The Bush/Obama/Clinton war in Afghanistan

How's the "war" going?  As predicted. A complete failure, waste of resources and lives. But very profitable for military corporations and companies like BP. I mean, doesn't the irony lift at all on the mouth-pieces that for, on the one hand, BP is the villain, but on the other-hand they turn a blind eye to the flow of money from our hands to theirs?

The U.S. doesn’t win wars anymore. We just funnel the stressed and underpaid troops in and out of the combat zones, while all the while showering taxpayer billions on the contractors and giant corporations that view the horrors of war as a heaven-sent bonanza. BP, as we’ve been told repeatedly recently, is one of the largest suppliers of fuel to the wartime U.S. military.

Seven American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Monday but hardly anyone noticed.

Yea, don't you remember the days when it was Bush leading the war, and we'd see the dead soldiers plastered on the frontpage of the anti-war blogs and liberal mags? Boy, that took guts. Now that its Obama's leading the corporate war, nothing but silence. Oh, I know the talking point: Iraq was the "dumb war" and Afghanistan is the "smart war" we took our eye off of the ball. Whatever.

What’s happening in Afghanistan is not only tragic, it’s embarrassing. The American troops will fight, but the Afghan troops who are supposed to be their allies are a lost cause. The government of President Hamid Karzai is breathtakingly corrupt and incompetent — and widely unpopular to boot. And now, as The Times’s Dexter Filkins is reporting, the erratic Mr. Karzai seems to be giving up hope that the U.S. can prevail in the war and is making nice with the Taliban.

This isn't that hard to figure out. Anyone with a simple grasp of history could have told you that the tribal factions there will take all the money you want to give and declare their allegience for a while. But stop the money and then what happens?  That's predictable too.

Americans have zoned out on this war. They don’t even want to think about it. They don’t want their taxes raised to pay for it, even as they say in poll after poll that they are worried about budget deficits. The vast majority do not want their sons or daughters anywhere near Afghanistan.

...Ultimately, the public is at fault for this catastrophe in Afghanistan, where more than 1,000 G.I.’s have now lost their lives.

I think we can narrow that down a bit. Democrats, and the partisan supporters who turn a blind eye to the fault, are to blame for the escalation in Afghanistan. There was no need for it, no public acclamation for it, and nothing but corporate military greed, and Pentagon thirst for global power, to satisfy with an escalation of the occupation.

This is at or near the top of the list as for why Democrats are losing. Democrats took over the Congress in 2006 on the promise of "Had Enough?" of the foolish wars. Obama got elected on the promise of an anti-war speech. It was an amazing bait-and-switch to de-escalate in Iraq while escalating in Afghanistan. The "progressives" didn't even notice or see it coming.

Pro-war Democrats are lucky that they are part of a duopoly that's duping the public with these deficit-growth wars. What's the alternative? Well, not showing up, which you can pretty much count on happening from the portion of the progressive base that's had enough.

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Perhaps the best sentence ever typed.

'Pro-war Democrats are lucky that they are part of a duopoly that's duping the public with these deficit-growth wars.'

by QTG 2010-06-13 09:59AM | 1 recs
A very bad sentence

What's the alternative? Well, not showing up, which you can pretty much count on happening from the portion of the progressive base that's had enough.

What are you going for here?  Encouraging people to quit on electoral politics--or just on Democrats?  Are there no differences now between parties?  I don't see the bait-and-switch myself, and I was not an Obama fan from the start.  I do see the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.  The Taliban government was actively and effectively promoting terrorist attacks on the U.S.  What should the U.S. and allies have done?  Obama inherited a difficult situation in Afghanistan and his administration is trying not to cut and run on the Afghanis who have helped our effort there.

by Thaddeus 2010-06-13 11:49AM | 1 recs
RE: A very bad sentence

I'm not speaking on behalf of, but merely speaking about a portion of the progressive base that is not showing up right now. That's an empirical fact. You might disagree with the reason why that's happening, as I'm sure the economy is a huge part of it; but this is part of the reality that Democrats have created.

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-13 03:09PM | 0 recs
RE: The Bush/Obama/Clinton war in Afghanistan

One must presume that by Clinton Mr. Armstrong is referring to Hillary as Secretary of State, who, however, must take her orders from her Commander in Chief.  If Mr. Armstrong is trying to lump in Bill Clinton, pre-the GWB doctrine years, who was the last American Predident to preside over sustained peace and prosperity, well, extending this doctrine back that far simply will not work.

Notwithstanding the Left and Right-wing purists who have detested Bill Clinton then and now with equal intensity, Bill was the last truly successful President of my fifty-seven year lifetime.  President Obama has the makings of greatness, but currently he is far too driven by elements from within his own coterie.  Please, no blaming Bill Clinton for that!

by lambros 2010-06-13 03:47PM | 1 recs
RE: The Bush/Obama/Clinton war in Afghanistan

HCR, who rec'd this policy.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-14 09:40AM | 0 recs
So, What Do We Do?

I read you attacking the war in Afghanistan all the time, and frankly, I often agree with your criticisms.  What I never see from you, however, is what you'd do instead.  How do you think we should end the spending (in blood and treasure) in Afghanistan, while ensuring that it does not return to being a haven for terrorists, leading to another attack that forces us to go right back in?  Cause you're kidding yourself if you think that if we just up and left right now al Qaeda wouldn't just waltz back in and set up base again in the ensuing chaos.

Obviously something needs to change about the policies there, but stop pretending that Obama's facing some easy decision and being reticent in the face of obvious solutions.

by bannana873 2010-06-14 11:43AM | 0 recs
RE: The Bush/Obama/Clinton war in Afghanistan

"It was an amazing bait-and-switch to de-escalate in Iraq while escalating in Afghanistan. The "progressives" didn't even notice or see it coming."

Speak for yourself, Jerome.  We saw it; it's just that in 2007 and even much of 2008, it looked as if closing the deal in Afghanistan would be possible if we actually paid attention to it for a few minutes, unlike Bush.  So it made a great deal of sense at the time.

The problem is, by the time Obama came up with an Afghan strategy, things were obviously much worse than that, and the 'bait and switch' doesn't make much sense at all now. 

We really need to be looking for a way out, but Obama seems determined to stay the course rather than adapt to a much worse situation than he expected when he first trotted out the idea.  That's the only surprise: I figured he'd have the guts to cut his losses in a bad deal.

by RT 2010-06-14 03:52PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads