Obama's Somnambulant Embrace of Jingoistic Militarism

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:00


In response to the dorkiest question in his "100 days" press conference:

During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?

Obama went out of his way to say:

Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.

And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I'm just -- I'm grateful to them.

This sort of cringe-inducing pandering (see, we Democrats don't hate the troops!  Honest!) not only lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats' patriotism, and tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they've employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic, it also actively participates in the brainwashing on which the exploitation of young recruits depends. In striking contrast to Obama's blithe platitudes, author Susan Galleymore talks about the reality, and her recently-released book, Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak about War and Terror:


Paul Rosenberg :: Obama's Somnambulant Embrace of Jingoistic Militarism
She just did a brief interview at the end of Friday's Democracy Now:

AMY GOODMAN: My final guest is Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak Out About War and Terror author Susan Galleymore, who went to visit her son in Iraq. On this day leading up to Mother's Day, your comments?

SUSAN GALLEYMORE: Well, I want to just reiterate everything that David Barstow just said, because I feel like we, the people, don't understand what's going on in these wars. We don't understand who the people are that we are fighting. We don't understand who the Iraqis are. We don't understand who the Afghan people are.

And we, the mothers of this country, need to learn. So, what I would like to say to mothers this Mother's Day is, instead of going out for brunch, say to your family, "Let's stay home and learn who these people are. Let's learn what these wars are about. Let's learn why, for example, someone like Anwar Jawad would have her whole family slaughtered on the streets by people, our troops, our troops. So let's learn. Let's learn who the Afghan people are."

Why did we just have 150 civilians killed in Afghanistan? They called it a random shooting incident in Baghdad when people are killed in the street. What do they call it when we bomb people in Afghanistan, civilians, women and children? We need to understand this. And I want the mothers of the United States to understand that we can stay home, instead of go out for brunch, and learn about this. And we can learn why our children in the military want to get out of there so desperately.

AMY GOODMAN: You visited your son in Iraq.

SUSAN GALLEYMORE: I did.

AMY GOODMAN: Did he know you were coming?

SUSAN GALLEYMORE: He did. He wasn't very pleased about it. But I wanted to say to my kid, "Don't do anything in this country that you will be ashamed of, because it will haunt you for the rest of your life." And we see that now with the young people coming home killing themselves, you know, traumatized. We need to understand why that is happening.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much, Susan Galleymore, for joining us. Her book is called Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak About War and Terror, in this lead-up to Mother's Day.

Our military has horribly misused and abused by the Bush Administration.  Not only was the invasion and occupation of Iraq totally unrelated to 9/11, but even the invasion of Afghanistan was so ill-advised and badly conceived that it bungled what could have been the relatively easy capture and trial of bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda's top leadership.

Yet, rather than question any of this, Obama instead indulges in mindless soft-core jingoist blather to "prove" that he's not a commie pinko Kenyan Islamic terrorist.  He acquiesces in the hegemonic discourse, rather than challenging it.

A key component of this hegemonic discourse is the lie that the Vietnam anti-war movement was also anti-troop, when the reality was exactly the opposite: there was a anti-war movement within the military, and anti-war veterans routinely lead anti-war marches in the US.

This week marked the 39th anniversary of the Kent State Massacre, where four anti-war protesters at Kent State were murdered by the Ohio National Guard.  An interview with one of those who had been wounded, Alan Canfora, was played on Democracy Now! this week.  While it had long been a matter of dispute whether orders had been given or not, that is no longer in dispute, as Amy Goodman explained:

AMY GOODMAN: Two years ago, one of the survivors of the massacre, Alan Canfora, released enhanced audio recordings from the day of the shootings. By listening closely, a voice in the background can be heard yelling, "Right here! Get set! Point! Fire!" Following the command, the sounds of shots being fired can be heard. The National Guard fired sixty-seven shots in thirteen seconds. The FBI has never determined whether an order to shoot was given.

However, the reason I bring this interview up in this context is something that Canfora said, just in the course of telling his story, about how the death of a friend, who had been fighting in Vietnam, fueled his anti-war activism:

ALAN CANFORA: My name is Alan Canfora. I was a member of the Kent State Students for a Democratic Society in 1968, '69. Forty years ago, we raised hell on this campus. We planted the seeds of revolt, which blossomed a year later, when four days of protests culminated with the shootings by the National Guard. Only bullets could silence our voices here at Kent State in 1970....

AMY GOODMAN: And were you shot first?

ALAN CANFORA: I think I was. I think was the first student shot. I was waving a black flag of protest that day. I carried that black flag as a symbol of my despair and my anger, because only ten days earlier I attended my friend's funeral. He was killed in Vietnam at age nineteen. So that was very fresh in my memory, and that's why I joined the protests and I helped lead the protests May 1st through 4th in 1970. And that's what led to me being shot.  

This is painful, terrible, complex truth that's repressed and denied by the conservative demonizers of the anti-war movement, and by his refusal to challenge the edifice of lies they've constructed over the years, and his willingness to join in their mindless blather, rather than ask the sort of hard questions that being a citizen of a democracy requires, President Obama joins in the project of conservative hegemony,  to bury the truth, rather than learn from it, and thus to ensure that thousands more shall also die needlessly, wearing the uniform he praises, and many, many times more than that shall die by our bloody hands.


A longer interview with Susan Galleymore on KPFK's morning show can be heard here.  I highly recommend it.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So your logic is ... (4.00 / 4)
That because Obama said that he is grateful to the troops that he is pandering?

This kind of knee-jerk reaction to anything said that even remotely sounds pro-military is more of a problem. You lose credibility fast.

Afghanistan and Iraq, we can argue about the best approach. But this discussion about Obama simply giving praise to the troops is stupid.


What I (4.00 / 12)
take away from this is that Obama is helping to perpetrate the romantic myth that soldiering is a wonderful thing -- rather than a horrible but sometimes necessary activity -- and that soldiers are heroic simply by virtue of their being soldiers.

While it's important to appreciate the sacrifices of military members, I think it's equally important to counteract the recruitment cheerleading that goes on, leading more and more youths to view military service as the best or sometimes only way to gain self esteem and respect.

Now if he had coupled his comments about military members with equally admiring statements about those who serve the nation via diplomacy, health care and other nonviolent missions ...

Visit my blog, Democracy for New Mexico.


[ Parent ]
And we wonder why liberals get that rap... (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, what could POSSIBLY be wrong with Obama praising the military?  You can disagree with the policies that you claim exploit these people, but how can you in any way call it jingoism to respect our troops?  Yes, they are heroic by virtue of being soldiers, because in their line of work the chances of dying are higher than for most everyone else.  They took on that responsibility and that sacrifice, and we should respect them for doing that so that we don't have to, whether you agree with their mission or not.

And as for him admiring people who serve the nation via diplomacy, he does that all the time. He just gave a major speech about national service, and has increased opportunities already to allow more people to get involved in non-military service.

I mean, he's the commander in chief.  Half of his job is as the civilian head of the military, it's a pretty important part of the job.  So for him to have had a profound experience stepping into that job and seeing the dedication and sacrifice of the soldiers, I have to imagine that is one of the most rewarding parts of the job.


[ Parent ]
I guess what bothers me about it (4.00 / 3)
is the context. He was asked what enchanted him about his first hundred days and this is his answer.

Has he never met soldiers before? Is no one in his family in the military? Did no one he went to high school with, or college, join the military? I mean, I guess not, but that's kind of the problem.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Really! (4.00 / 1)
What planet does he live on?

Heck, he's got military in his family, same as I did as a kid.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I don't see how you can compare knowing (0.00 / 0)
members of the military in your everyday life to being saluted as their commander in chief, and entrusted with the profound responsibility of choosing when to put them in harms way.

[ Parent ]
But Obama's The One (4.00 / 1)
who first chose such a deliberately blurring form of rhetoric, remember?

Sadie and I are just following up on it.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Paul, Paul. (0.00 / 1)
"This sort of cringe-inducing pandering (see, we Democrats don't hate the troops!  Honest!) not only lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats' patriotism, and tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they've employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic,"

To put it politely, you are full of shit.


[ Parent ]
WTF Are You TALKING About??? (0.00 / 0)
(1) In this little subthread, we were talking about what Obama said.  

(2) Obama spoke first, well before I did.

(3) So to "refute" me writing about what Obama said, you quote me in this very diary, written days later?

Look, I know you're upset.  So upset, you can't think straight, evidently.

Care to ask yourself why you're so upset you can't think straight?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
What I am talking about, my friend, (4.00 / 1)
is this: "Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.

And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I'm just -- I'm grateful to them.

This quote in no way "lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats' patriotism".  There is no connection between what he said and what you said it meant.  Republicans are not mentioned.  Neither are Democrats.  The absence of a connection is so obvious that I find it unbelievable that you think there is one.

Then you say it "tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they've employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic."  It doesn't.  It's not related to jingoistic, hegemonic discourse in any way, except in your overheated imagination.
None of those words or concepts appear there, nor does anything about our national identity.  You interpolated all of that.  And you completely misinterpreted what the President said.

Let me clarify a couple of things.  I never supported the Iraq war.  At this point in time, I can't really see much point in resuming the Afghan war, either, and I am not in any way in favor of bombing anybody with drone missles, let alone wedding parties and other innocent civilians.  I am also not willing to give the President a pass on either of these stupid policies.

Furthermore, my saying you were full of shit was not an indication that I was "upset".  I wasn't upset.  

The fact is that what the man said, and what you said it meant, indicated, implied, or "tacitly endorsed" are totally and completely unconnected, and what he said did not, in fact, mean, indicate, imply or "tacitly endorse" any of the stuff you said it did.  You pulled a bogus connection between the two out of thin air, and tried to present them as synonymous.  You can argue that the "context" provides the connection, but it doesn't.  You just made it up.

Stuff like this makes you look like a loony.  When you then try to defend it with condescending remarks about the education, literacy, or ability to reason of people who point out the fatuousness of your remarks, you look like an ego-crazed loony.  If that's the way you want to present yourself, knock yourself out.  But don't be surprised when you lose the respect of people who otherwise agree with you.  Like me.


[ Parent ]
Proper respect (4.00 / 3)
George W. Bush used the troops for political propaganda while failing in many ways to show proper respect.  Cutting veteran's health care while clinging to the troops is beyond hypocrisy.  Stretching reservists time well beyond the agreed upon terms is beyond contempt.  Substituting US Marine guards at embassies for rent-a-thugs from Blackwater, etc. is a flat out insult.

George W. Bush's use of a military uniform as a political prop was also an insult.  Did Washington or Grant or Eisenhower wear uniforms while President?  Of course not.  That tis the prop of a cheap military dictator opr a serious psychopath.  

Love the troops?  Restore full benefits.  Don't play games with the payroll trying to collect bonusses back from widows.  Put the Marine Guards back in the embassies.  Get rid of Blackwater (now Xe) and their rent-a-thug mercenary buddies and use the money to give the troops a real pay raise.  End torture with no equivocation.  Torture puts our own troops at risk.

Bring troops back from Iraq now.  Every life is precious and it should be spent only when neccesary.  Political games to look tough don't justify spending American lives.


[ Parent ]
Actions Speak Louder Than Words? (0.00 / 0)
You must be a socialist!

Possibly Kenyan, too.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
But that's not what he said. (4.00 / 4)
He didn't say anything about being commander in chief, or being saluted or anything like that. He was asked what he was "enchanted with" in his first hundred days and he answered, basically, "let me tell you how much I love the troops."

Which translates, loosely, into "what they say about me is true, I am a sheltered member of the meritocratic elite unaccustomed to rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi but golly, aren't soldiers swell?"

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Sadie, Do You Ever Disagree w/ Paul? (0.00 / 0)
Also, don't you think that the hackneyed meme, "what they say about me is true,k I am a sheltered member of the metitocratic elite. . .blah, blah, blah"  Come on.

That Q and A was bullshit!  On a lot of pts on I agree on Paul, if you read my comments.

Sorry for the unexpected critc, but parroting a lot of the cliches on this site does not move us further along.


[ Parent ]
He Was Supposed To Say This All In That 1 Q & A!? (0.00 / 0)
    The format did not represent such a great place to articulate all that you mentioned.

[ Parent ]
where, exactly, is the truth-burying in all this? (0.00 / 0)
As I recall, Obama has made the point more than once that being supportive of the members of the US military is compatible with being critical of the wars they are sent to fight. Do you disagree with that? And if not: why would expressing support of the members of the US military constitute "mindless jingoist blather"?

And Obama's Never Mislead Us??? (0.00 / 0)
My first diary about Obama and hegemony this weekend was precisely about how Obama hasn't exactly been consistent.

Obama is certainly a very sophisticated operator.  Far moreso than Bush & Cheney, certainly.  So if a nod towards tolerance is all that's needed to render debate irrelevant, I'm supposed to be overjoyed with his tolerance?

Somehow, not so much.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
not sure I follow your logic (0.00 / 0)
So the argument here is:

Obama has misled us before.
Obama made a statement about the troops.
Therefore, Obama's statement about the troops must be misleading.

I think the fallacy here is pretty obvious.

I'm all for criticizing Obama when he deserves it. But those criticisms will be more effective if they are justified.


[ Parent ]
No, Of Course Not, The Converse (4.00 / 1)
I'm not saying he must be misleading--only that he might: His word alone outside a broader web of supporting actions doesn't really tell us much.

And, really, that's part of my point here:  he really hasn't taken a very tough hard look at what's been going on with the military.  To the contrary, keeping Bush's team in place with Gates on top pretty much indicates the opposite.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Again, failing to answer the question, Paul. (0.00 / 0)
You can't seem to get it, can you?

The question was, "why would expressing support of the members of the US military constitute "mindless jingoist blather"?"

Obviously, the reason you don't answer that question is because you can't.  There isn't any connection between those two things.  But you can't admit that what you said was wrong, can you?  So instead, you resort to character assassination on those who don't buy your slight of hand.  

You have seriously slipped in my estimation, and while I still find many of the things you write interesting and useful, I am not at all charmed by your egotistical posing.  Well, nobody's perfect, Paul, but the first step toward improving ourselves is to keep from reflexively lashing out at those who mention our shortcomings.  You might want to work on that.


[ Parent ]
Some of the commenters don't seem to be able to "handle the truth". (4.00 / 6)
Did you all bother to listen to the youtube or read the transcript? Is it not true that this crap about making heroes out of any and all soldiers who participate in these slaughter wars are heroes? Is it not true that Obama going way the hell out of his way to praise slaughter is rather disingenuous. How is it that one could honestly say that these soldiers are doing this "on our behalf"? I didn't ask them to go to Iraq and shoot anything that moves. And I don't see any "on my behalf" or benefit for them, or for me or for the United States for them being over there. Do you?

The Iraq occupation is a travesty and a sin. That's the truth that needs to be told. The participants are losing their future, as the lady who wrote the book was warning you. If you find it more important to lie or be lied to or allow Obama to lie about that truth with out being called down on it, you're responsible for the slaughter, and you're responsible for the lost souls of young people who are naively taking part in the slaughter.


I agree with most of what you say, Kitt, (0.00 / 0)
Being in the military does not automatically make someone a hero.  I didn't see where Obama was praising slaughter, though.  And no, I don't think they are doing whatever they are doing "on our behalf".  They are doing what they are told to do, which you and I can choose to respect, or not.

