ME war fallout continues

Another month, another surge of war in the ME for the US, with NATO forces committing an atrocity of war, kiling 20-30 civilians in a bombing. And this:

The airstrike took place in an area under Dutch military control and if Dutch forces were involved in the incident it could have serious political repercussions in the Netherlands, where the government collapsed Saturday over an effort to extend the stay of their 2,000 troops in Afghanistan.

It's not too surprising that the Dutch have had enough of being the lead NATO force in Afghanistan. The prime minister, of the center-right Christian Democratic Alliance, had been a hawkish partner to the US in executing a military solution for Afghanistan. The Dutch Labour Party, which was the second largest party in the governing coilition, pulled out on Saturday.

The Dutch will be out of Afghanistan by August, according to the PM. A new election will be held in May. It's entirely possible that the long-standing acquiescence to war by Labour (which is now 4th or 5th in the Dutch polls) will give rise "to a rabble-rousing Geert Wilders who is now running a close second in the polls with his ragbag of populist messages and Islamophobic slogans."

John Kampfner has an article that sums up the fairly pathetic attitude among the center-left. Why is our anti-war outrage muted at this Afghan folly? Even the doubters seem to be giving this military intervention one final chance, but there is little confidence it will succeed.

At CPAC, over the weekend, Ron Paul defeated Mitt Romney (who has won the past three years) easily in the straw poll, after a speech "that stressed anti-interventionist foreign policy as the key to reining in big government on the home front."

A rebellion among conservatives has long been brewing, and the CPAC convention represents the first skirmish in a civil war on the right, a war that is essentially over foreign policy.

Though the anti-war attitude is on both sides of the political spectrum in the US, its been pretty much muted out to date. The neocons & Palin have shut down the debate down on the right, and Obama/Clinton support of the war has shut it down on the left. But that's not going to last. Its with the support of the Afghanistan surge, that Democrats fortunes for '10 shifted to negative. A whole lot of anti-war progressives, especially among the youth, have turned out the Democrats as a result.

And, the 'Libertarian Democrats' have largely left the house, as a result of the bailouts and the continued ME surges of war under Democratic power. Here in the US, we have our own Geert Wilders, in the form of Glenn Beck.  Recall the flawed strategy to make Rush Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party? Off by a decade. 

Basically, the folly of the Democrats has been to take the reigns of the Bush wars, and own them by continuing the militarization of the ME, instead of fulfilling the campaign pledge to pull-out and end the wars; this has hand and will continue to have electorate fallout, until it is reversed. That might actually begin soon.

Originally, Obama pledged to be out of Iraq by 12 months. He revised that last year to mean 18 months, meaning August 2010. And after three surges in Afghanistan to raise the troop level to over 100,000, he has pledged a July 2011 deadline.

Last week, Biden said "You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer," which echo'ed Obama from last month's State of the Union address: "I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president." The neocons, predictably, are already flipping out at the prospect of pulling out of Iraq. It would be a huge success, but its far from certain.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Why is our antiwar outrage muted?

Because this unjust war is being waged by a Democrat. 

And because the outrage six years ago wasn't antiwar outrage so much as anti-Iraq war outrage.

In any case, we're not getting out of Afghanistan or Iraq, ever. 

"Counting the remaining bases in Iraq -- as many as 50 are slated to be operating after President Barack Obama’s August 31, 2010, deadline to remove all U.S. “combat troops” from the country -- and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like Al-Udeid, the total number of U.S. bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000.  Just exactly how many U.S. military bases (and allied facilities used by U.S. forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known.  What we do know -- from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea -- is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175204/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_america%27s_shadowy_base_world/

by david mizner 2010-02-22 03:09PM | 0 recs
RE: Why is our antiwar outrage muted?

Is it really muted ? IMO it's up several decibels since 2007 when Congressional Dems et all supported funding for the Iraqi War surge.

by vecky 2010-02-22 09:59PM | 0 recs
Its Strang What Happened in Austin at the IRS building last week--Strange contradiction--to Pentagon in 2001


Man Flies Plane into Austin IRS Building:
BTW:  I'm not a conspiracist but did you notice that the Piper Cherokee with only 40 gallons of fuel on board caused a bigger building fire in Austin IRS than did the Boeing 757 Jumbo with over 10,000 gallons of long burning jet fuel on board that went into to Pentagon. And did you notice in the pictures released by Bush  that the Pentagon fire was relatively small given that amount of fuel carried by the B-757 -- the building in Austin was about 6 stories and maybe 200,000 sq. feet and was totally destroyed by a small plane with 40 gallons of gas...

very interesting.......also, the large turbo-fan B-787 jet engines (2) over 8 feet in diameter were never located at the Pentagon--the Bush party line was that they "burned up in the fire"---these engines have titanium blades which easily handled up to 5000 deg F while running (the average temp of burning kerosene is about 1200 deg F).

---the Piper Cherokee engine was lying beside the building and was easily located by the firefighting crew and news guys on the scene in Austin.......the Piper engine is about the size of a big Harley engine.....

very interesting..... it WASN"T BURNED UP by the hotter burning 120 Octane Gas (2000 deg F) used by small planes 

  ---very interesting--what did Bush / Cheney know and when did they know it-------.

by hddun2008 2010-02-22 04:28PM | 0 recs
The answer is simple physics

I am sure you are a nice guy, but the notion that an airliner can impact a solid surface and disintigrate leaving little to not trace of the aircraft or human remains is not only correct, but has been observed several times throughout history. I hold both a Ph.D. and an engineer's license (P.E.) in Civil  Engineering, and I would be more than happy to explain the results of the two impacts.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-22 05:21PM | 0 recs
RE: The answer is simple physics

Yes, me too--Astrophysics.   Very strange things abound in the universe--just an observation.......

Another strange thing on the very same day:  How about the Flight 93 that went down---ever try to crash a Jumbo Jet?  It sure made us proud that the passengers took over the plane and then crashed it.....

Strange thing (for your physics class--maybe should be probabilities):  18 Saudis and 2 Egyptians get thru fairly complex sets of variables (the main one's aren't in the airport security to hijack some very complex machines and fly them for several hours for hundreds of miles with minimal training/simulators etc.

--The 9/11 Commission said that these guys only spent $400,000 over 2 years on the project---that one really hit me since I have personally done projects up to $100 million in scope --- these guys must have been eating Ramin Soup by the case load. However, many people knew them said they liked to party and go out with the ladies  which usually means large expense accounts----ummmm.....interesting..... 

by hddun2008 2010-02-22 05:57PM | 0 recs
RE: The answer is simple physics

The Austin building was a basic steel and glass structure. The Pentagon is - the f*cking Pentagon. It's 5 solid rings of concrete.

btw, 400K over 2 years is plenty enough for a partying with the ladies.

by vecky 2010-02-22 09:56PM | 0 recs
Flight 93

Flight 93 was a Boeng 757. It was not a wide body jet. And as you can see, impact with the ground left a small crater and very little debris.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-22 10:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads