaeda movement, whose operatives the United States recruited in the first place to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Those recruits included Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attack, and financier Osama bin Laden, who met in Afghanistan as part of a force that Ronald Reagan glorified as "freedom fighters." As blowback from that bizarre, mismanaged CIA intervention, the Taliban came to power and formed a temporary alliance with the better-financed foreign Arab fighters still on the scene.

There is no serious evidence that the Taliban instigated the 9-11 attacks or even knew about them in advance. Taliban members were not agents of al Qaeda; on the contrary, the only three governments that financed and diplomatically recognized the Taliban - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan - all were targets of bin Laden's group.

..more..

[Overseas]

10. Excellent article. Thanks. //nt

[slipslidingaway]

8. knr #10 nt

[bridgit]

9. yep, and 'they' are already suggesting he isn't as good at killing people as g.w. bush...

and the puppeteer: Slick Dick Cheeee-neee

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. The 'right' war?

:wtf: :grr: Yeah, he'll 'listen' alright and then do whatever the hell he wants. Nice!


Well I guess we should be grateful that he at least he doesn't say 'who cares what we think' about his 'right' war. Though he might as well have said exactly that.

Interesting word choice, btw.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. "When all else fails, get a bigger hammer." The diplomacy of butchers.

[Union Yes]

13. If oyur gonna act like LBJ then at least sign some progressive legislation first.

Before you go warmonger Mr Pres.