"The Iraq occupation is a travesty and a sin."  That's the god's honest truth.  But where are the lies you are attributing to the President?  I must have missed them.


[ Parent ]
Lies? (0.00 / 0)
Do you think Obama is an astute man? A man who knows bullshit when he sees it? Do you think that Obama thinks that after a million Iraqis have been chased out and a million Iraqis have been killed due to our invasion, that Obama thinks that none of that has to do with the relentless bigotry and 'shoot on sight' attitude of our military? Do you think that Obama is not aware of the fact that the highest ranked so called "moral preachers" in our military our telling our soldiers to go out and 'spread the gospel'? Do you think that we don't have murderers in our military? Do you think that Obama doesn't know that we have murderers in our military. Do you think that our military deserved the unquestionable praise and propaganda filled "exceptionalism" and grossly unrealistic "we are the good guys" bull shit that Obama regurgitated via, and no different than, our Pentagon filled MSM media?

So, again, I ask, do you think Obama is a dumb ass? Or do you think Obama is a liar? He has to be one of those two in order to have said what he said.


[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
you are having trouble distinguishing between someone saying what you want to hear and someone telling the truth.

[ Parent ]
Criticism vs. Vitriol (4.00 / 1)
David wrote a nice piece recently on the difference between criticism and vitriol.

I believe that your sentiments above are purely vitriol and contain no actual criticism.  Maybe you should clarify what you think you are trying to accomplish  and why you think what you have written will help you achieve those goals.

This, in my mind, does not further the progressive or anti-war movements at all.  


Vocabularly Building (0.00 / 0)
You need to actually learn what words mean, not merely how to spell them.

I know it sounds like a lot of work, but it's worth it in the end.

Cheers!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Attacking to attack (0.00 / 0)
I believe you are attacking to attack with no motivation for accomplishing anything useful.  

Again I say, maybe you should clarify what you think you are trying to accomplish  and why you think what you have written will help you achieve those goals.

I would be happy to listen to you reasoning and talk about the merits of your intentions, but calling me names instead of trying to engage me definitely does not help your cause at all.


[ Parent ]
I'm Writing About Hegemony This Weekend (4.00 / 3)
And this is a first post about hegemony and militarism.

Obama's approach is not to critically engage with any of the profound problems involved in American militarism, not to craft a responsible progressive alternative to the disasters of conservative jingoism, but to echo conservative tropes as faithfully as possible, so as not to be called names.

The answer he gave in his press conference was a perfect example of this ideological craveness on his part, and it stands in stark contrast with any sort of realistic concern for the welfare as well as contribution of our military personnel.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
This type of stuff just leads (0.00 / 1)
us to believe that you think you are infallible, and that if someone thinks something you say is mistaken, wrong, or just incoherent, that indicates to you that they are uneducated and unable to think clearly.  Dream on, friend.  I'll match my education and my literacy against yours any day, and I say again that in this post, you are full of it.  This is partly why I've been avoiding your posts lately.  Too bad, because you have a lot to offer.  But your ego is out of control.  

[ Parent ]
Defining hegemony by example (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Why All The Chest-Thumping??? (0.00 / 0)
I wrote:

Obama's approach is not to critically engage with any of the profound problems involved in American militarism, not to craft a responsible progressive alternative to the disasters of conservative jingoism, but to echo conservative tropes as faithfully as possible, so as not to be called names.

If I'm so deluded, it should be fairly easy to mount a refutation of this, point by point.

Instead of doing that, you attack me personally.

The conclusions draw themselves.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
And personal attacks on a commenters vocabulary? (0.00 / 0)
Are to somehow be lauded?

[ Parent ]
Is it possible that Obama is honest (4.00 / 1)
And he is sincerely impressed by his interactions with the military?  And perhaps he remarks upon it because he really did not expect it.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

And Perhaps There's A Pony That's Just Been Delivered To Your Front Door! (3.00 / 4)
[ Parent ]
I cannot imagine what (4.00 / 4)
it must be like to waltz into the oval office and realize the power at ones disposal.. a trillion dollar a year enterprise filled with a to the death sir, bunch of sycophants who will pretend it's all for the good. No matter what "it" is or might be.

Yes master, must be a powerful drug indeed.

We chase pirates and a few religious nut cases. while in truth it's only justification of killing, injuring, occupying and oppressing tens of millions in efforts to control natural resources.

It's our war in Afghanistan and Pakistan which led the Taliban to within 50 miles of Islamabad recently. Obama is as much for this as Kissinger and Cheney.

The silence in the media and especially among progressive and anti war folks since Obama won has been deafening. I knew it would be quiet for a while, but  it's beyond creepy.

We cannot continue to play half **hegemonics**.. and have any credibility on so many other issues from, budget, health, economy, environment... all the way to torture and prosecution of war crimes.. or insuring we never get lied into another war again.


Or maybe a lot of anti-war and progressive folks (0.00 / 0)
aren't so sure that Afghanistan isn't worth the sacrifice.  Can't we have legitimate disagreements, or are those who believe that war is sometimes a necessary evil now kicked out of the progressive movement, according to you?

[ Parent ]
I am all ears (4.00 / 4)
and in constant search of a reasonable explanation of what the mission actually is, or what winning or at least a means to an end might be.

By all means, please convince me we are occupying 25 million Afghani's and terrorizing 100 million Pakistanis with drones and what not.. is at all productive, necessary or useful for anyone beyond TMU's.


[ Parent ]
Terrorizing and Occupying? (0.00 / 0)
You do realize that Afghanistan has a legitimate elected government that wants us to be there right?  And that while we need to do better, President Obama has only had three months so far to put in place an effective plan for Afghanistan, which is nowhere near enough time to know if anything is going to get better.  At very least, it's not getting worse, which I can assure you would happen if we left.  If you think the Afghan people were better off / will be again under the rule of the Taliban at the point of a gun, I really don't know what to tell you.

I also highly doubt 100 million Pakistanis have had personal experiences with drones, as you say.



[ Parent ]
Now That You Mention It (4.00 / 4)
I also highly doubt 100 million Pakistanis have had personal experiences with drones, as you say.

The vast majority of 300 million Americans didn't have personal experience with hijacked airliners, but they were sufficiently terrorized by 9/11 to re-elect [sic] a certifiable dolt a full 3 years later largely because the fear still lingered.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
You are not really (4.00 / 4)
addressing my question. What's the mission and how does it ever end?

Clearly.. what Paul was frothing (froth on Paul!)  at the keyboard about gets to this.. our hegemony. So many years into it... can't we finally admit it?

We installed the Afghani Government... what do you expect them to say?

I will say as a U.S. citizen who was a thousand miles from ground zero.. I felt terrorized that day. I am sure many Pakistanis feel the same way with U.S. forces in, above, and all around them.

When a school is bombed by a drone or a local bully is shot be foreign invaders... I think most citizens are going to be outraged... and care little about the reasons why.

We do that all of the time. Obama is escalating.


[ Parent ]
Actually, it is getting worse. (4.00 / 5)
Casualties are spiking big time. Both ours and theirs (I mean civilians). I presume we're also killing more "Taliban" (I use quotes because anyone who resists US forces are labeled Taliban whether its true or not).

As for Obama's "plan," it's basically Bush's "plan", written at DoD and only signed by Obama. Changiness. Besides that, he won in November, so he's had a lot longer than 3 months to figure this one out. There's no shortage of expertise out there.

As for the "better off" remark, I think it should be plainly obvious this war has nothing whatsoever to do with the condition of the Afghan people. It never did and it sure doesn't now. We can dispense with that canard.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


[ Parent ]
I disagree, it's in both of our strategic interests (0.00 / 0)
I think our strategic goals align with their needs.  I think it's just as important to Afghanis that the Taliban is suppressed.  Yes, war sucks, I don't think anybody's debating that.  But do you really think letting the Taliban come back to Kabul is the answer?  Cause that's what's going to happen if we leave.  Is that really something that's OK in your eyes?

Also, do you think in any way that such a circumstance would be palatable to the American people, to take this from a purely political angle.  A renewed Taliban government in Afghanistan is exactly what Republicans would need to take back the government without having to actually address the issues that are ruining their popularity.  


[ Parent ]
And our strategic goals are . . . (4.00 / 1)
? ? ?


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Maintaining the Empire (0.00 / 0)
Get with the pogrom!

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Best I can tell (4.00 / 4)
we are occupying 25 million Afghanis and terrorizing 100 million Pakistanis so the Republican cool kids won't call Obama mean names?

Like that's gonna work.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
This is not a black/white issue. It's much more complex than that (4.00 / 4)
I'm a progressive who is generally anti-war, for the simple reason that most of them are profoundly stupid and waged for all the wrong reasons. Within this frame, war itself should be seen as the real enemy here. But having said that, I'm also sufficiently realistic to know that force needs to be used at times. I initially supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I never supported the invasion of Iraq for what should be obvious reasons by now--not because I'm anti-war, but because I'm against waging war for profit, which is all that is about. Likewise, I supported our limited action in the former Yugolslavia and that worked out pretty well.

Afghanistan has been a complete failure from the get-go. It still is. For all the talk about putting a real COIN strategy in place, we're still bombing wedding parties and buildings filled with women and children because we just can't accept that winning wars on the ground means boots on the ground and that means casualties. COIN is partially based on the idea of "winning hearts and minds." One cannot do that with airstrikes that kill 100 civilians for each "militant" KIA. So even after all these years and the tens of thousands of innocent deaths, one might think that it's probably a tad late to get back the ground we lost under a mountain of "collateral damage."

Here's the way Col. Douglas MacGregor (ret) opens his essay from last month:

Despite the seriousness of the present economic crisis, the greatest danger to the future security of the U.S. is Washington's inclination to impose political solutions with the use of American military power in many parts of the world where Washington's solutions are unneeded and unsustainable. President Barack Obama must arrest this tendency by making pragmatic and methodical changes to the goals of American military strategy. The Bush legacy in foreign and defense policy presents Obama with a stark choice: Will we continue to pursue global hegemony with the use of military power to control and shape development inside other societies? Or will we use our military power to maintain our market-oriented English-speaking republic, a republic that upholds the rule of law, respects the cultures and traditions of people different from ourselves, and trades freely with all nations, but protects its sovereignty, its commerce, its vital strategic interests and its citizens?

http://www.armedforcesjournal....

