See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Obama, the Democratic "War President"
Source:
ericmargolis.com
URL Source: http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2008/07/obama_the_democ.php
Published: Jul 21, 2008
Author: Eric Margolis
Post Date: 2008-07-21 19:30:11 by scrapper2
Keywords: Obama as war leader, Afghan war expansion, Obama=McCain on war
Views: 211
Comments: 11
CALGARY - Barack Obama wants to withdraw US troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, which he calls the real front on the `war on terror.’ He also has repeated threats to attack Pakistan `if necessary.’ One understands Obama’s need to sound macho. Rival John McCain has been beating his chest, proclaiming, `I know how to win wars.’ Polls show Americans trust McCain three to one over Obama as a war leader. Unfortunately, recent US presidents seem to require small military conflicts to prove their political virility. But Obama has long called the US-led occupation of Afghanistan a `good war,’ a view most Americans and Canadians share. They see Afghanistan – and now Pakistan – as hotbeds of al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists that must be eradicated. It is distressing to see Obama succumb to the blitz of war propaganda over Afghanistan and adopt George Bush’s faux terminology of terrorism. Before Obama urges widening America’s war there, he should consider: *Al-Qaida never numbered more than 300 men. There are hardly any left in Afghanistan. Survivors scattered into Pakistan. Finding them is police and intelligence work, not a job for thousands more western troops *US policy towards Afghanistan is driven by energy geopolitics. Pacification of rebellious Pashtun tribesmen is necessary in order to build energy pipelines south from the Caspian Basin. That is the primary strategic mission of US and Canadian troops. *Taliban fighters are not `terrorists.’ Taliban was founded as a fundamentalist Muslim religious movement of Pashtun tribesmen to fight banditry, rape, drugs, and Afghan Communists. Taliban received millions in US aid until fourth months before 9/11. It had no part in 9/11 and knew nothing about them. The US overthrow of Taliban resulted in the Communists resuming control over half of Afghanistan. Under US occupation, Afghanistan has become a narco-state that supplies over 90% of the world’s heroin. *Pashtun tribes comprise half of Afghanistan’s population, and 15% of neighboring Pakistan’s people. The western powers are involved in an old-fashioned, colonial-style pacification campaign against the Pashtun Taliban. Imperial Britain, the Soviets, and now the US and its allies all employed the same classical colonial strategy: using puppet rulers, local mercenary troops, and lavish bribes to enforce their will. Afghans who resist get bombed. *Before urging expansion of the Afghan war, Obama should total up the bill for America’s military misadventures. As of last January, according to the Pentagon and data revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost 72,043 American battlefield casualties. Veteran’s Administration hospitals have treated 263,909 veterans from these wars and registered over 245,000 disability claims. No one knows how many Iraqis and Afghans have been killed. The number could be over one million. Just last week over 50 Afghans in a wedding party were killed by a US air strike. But without the constant use of massive air power, including B-1 bombers, the US could not maintain its occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan. *According to a Democratic Congressional committee report, the two wars will cost $1.6 trillion by the end of 2008, or $16,500 per US family of four - not counting the cost of borrowing money to pay for the wars. Obama and McCain believe Afghan resistance can be crushed by more brute force. They are wrong. More western troops and more bombed villages will mean fiercer Afghan resistance. The war is now seeping into Pakistan, a nation of 165 million. Obama’s threats to attack Pakistan and go after its nuclear arsenal are reckless and extremely dangerous. He appears headed over the same cliff as those would-be `war presidents, Bush and McCain. As the head of NATO recently admitted, political settlement, not bombs, is the only way to end the unnecessary Afghan war. Is Obama beginning to fall under the influence of the same military-petroleum complex that guided Bush’s imperial-minded presidency? Could Pakistan become a disaster for the Democrats as Iraq was for Republicans?
Poster Comment: A Canadian based journalist can see through Obama's false anti-war image. Why can't Obamaphiles see through the smoke and mirrors?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: scrapper2, jethro tull, christine (#0)
Afghanistan is much closer to China than Iraq. (hint hint) We are building military power on the eastern and western borders of China. What would we think if China were building bases in Canada and Mexico on our borders???? The ME, Iraq,Iran and Afghanistan, and the war on terror is merely the cover for the real intent.
Because they bought the Madison Ave packaging, and lets not dismiss white guilt, it's a strong motivator among the 'progressives' who once lived here. Shelby Steele, a sharp black guy, is an expert on the subject. Has ANY media flack bothered to ask the Anointed One what his exit strategy is? We had none for Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and Iraq. This is a very elementary question - what is the end game for Afghanistan - and it's completely ignored by the Os, Obama Himself, and the fawning media.
Obama wants 10,000 more MEN for Afghanistan. I think Aristeides, icon, red and the rest should be upfront and volunteer.....
your opinion?
