But his ambivalence about making a commitment to Afghanistan was evident in the long and tortured decision-making process that led to the surge and the deadline for withdrawal that accompanied his escalation. And the Afghan decision was followed by a retreat from Iraq and near-total passivity as fighting engulfed Syria, with 60,000 people killed so far.Darn President Obama for not getting us into (even) more wars, and expanding (further) the ones we're already graced with!
Those who argue for a more vigorous international role are sometimes caricatured as war-loving and unilateralist when, in fact, an activist stance has been favored by Democrats from Harry Truman to Madeleine Albright and Republicans from Richard Nixon to Colin Powell. It would be no fairer to label them all bellicose neocons than to call Obama a pure isolationist.Some people say neocons are chickenhawks and war profiteers, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.
Thanks in large part to its openness to immigrants, the United States is far less demographically challenged than many countries in Europe and East Asia, where aging populations will impede innovation and initiative. What’s in doubt in the United States is the political will to solve its fiscal problem, not whether the problem is manageable. Given the strength of the U.S. economy, posting 20,000 or 30,000 troops in Afghanistan even indefinitely would pose no challenge.On the other hand, on most days ending in a "y", Fred Hiatt or one of his staff wankers will write about our searing need to cut Social Security right now.
When America last turned its back on Afghanistan, two decades ago, civil war followed, with al-Qaeda close behind. Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks, the 1990s’ equivalent of drone strikes. America learned on 9/11 how inadequate that response had been.Awesome. Not a single mention of Bush and Cheney, the people who ignored warnings about 9/11, invaded Afghanistan on October 7 of that same year, and then forgot the whole thing just two months later. In order to pursue a war they'd been hoping for since their inauguration...a war that Fred Hiatt helped them sell.
~
27 comments:
Is this guy one of those paid hack types? I pay very little attention to them.
Totally Clips of the Hiatt?
...I blame tigris.
Artois is all Frenchified.
And of course zombies must be slain.
And the Afghan decision was followed by a retreat from Iraq and near-total passivity as fighting engulfed Syria, with 60,000 people killed so far.
This is...awesome. Utterly amoral, completely unhinged, deeply dishonest and formulated to appeal to the people who think the US should fight wars against everyone who is not white, "Judeo-Christian" and completely subservient to American political and diplomatic demands.
No one can come up with an actual REASON to keep foreign troops in Afghanistan, so they shriek NINEELEVEN and hope the magic of that incantation continues to work. We didn't "retreat" from Iraq, we negotiated the only Status of Forces agreement the Iraqi sovereign government would accept, it did NOT include extra-territoriality provisions, so all troops were withdrawn. That's technically called being kicked out, not retreating, but either way, once again, this idiot and his ilk can't come up with a REASON for a continued American military presence, so they don't even try.
And then he invokes the death toll in the Syrian civil war, a war that has NOTHING to do with the US for once - it's a population in open revolt against a tyrannical and murderous dictator who is supported by Russia and Iran. But if the deep concern is the Syrian death toll, how exactly was that going to be reduced by a massive foreign invasion and occupation?
It's like they just WANT war - even if they can't figure out why...
There's a reason, mikey.
~
I dunno, Thunder. Certainly there is political advantage to be gained by perpetuating a belief in an external existential enemy - much as Bibi did with the Arabs and now with Iran - but that strategy has historically ALWAYS been more successful if a war is NOT actually fought. When the US invaded Iraq or if the Israelis attack Iran, the political value of the enemy disappears and the political liability of a war begins.
The 1984 explanation that it provides a process to maximize GDP might have made sense in 1949, but the cost of supporting a huge military to fight small wars doesn't get you there. Sure, some companies and industries make big profits, but a world of global trade would make more, and the opportunity costs of turning much of the productivity of the planet into a smoldering war zone might well double a "peace dividend".
I think there's SOME truth to your explanation, but to see it as the only, or even the primary explanation is naive and unsupportable. There are a LOT of political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, tribal and inertial reasons for wars. Humans have been forming alliances and killing others for a hundred thousand years, so a recognition of the complexity of the underlying drivers is really important.
As to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, I think it's worth mentioning that it speaks very well of Obama that he didn't give in to the demands and either ended, wound down or didn't start those wars. He won't start a war with Iran either, but he'll have to muster up some serious courage to keep Israel from getting us in one anyway. We'll have to see how he does on that front...
The 1984 explanation that it provides a process to maximize GDP
That's not what war is for in 1984: it's for maintaining control of the population.
P.S. There's little evidence that the goal of our elites is to maximize GDP, either. We certainly wouldn't have an elite consensus that now is the time for austerity if that were the goal.
~
From the wackypedia link:
"The book" explains that the purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war is to consume human labour and commodities, hence the economy of a super-state cannot support economic equality (a high standard of life) for every citizen.
I must confess, I mis-read this the first time, interpreting it as a productive use of labor and resources. But it also doesn't say it is for "maintaining control of the population".