The colonel asks a very crucial question. Thus far on this thread, the whinging I've seen coming from pro-war camp hasn't even come close to getting real on any of these issues. Neither has President Obama, for that matter, since all he seems interested in is changiness.

Here's Maj. Daniel L Davis, also in Armed Forces Journal:

Senior leaders, military experts and now President Barack Obama are arguing that we need to surge our troop level in Afghanistan to more than 60,000. We are told to be ready for hard fighting, that the Taliban has resurged and we must be prepared to continue fighting for years to come. But is a surge of troops in Afghanistan the best solution to this deteriorating situation? I argue that the answer is not simply "no," but "absolutely no."

(snip)

The political instability in Afghanistan over the past four decades has been remarkable. Various individual leaders, secular and religious groups and major powers have tried to subdue the tribal and ethnic-based country, and all have failed. So the first real question we must ask when considering the expansion of American and NATO military operations is whether it is possible to create a stable democratic government in Afghanistan by using military force to destroy all opposition (the Taliban and others). Evidence suggests it is not. But a history of violence and warfare is not the only factor working against us. We are also battling against culture.

http://www.armedforcesjournal....

That's just a snippet. I highly recommend both essays for both their sheer intelligence and clarity. I also recommend reading Sun Tsu and Carl von Clausewitz, because if you're going to support war, you might as well have a clue as to how they work and why some are doomed to fail, as ours currently are.

I know a fair number of people in the military. I know some that have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. They know I don't romanticize military service and they rather appreciate that from me--they can't stand it when people gush at them. Military culture is highly dependent on respect. They give it freely and like to receive it as well. Appreciation is good, but gushing just sounds like pandering. Obama romanticizes them while he sends them into wars everyone knows are intractable, unwinnable and most decidedly deleterious to their health--not to mention having any real benefit to the National Interest.

If Obama really wants to show respect for our men and women in uniform, he should refuse to send them to die on a fool's errand. That would be vastly more meaningful to them, I assure you.

Indeed, if Obama wants to show respect for the uniform, maybe he should stop pissing on the constitution as well, with his Military Commissions (kangaroo courts). All who serve are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, so it would be nice to respect that, don't you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


[ Parent ]
When I think about why we are in Af Pak I remind myself of the plight of (4.00 / 2)
 remind myself of the plight of UNOCAL and work forward from there.

hegemony, amigo, hegemony. Not terror, not saving those people from their taliban.. not at all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a...


[ Parent ]
"Obama's Somnambulant Embrace of Jingoistic Militarism" (0.00 / 0)
Priceless! "Das Cabinet des Dr. Obama" (The Cabinet of Dr. Obama)

REFERENCE - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...


Late to the party again. (4.00 / 7)
Here's what I'm reading on this thread:

1) Paul is being arbitrarily disrespectful of our President.

2) Paul arbitrarily refuses to venerate our military.

3) Not everybody in Pakistan knows a family whose daughter's wedding party was bombed by a predator drone.

4) Paul is giving us a bad name.

5) I'm gonna tell on Paul.

6) Paul doesn't argue in good faith with me, he just calls me names.

My take: given 1-5, why should anyone be surprised at 6? Frankly, I think the lot of you are getting off easy.


The kowtowing to the military legimizes swiftboaters (4.00 / 2)
Liberal hate the troops meme:

A Message from MOH Recipient Col. Bud Day

Posted: 04 Oct 2007 10:04 AM CDT

My Dear Fellow Americans:

For the last few weeks, the "Liberal's War on America" has gone badly.

* MoveOn, the New York Times, and Senators who accused Gen. Petraeus of being a traitor and a liar have been exposed and repudiated;
* The media's attempted flim-flam to portray Iran's Terrorist Dictator as a "Statesman," tripped on Columbia University's red carpet;
* The brave combat Marines whom Congressman Murtha and the press eagerly charged with "cold-blooded murders" in Iraq are being found innocent, acquitted one by one.

The "War" is not going well ... the "War On America," that is.

Those who claim they "Support the Troops" are finally being unmasked, shown for being the cowards they are. But, it won't be long before they regroup, begin their own "Surge" in this decades-long "War On America." We won't stand by quietly when they do; nor, should you.

My fellow POWs and I have long known the contempt the extreme Left has for our military. We felt the crush of rifle butts in our faces, beatings and unspeakable torture in the Hanoi Hilton Prison when we refused to kowtow to American traitors who traveled to these countries for propaganda "photo-ops" with our Communist jailors.

The so-called "anti-war movement," lead by the likes of Lt. John Kerry and his mentor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, also said they "supported the troops". What they didn't say is whose "troops."

We knew the answer then, we were witnesses and victims. It's the same today. They "support" America's enemies, any Communist Regime, Dictator or Terrorists that vow to kill and maim American soldiers and innocent civilians.

American soldiers in Vietnam were falsely accused of being a "barbarian horde," "rapists," "murderers," "drug addicts" and "baby killers."

Today, their sons, daughters and grandchildren serving in uniform stand accused of being "terrorists," "Nazis," "cold-blooded murderers," people who wantonly conduct "air raids on villages" bombing and killing civilians.