Obama is an Israel ass kissing, pro-perpetual Middle East War Zionist puppet. No real surprise there. Oh, that was for Ferret. However and in any case, everyone is entitled to my opinion. ;>)
AIPAC/PNAC/ADL/NAACP/FEDERAL RESERVE/SPLC/JINSA/ACLU/CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS/AEI/FEDERAL MEDIA & HOLLYWOOD: Think about it.
from Webster Tarpley: www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bi...t.cgi?ArtNum=83937&Disp=0 What is Brzezinski doing? He is obviously using the absurd pretext of bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban in order to destroy the central government of Pakistan, and promote civil war, Balkanization, partitioning, and subdivision in that country. The goal is evidently the division of Pakistan into three or four or five petty states, including such areas as Sind, Pushtunistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan, and so forth. This operation has nothing whatsoever to do with bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the "global war on terror," but had everything to do with the fact that Pakistan was a traditional Chinese ally and economic and trading partner. Pakistan had to be destroyed as part of the Brzezinski strategy to strip China of all of allies, and promote the isolation and encirclement of the Middle Kingdom. Northwest Pakistan is one of the very few parts of the world where the US continued to rely on the bin Laden-Al Qaeda myth to justify its policy. Elsewhere, pretexts and cover stories about humanitarian intervention and human rights, and nuclear non-proliferation, are on the front burner.
related: freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=83996 great minds and all that ;)
No, your opinion please; if Barack Obama came out against all wars period as you seem to suggest, what would keep McCain from crafting a succssful run at the White House painting him as a pie in the sky young idealist who has no idea or concepts of the geo-political realities facing us in the world? I deeply respect and admire George Stanley McGovern, and I see what Nixon did to him using his views on war against him in the general election. McGovern as you recall won the District of Columbia and Taxachusetts. That hurt, and I don't stomach a repeat. Face it, the wrongs of our people started with the genocide of our native peoples just a few centuries ago. America is a nation built with stones quarried from the cancer of racism and religious bigotry. How long would it take for McCain to turn Obama into an object of scorn and ridicule that he is wet behind the ears concerning foreign affairs and a hopeless idealist? In my humble opinion, it would be very stupid to oppose both conflicts, and achieve a pyrrhic victory of a principled stand he would lose the election with. I am off to work, it is hard to find time to get in here and pitch my opinions on this, but I will try to do that this evening. I do have much to say on this and though I doubt many here have the desire to hear it, I will be happy to articulate it when I get back to the 'puter.
All war isn't wrong. The war in Afghanistan is for countless reasons previously discussed here. Obama/McCain are both wrong in heading head long into that snake pit. Please tell us why it is a just war, IYO.
Then turn your all of your property over to the nearest Indian reservation, if you feel so guilty about it. I for one don't feel any guilt over Europeans bringing technology and civilization into a land of where people hadn't even learned to smelt metal. I enjoy the fruits of it every day - as do you. And the funny part of it is, the people who thump their chests and cry over "genocide" and "oppression" never volunteer what they own to an Indian tribe, nor do they ever care to mention that Indian tribes were slaughtering one another for millenia before any Europeans came. They just want something to create a white guilt trip so that they can pat themselves on the back and feel morally superior to those who don't drink the PC Kool Aid.
Old Eric again, with his preconceptions and biases. The war is not seeping "INTO" pakistan, it's being fueled from there. IF the Pakistani State via it's Army and it's Intelligence Covert Action Arm, using both serving and retired officers, was not guiding and nurturing the jihad against the new Afghan State and the US, this would not be an issue. They're simply following the strategy that worked against the USSR. Can't blame them, if it worked once... If one pisshole pusfilled sore upon the world needs to go, it's the land of the fucking pure. But, then how would we keep the war on jihad going?
Is Obama beginning to fall under the influence of the same military-petroleum complex that guided Bush’s imperial-minded presidency? Could Pakistan become a disaster for the Democrats as Iraq was for Republicans?
#2. To: scrapper2, all (#0)
A Canadian based journalist can see through Obama's false anti-war image. Why can't Obamaphiles see through the smoke and mirrors?
#3. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
*US policy towards Afghanistan is driven by energy geopolitics. Pacification of rebellious Pashtun tribesmen is necessary in order to build energy pipelines south from the Caspian Basin. That is the primary strategic mission of US and Canadian troops.
#5. To: christine (#4)
your opinion?
#6. To: Cynicom (#1)
The ME, Iraq,Iran and Afghanistan, and the war on terror is merely the cover for the real intent.
#7. To: scrapper2 (#0)
#8. To: christine (#4)
"your opinion?"
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
(Edited)
Face it, the wrongs of our people started with the genocide of our native peoples just a few centuries ago.
#11. To: scrapper2 (#0)
(Edited)
The war is now seeping into Pakistan, a nation of 165 million. Obama’s threats to attack Pakistan and go after its nuclear arsenal are reckless and extremely dangerous
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest