I voted for Obama because I wanted our wars to end but now he's escalating them! I could have voted Republican for the same outcome.
I am so worried that the US will end up like the Roman Empire -- worn down by too much war, in debt and collapsing under the weight of our military adventures.
13 comments:
Is he escalating it or trying to end it?
Told ya'll so. Steve, he has said he does not believe in the term "victory". He is about continual revolution. It's the party line.
I can see why folk are worried. What you have to look at is "what would the other lot have done?", an unanswerable question, but one worth considering.
Afghanistan was a naive adventure of a prior administration. Whatever a current, any current, administration does is almost predetermined by the prior administration. End games are hard.
There is a great deal more justification for the Afghanistan action than the unlawful invasion of Iraq. At least in Afghanistan there is a consensus in the UN that action should have happened. Iraq was an adventure by two fundamentalist christians against Islam, disguised as a war of liberation from an admitted tyrant.
But neither action has made my world a safer place. Both actions have caused draconian laws that curtail my freedom in the name of protection of the state, US and UK alike. Both actions have arguably increased terrorist thinking, perhaps even attacks.
To understand the next part of this you must understand the very different British and US attitudes to terrorism.
We British are used to terrorism. We despise terrorists, we refuse to give them mind-space, and we get on with our lives. We are deeply sorry for those hurt or killed and those whom they loved or who loved them, but we get on with our lives. Our attitude is "Screw you, we're going down the pub!"
The US appears to be shocked, appalled and vulnerable to the terror element of terrorism, and it is not stoic in the face of destruction on its shores. Two large wars in Europe hardly touched US sovereign territory at all, and the US mainland only with some balloon bombs form Japan that killed a church picnic party.
So our attitude to the bombings in London and to the atrocity with aircraft on the US mainland is very different from yours. Yes, they were terrible. Yes, we grieve and are shocked, but we have got over it and we have gone down the pub and it is business as normal here.
So we did not declare our own war on terror. We continued, instead, with our intelligence gathering and quiet fight in the shadows. Or did until Shrub pulled his six shooter from its holster and shot the world in the foot.
At that point our poodle Blair got all excited and involved. And now your guy has had to add troops when we all want to have them home.
The only consolation you have is that war creates jobs and stimulates the economy.
Nonetheless I am, reminded of "Be the first one on your block to have your boy sent home in a box"
You might also want to look at my Thanksgiving message for my US friends worldwide.
and he won nobel peace prize ...
No, Eddie, he didn't. Some fools awarded it to him as a weird pre-emptive political gesture. But that prize has long been devoid of value.
He would have been better advised to hand it back and ask to be considered after he had achieved something, but the whole thing is political.
Yes, TT, I guess since Kissinger won the peace prize, it has seemed to be not worth much.
Didn't Kissinger trade in his air miles for it?
I attended the speech as a part of the press corps. What made me pause and think hard about what the President was saying, was gazing out over that ocean of grey cadet uniforms in Eisenhower Hall. Here was a group that would be very affected by his decision.
They had a quiet earnest demeanor about them as they listened to their Commander-In-Chief lay out in precise detail his vision for the future of war ops in Afghanistan.
The President did give an exit strategy for the first time giving the American people an "end" date. He also stated that it was in the opinion of not only his military commanders, but his political advisers, that this was truly the only viable means by which to accomplish the task at hand and return stability to the region and that war-torn nation.
The unspoken though hanging over the crowd there last night, was that there is a certain amount of expected failure, of disruption to the best laid plans. Precisely because the enemy being fought is a type that could be termed parasitic. The worst kind of opponent according to military experts. Add in the religious factor and thousands of years of history of warfare...It can get dicey.
The President acknowledged that he does not want the United States to be an "occupier," rather he wants a partnership. The problem is that needs to occur with a stable and relatively uncorrupted native government. Reality check, that is NOT the case with the current Karsi government.
Will this work? I would say that the answer is going to be no based upon historical precedence. One could hope though that there is a chance that the increased U.S. Troop presence will sharply curtail the influence and terrorism of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
However, having been embedded with both U. S. and Canadian forces there, I am going to offer the pinion that it simply is not going to have any effect whatsoever.
Also keep this in mind too. The President inherited this war and is at least making a stab at a run at the end game which his predecessor was unwilling or unable to accomplish.
Every corporation that engages in a hostile takeover wants a partnership- they just want to be the dominant partner.
All you have to do is read "The Grand Chessboard" to see where the plan for all this came from.
Let's not forget Hamid Karzai in this. Bush's apparatchik, who was trained and employed by the Bushes, was imposed on the country as the favoured face, stole an election under the eyes of the world and directed reconstruction funds into the personal bank accounts of his tribal allies while using the outside forces to settle personal feuds.
On the other side is the Taleban, who discourage literacy among women, discourage literacy among lower caste members (which makes training Police recruits nigh on impossible), feed their families from the proceeds of illegal trades and who generally support the rule of whim and favour over the rule of law.
What's going on in Afghanistan is not a war - it is a battle over the soul of civilised society.
But when faced with a choice between the corrupting influences of cynicism and enforced ignorance the option of withdrawl is not one which can be taken.
I disagree with the method of intervention on the grounds of effectiveness, but the four-year presidential cycle creates a political necessity of short-term thinking.
I actually think the time taken to reach the decision shows Obama appreciates the wider forces at play and his reluctance to take this course of action, but in the end it was inevitable.
Without greater public commitment to further legitimisation of international democratic institutions such as the EU and the UN these kind of conflicts will only become more common.
What happens when the world starts addressing the Congo or Darfur or Zimbabwe? Is this the beginning of a new great game and a phase of competition and conflict between global powers?
I agree with Brody that this is not Obama's war, and I'd mention the 'draw-down' date as potentially coinciding with the next round of Afghan elections.
What chance Karzai in standing in a dock in the Hague by then?
The draw-down date happens to also occur before the next presidential elections in the US.
What I'd like to see is Tony Blair standing in front of the judges at the Hague.
E, Tony has confessed now, so he's cool again.. obviously..
Post a Comment