Just a few quick questions to ponder after President Obama's speech announcing a massive escalation in Afghanistan - the very first being shouldn't we be able to honestly answer these queries before mindlessly cheering on a deployment of more troops to a Central Asian war zone?
Here they are in no particular order:
- What percentage of those kids in the West Point audience will die because of this decision?
- Would you be OK sending yourself or a loved one over to face combat and potentially death for the mission Obama articulated in Afghanistan? If not, how could you support sending other people?
- Why do so many pundits and pro-Obama activists continue to focus on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this decision is for President Obama, rather than on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this will be for the soldiers who are killed? Doesn't Obama get to make this decision, and then go home to the comfortable confines of a butlered White House, while thousands of Americans will be sent 7,000 miles from home to face their potential deaths? Isn't the latter "harder" than the former?
- Where's the antiwar movement and the marches and the organizing and the protesting? Where's all those well-funded groups that protested George W. Bush's war policy? Or was all that really just about hating George Bush and embracing blind Partisan War Syndrome?
- In the days and weeks after this speech, will the White House's cynical new spin get ever more desperate and become, hey - at least an Afghanistan escalation holds out the possibility of making sure military combat casualties start outpacing military suicides?
- Simple budget question: Should we now believe that escalating the Afghanistan War at the same annual cost of universal health care will save more than 45,000 Americans a year (ie. the number of Americans who die every year for lack of health insurance)?
- Did CNN really turn a move to send thousands of Americans to potentially die in Central Asia into an over-stylized, hyper-marketed television show called "Decision Afghanistan?" Is the media really that soulless, or did my eyes betray me? Because it's really hard for me to believe that even in this cynical age, a television network tried to make a cheap reality-TV show out of life-and-death decision that could affect tens of thousands of people.
- Which is worse - a stupid person like George W. Bush starting a dumb occupation, or a smart person like Barack Obama following the lead of that stupid person, but actually escalating that occupation?
- The "we're going to escalate war to end war" refrain throughout the speech - have we heard that before somewhere? It sounds sorta like "we'll burn down the Vietnam villages to save them." Just curious if that's what we're talking about here - because, ya know, that worked out really well.
- Are we really expected to believe that massively escalating a war is the way to end a war? I mean, really? Like, is the public really looked at like we're that stupid? And a follow-up question: Are we really that stupid?
- If Obama's Afghan War strategy about escalating a war to end a war was a self-help strategy for, say, alcoholics, wouldn't it prescribe drinking more whiskey to stop drinking - and wouldn't we all laugh at that?
- How many pundits will insist that bowing down to the Military-Industrial complex and escalating this missionless war somehow shows "resolve" and "strength" and "toughness" and "leadership" and not embarrassing weakness?
- Would the Obamaphiles now telling us to "give President Obama a chance" with this decision and/or defending Obama's escalation - would these same people be saying we should "give President McCain a chance" and/or defending President McCain's escalation if he was the one in office making this decision?
- I'm confused: Is this hope or change?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
Salon.com
Comments
The anti-war movement disappeared the minute Obama was elected. It was merely "partisan war syndrome."
I believe that Obama will bankrupt America the same way Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union in the 80's.
Yes, CNN is really that soulless.
Um, nobody was screaming when he said: "We have to spend more money to save money." Throwing good money after bad with TARP and bailouts is the same thing only it's in the economic sphere, instead of the military arena.
All good questions. God help us.
Why aren't we (the US) raising hell about the non-violent protester (Haidar) whose been kidnapped and left in an airport in the Canary Island and is going to die any day because she's on a hunger strike? SHE's trying to preserve human rights in Western Sahara -- but we feel it's more important to send our soldiers to a place that is destined to swallow up and spit out our troops?
I can't take it -- I'm going to put my head in the sand now.
Perhaps you will concede that leaving Afghanistan abruptly could create a strategic threat, like it did when the U.S.S.R. left. That could be a concern going forward, right?
Perhaps you will concede that "hope and change" dont mean changing everything. I mean, they are not changing the Nation's capitol to somewhere in Kansas. They are not changing the roads to driving on the left, and putting steering wheels on the right. They are not changing your middle name, right? Right? Does "change" have to be every identifiable thing? Is that question of yours just baseless demagoguery? Right? Can change very from subtle to obvious and still be substantive?
Here's a "change". I hope you can offer an alternative strategy to ending a war in Afghanistan, next to what may be a failed state, Pakistan, which also happens to have a nuclear arsenal. How do you suggest this be handled? I hope you can provide that "change". We could use some real ideas and less demagoguery.
Been there, done that, got the tshirt. I guess Obama wants his own tshirt.
he simply cannot please everyone, and he needs to get reelected
Obama supported AfPak on the campaign trail. This is the same position he took then, but with a sight more nuance and detail. Not just Sirota but all you shocked progressives somehow spaced that out, I guess, but it's true. How many times do you need to be shown? Obama is not a progressive. Pay attention.
This is propaganda. None of those at the headwaters has the slightest faith in the people's ability to rule the country, and so we get PR instead of news, and are advised that our input is not required except during elections. The problem isn't Obama, who broke no promise, here, because he told you straight out he supported the effort in Afghanistan and not that in Iraq. The problem is, you are letting a pack of 'experts' run your country for you, and feed you bullshit and distractions to keep you afraid and misinformed enough to allow them free rein, though the reins are actually in your very hands.
~About 20% of the kids at West Point will wind up dying in the line of duty regardless of where they are stationed.
~Nope, I wouldn't and I don't support escalating troops in Afghanistan.
~Obviously rhetorical question.
~I've seen no evidence of "well funded anti-war protesters"
~Likely it will given that the ONLY two men to ever conquer what is Afghanistan were Alexander the Great (Circa 330BC) and Genghis Khan (circa 1200 AD). Did anyone really think that we were going to pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat over there?
~I'm more concerned about the 106,000 people who are murdered by the pharmaceutical industry every year actually. Add to that the more than 100,000 who die every year due to "medical error" and I have to question the alleged wisdom of calling insurance "health care".
~There's only something like 12 IQ points separating Shrublet (128) and Obama (140)... and I know many people who consider both of them to be about as intelligent as an air fern.
~Lastly... we have neither the military strategy necessary to win nor the brutality necessary to win. If the President wants to continue this stupid game of "blind man's bluff" all that is going to be accomplished is the deaths of hundreds more Americans and the loss of billions more dollars. We don't have a hope of a prayer of winning absent either brilliant strategy or sheer brutality so he would have been better off bringing our young men and women home.
http://open.salon.com/blog/stlfilmaker/2009/11/30/president_obama_and_the_echoes_of_lbj
Time after time, when Barack Obama strode to the microphone, the stakes were high, he had to hit a home run, ground rule doubles, or warning track fly balls would not do. Time after time he succeeded. Tomorrow night is one of those nights – President Obama must hit the long ball. While it is clear that he is committed to a troop increase, the President needs to include an exit strategy that is cogent, workable, and believable. President Obama must tell the American public that at the end of the day, he plans to end this war, even if it is over the objections of his military and war hawks in Congress. With the echoes of Lyndon Johnson ringing in his ears, President Barack Obama, the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has to end this war in no uncertain terms or face the reality this war may end his Presidency.