Every one of those spurious accusations were spewed from the Halls of Congress, most often by the same men and women who voted to send America's youth to war, only to denounce, vilify and abandon them later, when the opportunity for personal, political advantage presented itself.

When I and my fellow veterans - POWs, Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Navy Swift Boat combat veterans alike - attempted to warn America about one of the most notorious turncoats from the Vietnam era, we were initially ignored by the mainstream media.

When the press and TV networks could no longer cover-up for John Kerry's very public treasonous conduct, we were accused of being "serial liars," shouted down by Leftist political campaign operatives disguised as "journalists." All the while the networks kept the film evidence of Lt. Kerry's betrayal under lock and key, where it remains hidden from the American public even today.

The recent treatment accorded Gen. Petraeus by the same radicals in Congress and the media was strikingly similar to our experiences in 2004. Before he uttered a single word, this highly decorated combat veteran, a man of great honor who has risked his life many times in the defense of our country, stood accused, disparaged and berated by a pack of power-hungry shirkers and slackers unworthy to polish his combat medals. Contribute

Veterans who attempted to expose Sen. Kerry in 2004 were treated no better. But, Kerry and his band of Leftist comrades had something special in store for me and my fellow POWs and their wives. We were sued repeatedly for three long years, forced to spend $1 million just to defend ourselves in several frivolous lawsuits.

What did we do to cause such a prolonged, vindictive assault? We told the truth no Mainstream Media news operation wanted the American public to know, then or now.

Dozens of my fellow POWs and their wives participated in a documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal." In that film we said Kerry and his anti-war followers were liars and frauds working on behalf of our brutal Communists captors. Their collaboration with the enemy prolonged our captivity and the Vietnam War itself by years. Their vicious lies accusing us and all U.S. servicemen of being "war criminals" put our lives and the lives of Americans still fighting on the battlefield in grave danger.

Worse of all, Kerry's self-aggrandizing, false accusations against American soldiers who had born the brunt of the bleeding and dying in Vietnam, spawned the myths our young men and women in Iraq today are forced to defend against, even as they fight for their lives on the battlefield each and every day.

You can draw a straight line from the deceitful Leftist tactics used to bring America's defeat and dishonor in Vietnam to Iraq today.

America's military didn't lose the Vietnam War. Congress declared defeat, voted to abandon South Vietnam nearly two years after our last combat troops left. That sell-out, not only of our South Vietnam ally, but the nearly 60,000 Americans who gave their lives on the battlefield, ignited a genocidal holocaust throughout Southeast Asia that can still only be measured in the millions, an estimated three to five million innocent civilians brutally murdered.

We cannot let that happen again. We will not let that happen. You can stand shoulder to shoulder with us to prevent that from happening.

Three years ago, I and my fellow POWs and Vietnam combat veterans created a non-profit organization, " The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation". Our mission was simple, to set the record straight about the Vietnam War and those who served and fought there. Little did we know then we'd be slapped with multiple lawsuits for daring to uncover the layer upon layer of lies that constitute the false Vietnam History.

Nor, could we know then the Left's plans to use the same Vietnam blueprint for defeat in Iraq. Little wonder Kerry and his followers wanted to sue us into silence! But, we prevailed. We successfully defended against each of those lawsuits, all have now been withdrawn. And, we will not remain silent any longer.

Our research into the Vietnam War, most especially, those individuals and organizations responsible for creating the completely false history of Vietnam, is voluminous, factual and compelling. We have amassed a virtual library of records, documents and eyewitness testimony that proves, conclusively, the popular history of Vietnam is pure bunk, propaganda.

But, to show that, to prove that and to reach the widest public audience with our findings, we need your help. Three years of litigation and research has put us deeply in debt, $250,000 in legal fees alone. We do not have MoveOn.Org's deep pockets, nor will we get a discount from The New York Times.

Anything you can afford to help us complete our mission, to set the record straight about Vietnam and, now, Iraq, is desperately needed and greatly appreciated. But, time is running short.

Once we get the truth out to the American people, there will be winners. Those winners will be every man and woman who has served in our Armed Forces. To them and their families, this is a war we cannot lose.

The "War On America" is just heating up again. What we do now will dictate America's future, whether it is one of victory over terrorism, or, decades more of defeat, humiliation in a lost, but noble cause.

God Bless You and America,

Col. Bud Day

When you do that, you are saying their questioning of our patriotism is ok. Also there are right wingers in the military that do want the public kowtowing to the military, as a way of imposing an authoritarian regime on us.

Oh here is a more recent example from a cbs golf analyst.

From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.

The probability is, that pro-bush celebrities were sent to talk to troops that were more right wing than normal so they can come home with stories like this. There are some right wingers in the military that are more than willing to oblige this meme, and cooperate with those who would impose a military dictatorship in America.


I Agree, But How This Gets Played Out (0.00 / 0)
    However, there has been a larger group of Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans who are speaking out.  They are organized, they have representation, and support of some of the top brass in the military.  For example:  VoteVets and Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

[ Parent ]
I am not impressed by votevets (0.00 / 0)
They're spokespersons were supporting the democrats based on the notion the democrats would win the war rather than pullout.  In otherwords dem hawks.