Interestingly, it DOES say that it was intended to support a system of institutionalized inequality. And while our system is one of DEEPLY institutionalized inequality, it is not our militarization nor our foreign wars and adventures that create or perpetuate that, but rather an utterly corrupt and totally co-opted political system, which allowed the wealthy to capture the entire system of governance. I'm sure in some wide, holistic overview of how this came to pass you could include the post-war American militarization in the narrative, but I can't see it as being either necessary or sufficient...
a system of institutionalized inequality
We've spent Three Trillion Dollars on Iraq, and now we're supposed to cut the Social Security because of the deficit.
Shirley you are familiar with President Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial Complex?
~
Yes, we are in the process of spending (and will have spent) something in the neighborhood of 3 trillion dollars. And yes, there is a minority contingent of legislators and ideologues that take the bizarre position that in order to prevent future cuts in benefits we must authorize...future cuts in benefits. But as I've said repeatedly, Congress will NOT pass cuts to Social Security and Medicare because those cuts are unpopular.
But I'm not sure what that has to do with the original premise that we have wars in the first place to "maintain control of the population", which I find unsupported by evidence and altogether too simplistic an explanation...
But I'm not sure what that has to do with the original premise that we have wars in the first place to "maintain control of the population"
I was referring to the book, 1984. It's well worth reading.
Additionally, is the purpose of the Bush-Cheney-Obama USA PATRIOT Act to protect us from terrorism, or is it to provide an excuse for spying on us all without warrants?
~
The purpose of the Patriot Act was to increase the power of the Executive. The foul and odious GW Bush/Cheney administration was all about the concentration of power in the Executive, and Congress has been consistently compliant in surrendering power to the Executive. It's fascinating to note that, even in their spittleflecked ideological hatred of Barack Obama, for all their intransigence and obstruction, the Republicans in Congress have done NOTHING to challenge him on any of his extraconstitutional overreach. Congress is desperately frightened of its own enumerated powers, and the genius of Dick Cheney was to recognize this salient fact...
or is it to provide an excuse for spying on us all without warrants?
Is it your position that such was not going on BEFORE the Patsy Act?
the Republicans in Congress have done NOTHING to challenge him on any of his extraconstitutional overreach.
They expect to have one of their own back in place before too long.
Actually, considering the fact that they are actively working to rig the electoral game to win a Presidential election without winning the popular vote, they are pretty clear that's NOT going to happen...
Is it your position that such was not going on BEFORE the Patsy Act?
Is yours that Bush and Cheney changed nothing, all the same was being done by Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and company?
~
Good heavens no. My goodness, if that's the opinion I've conveyed about the Bush/Cheney administration I need to get out of this typing words business, because I've utterly failed...
I was quoting zrm there, mikey.
~
If Hiatt thinks its so important to maintain a force in Afghanistan, he is welcome to get his ass over there.
He's doing it again!
"Right-sizing entitlements would also allow the United States to provide the global leadership that no one else can or will provide."
By Editorial Board, Published: January 19
~
Is yours that Bush and Cheney changed nothing, all the same was being done by Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and company?
perhaps a difference in degree and breadth.
But aren't you the one who always says the Democrats are just as bad? Now you're arguing that prior to Bush, there was no extracurricular surveillance going on?
Is yours that Bush and Cheney changed nothing, all the same was being done by Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and company?
Besides, that's not even close to what I said.
they are pretty clear that's NOT going to happen...
Unless they are successful at redefining the Electoral process in selected (blue) states. Which doesn't seem all that unlikely, given that no one has ever challenged the two states that already do it by Congressional District.
Given that they thought Romeny had it locked up, I think the figure 2016 is well on the way; all they have to do is continue to strangle the economy and change the voting rights of a couple of states, and it's in the bag!
If they can change teh EC process in PA, OH, FL and maybe WI, it will take a Dem win of over 7% in popular vote to overcome the gerrymandering.
I don't think they're being deluded on this.
But aren't you the one who always says the Democrats are just as bad? Now you're arguing that prior to Bush, there was no extracurricular surveillance going on?
My position is that Bush and Cheney used their failure on 9-11 to radically damage civil liberties in this country. And Obama, rather than providing needed change (back), has made the damage bipartisan.
When it comes to selling out the average American to the big banks, Bill Clinton was a first mover. But Obama has been no better, and I'd argue worse.
~
But Obama has been no better, and I'd argue worse.
Worse than Bush and Cheney? That's...an interesting position.
I think you are fooling yourself that the climate has ever been conducive to repealing the Patsy Act. Obama gets called a traitor when he DOESN'T do that.
Obama lobbied Congress to renew the Patriot Act with its worst provisions intact.
Obama has charged six whistleblowers and journalists with espionage.
Obama has asserted he can call "WARONTERRA!", and assassinate anyone he wants.
P.S. "I'd argue worse" was not referring to Bush and Cheney, but to Bill Clinton and his coddling of the banksters.
~
Post a Comment