|
Edited on Fri Oct-14-11 12:30 PM by bigtree
Politics and events here at home and in the Mideast have brought a familiar swagger to the incumbent president in this election season. Our Democratic leader in the White House has adopted a rather Bushian posture regarding the war he inherited, and nonetheless, escalated, in Afghanistan.
Contrary to public opinion, in which 70% polled say the war has lasted longer than they expected and nearly as many say the troop presence should be reduced, President Obama appears to be more comfortable advertising his prowess in killing terror suspects than he is determined to committing to end the 'pollyandish misadventure'
With a mere written statement on the 10th anniversary of the nation's longest military engagement, President Obama acknowledged the human cost of his escalated offensive and the 'challenges' remaining, yet he focused most of his statement on his success and 'progress' in 'defeating al-Qaeda'.
"In delivering justice to Osama bin Laden and many other al Qaeda leaders, we are closer than ever to defeating al Qaeda and its murderous network," Obama said in his written remarks.
In fact, any discussion from the President about Afghanistan these days is certain to include a line about the terror suspects the military has managed to kill and the 'progress' we're making along that line. That's fair enough. Few Americans question the shooting of bin Laden, and few Americans give a wit about the others assassinated in recent weeks other than to wonder how the government can execute American citizens like the cleric with impunity in the course of the ongoing terror offensive.
What anyone who is concerned with the unbridled militarism of the U.S. foreign policy abroad should question is the absence of any position from the presumed Democratic nominee for president that would satisfy the vast majority of Americans' long-held opinion that the U.S. should back away significantly from our military commitment in Afghanistan.
Instead, we're still being gratuitously graced by this administration with swaggering accounts of terra missions and hoo-rah assessments of the self-perpetuating battles there. The new Defense secretary, fresh from his privileged perch at the CIA, seemed to suggest that the 'surge' troops the President promised to withdrawal 'by the end of next summer' would likely stay a while longer until the 'fighting season' ends there.
The United States will withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by year-end and 23,000 more by next summer, as the United States and its NATO allies work toward handing over security to full Afghan control by the end of 2014. "After a difficult decade, we are responsibly ending today's wars from a position of strength," Obama said in his anniversary statement.
"Peace through strength" That's a Cold War notion that is belied by the nuclear threats that mushroomed during the arms race as nations jockeyed for military domination. That's what the effect is in Afghanistan as tribes and sects vie for military dominance over their rivals in a seemingly unending pattern of attacks and reprisals. The U.S. role in all of that is to keep our finger on the trigger and our foot on the throttle as one NATO shielded faction or the other benefits at the expense of the life and livelihood of their neighbor. Yet, we still press on.
Over the Bush term, the NATO mission in Afghanistan was kept afloat by their unceasing fearmongering - aided by the unceasing propaganda from the fugitive 9-11 suspects that Bush regularly echoed in his speeches.
To be fair, this Democratic administration has rejected and abandoned much of the rhetoric of the last bunch's terra talk. The nonsense is creeping back into this president's political posturing, though.
It's probably too much to ask President Obama to give at least a nod to the anti-war faction of his party supporters and provide some sense in his campaign for re-election that enough will soon be enough in Afghanistan. There's a defensive tone to the administration's political patter that seems worried that any talk of withdrawal must be thoroughly couched in blather about 'defeating' their nebulous al-Qaeda nemesis. It's all too incredible for those of us who are convinced that our military mission in that region is self-perpetuating and counter-productive.
President Obama may well trounce his republican rival in the upcoming election and maintain his presidency. He may, however, need to announce something bold and dramatic to energize his Democratic base and galvanize voters behind his candidacy. Making a firm commitment to bring the bulk of the forces home from Afghanistan and return control of the country's security to the Afghans would almost certainly be met with approval from the vast majority of Americans who have said for years now that they would like to see a significant reduction of our military presence there.
Too much to ask? Even Bush made a transition from his war of opportunity in Iraq a part of his second-term swan song. I'd expect at least that from this Democrat we elected commander.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