[ Parent ]
Well, You Have No Clue How Much They Have Done (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Any Coherence On The Matter, Please (4.00 / 1)
1. Though this is a very heated topic, passions are going to be very strong understandably, but for the integrity of the site and the coherence of the thread, people need to use their best judgment rather than fling mud.

2. For starters, I do not agree that Obama's "pandering" on that silly question leads to jingoistic militarism. Nor am I implying that's what Paul meant from that exchange.  That said, I think people on the site have to realize that Paul is arguing from a premise of strong conviction:  America as an imperial power, moreso a pager tiger Empire, is doing major damage to the world and itself every day. These are facts actually.

3.  With comments flying flying and landing on so many different fronts, the thread brought up points of contention in a lot of areas.  I would like to sum up and clarify what are some of the more important aspects of the debate, as I see them.  

    A.  Is there such a thing as a just war?  Some said a "smart" war?  (Smart war leads to a slippery slope, especially if one country thinks it's smart, and the rest of the world does not. Iraq anyone?)

        Yes, there are just wars.  It would be a tough call, though I think Clinton used military intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo in a just cause--a little different.  (Though, people will argue America and NATO's presence.  I disagree with their arguments on the whole.)  Basically, WW11 was the last "war" that was just.  

    B.  Is Obama, as commander-in-chief leading us in a just war in Afghanistan War?

        Let's make no mistake about this:  Obama did not start either the Iraq War or the Afghanistan War.  Period.  That said, I think that Obama's escalation and further engagement in the region is very troubling.  Moreso, any exit strategy that I have read seems murky, where they do exist.  The Afghanistan war is already unpopular w/ the American people last time I saw figures.  It is certainly unpopular among his base.  As things get worse--they will--the people will want an end to the war.  And, I think Obama will listen. . .I hope.  It would help, if Senators Webb, Kerry, Harkin, Levin, Kennedy, Reid, etc. decided to lead, too.  I am surprised that so many ex-military men in the Democratic Party see this war as "winnable".  I know it was about "stabilization" more, but lately, things are becoming pretty unstable. And now Pakistan is spiraling out of control; India is worried; and we are in the region.

     C. I think at the heart of Paul's diary:  How do we bring together this bifurcate mindset, whereupon a minority--though in the millions--of our soldiers aided mainly by their family, friends, various doctors and care-givers, veterans groups, advocacy groups (if they are lucky to have such a support system), while the majority of our society does not even allow for the harsh realities to penetrate their psyches. Or, if it penetrate the masses' psyches, "Its that sucks. Let go to the movies."  All the while, our men and women are going through Hell upon their return, in a system that is in tatters. This is a very sick and despairing reality. One in which can bring great distress to anyone who tries to make systematic change, or simply try to help our veterans.  It's a fucken nightmare! So, when you see different people, especially civilians trying to do something positive. . . well, it gives some hope.

    D.  Does indoctrination occur to our soldiers?  Yes.  Some soldiers are more apt to believe more strongly in specific dogmatic views; others are able to assimilate what they feel are core values of the military.  Right now, unfortunately, with our military in bad shape, the recruiting bar lowered, with top ranking military officers the push to gain soldiers has taken some very authoritative and disturbing turns:  Evangalical prosetylizing, losing one's position if they disagree with a mission, and American exceptionalism run amok.  A Holy War has been proclaimed!--by high-ranking officials.  
    That said, I have a lot of family and friends who served in past wars and Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some are messed up; some are fine.  The majority feel that Iraq and Afghanistan circa 2009 is a mistake.  Though, the majority trust Obama to treat them with more respect; also, they feel he has a better strategy.

    E.  Has Obama really pushed policies that show respect and empathy for the plight of our returning veterans and their families?

    More money and services have gone to the VA and additional medical facilities; college affordability at public universities and private has increased dramatically; diagnosis of PTSD and other mental illnesses has gone up with care to treatment; the list goes on.  This should be a no-brainer, but Bush and Co. should rot in Hell for the way they treated our veterans.  Obviously, more needs to be done. But, VoteVets and Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan along with other advocacy and activist groups are more pleased.  So, this is a good sign. Unfortunately, a lot of important measures came late--and still do--as our veterans commit suicide daily.
   Yet there is a irony here that is quite disturbing:  With all the carnage of the last 8 years--is there more to come. . . due to an unnecessary and unjust war currently in theater ?

    In closing, I really see only two solutions for ending unjust wars, closing the polarization between our military and foreign affair officers and the rest of the civiian population.

     1.  Collectively, each and every member of this nation--who is fit-- must serve in some capacity right after high school in the military, intelligence, or foreign affairs sector.  This ought to become law.

     2.  Or, we need to have a nation-wide act of civil disobedience for years to stop of the madness of uncessary and unjust wars and interventions.  This would be a bloody affair, and a lot of people would not give a damm to join such a movement.  It is not "pressing".

        Therefore, I think the first solution is the by far the more pratical solution.  Like any institution, the military is fallible.  We, everyone able, must join to try and make it less fallible; in so, we do not lose our way more than we already have.


Why do you hate Obama? (0.00 / 0)
[rimshot. laughter]

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search