Tag: Afghanistan

On October 27, 2007 Barack Obama made a public campaign promise:

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.“

Now if challenged on that he would probably say he was referring to Iraq, but I think that most people hearing his campaign pledges understood Iraq and Afghanistan to be an indivisible projection of military power, and took Obama at his word, expecting that he was an honest man making an honest pledge.

He has since tripled the number of US Troops that will be deployed to Afghanistan.

I originally posted the following video interview with Howard Zinn back on April 10, 2009 following the then recent revelations of President Obama’s DOJ under Eric Holder betraying Obama’s campaign promises to instead embrace the Bush administrations claims for immunity and “states secrets” in the case of clear FISA violations and illegal wiretapping.

So much more has gone down since then, and Obama has turned his back on so many of his campaign pledges to make his administrations policy decisions so far essentially a direct extension of the policies of the past eight years, with most of the bigger points outlined in Paul Street’s recent article The Dawning Age of Obama as a Potentially Teach-able Moment for The Left, and more recently Obama asking Congress for an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act in order to give Defense Secretary Gates the authority to refuse an ACLU FOIA request for public release of the torture photos, that I wonder if it is worth revisiting what Zinn had to say in this interview one more time.

In part three of what was a series of interviews, historian, political scientist, social critic, activist, author and playwright Professor Howard Zinn talks here with Real News CEO Paul Jay about why so many people seem to be convinced that Obama is anything more than what he appears to be given his actions and policies implemented since inauguration, and about how to create a mass popular movement to pressure Obama for progressive results in a supportive way, and concludes that social turmoil is not only not bad but necessary if it leads to something good in the sense of creating real change.

Real News – April 10, 2009

Send a message to Obama

Howard Zinn: Social turmoil is not bad if it leads to something good

From:

*******

And, David Swanson, reminds us “It’s Not the President’s Decision!”

The U.S. Constitution leaves the decision to wage war to Congress, and Congress can enforce its decision not to wage war by refusing to fund it.  Blocking a funding bill for wars requires the House of Representatives alone, and both Democrats and Republicans in the House are rapidly joining us in saying No to war funding.

It’s time to finally get serious, to lobby, to protest, to sit in, to nonviolently disrupt and resist in local district offices until enough Representatives commit to voting No on any bill to fund more war.

Here’s a link to a rapidly-changing whip list in the form of a google document that you can embed* on your own website:

Public Opposes Wars, Will Our Representatives?

Please call your representatives and find out they will vote on funding the wars, urge them not to, etc. and post responses from them in the above site beneath the chart.  The chart is regularly updated.  This is a great way to keep a running to “track” of our representatives

*unfortunately, it’s not possible to embed the link here

********

Support over 100 outstanding, leading peace activists in their “Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally,” on December 12, 2009, at the White House, by going to Ends the Wars Org and signing the letter to the President.  It’s easy, send them an e-mail and ask that your name and state be included.

********

From:

JUST FOREIGN POLICY!

Tell President Obama: No More Troops for Afghanistan!   – AND –

Demand a Congressional Debate on Troop Escalation

And to think that there are a couple of bills in Congress, that ask for taxing the American people for these wars??

In Part 2 of his interview with Paul Jay of The Real News, former chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson continues his analysis of Obama’s Afghanistan escalation and of the geopolitical context of the situation, concluding that there is no solely military solution to the situation and that the occupation is simply a money making escapade as well as an attempt at controlling world energy reserves under the banner of a propaganda created fictitous “war on terror”, and that continued US attempts at imperial hegemony in the region will bankrupt America.

“This is not a future that we can sustain. We cannot be the new Rome, it is an impossibility in today’s world. We will squander our power, we will squander our resources, we will be a third world nation, we will be bankrupt in a generation if we try.”

Part 1 of this interview is here.

Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled “National Security Decision Making.”

Pres. Obama, tell me again, what are we fighting for?

Just two days after announcing the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama held a jobs summit:

With unemployment levels above 10 percent, Obama said “We cannot hang back and hope for the best.”

But, mindful of growing anxiety about federal deficits, Obama also tempered his upbeat talk with an acknowledgment that government resources could only go so far and that it is primarily up to the private sector to create large numbers of new jobs.

He said while he’s “open to every demonstrably good idea … we also though have to face the fact that our resources are limited.”

Beyond the question of why a Democratic president is giving lip service to deficit hawks at a moment that screams for more Keynesian stimulus, the real question is this: why is it that we have to endure nearly a year of grueling political games just to get a weak, watered down health care bill that we have been told, all along, has to be deficit-neutral, yet no one bats an eye at throwing tens of billions more each year into wars?

A couple weeks ago, CBS News reported:

Today, Dec 4th, they’re already into day eight of the Inquiry with that covering “Military Planning” and “The view from London and Baghdad 2004-2007”.

But so far some of what has come forth has been that the administration, long before Sept 11 2001 were focusing on regime change in Iraq and probably looking for ways to justify their wants. On 9/11 Condi Rice mentioned not only al Qaeda as being suspected guilty parties to the attacks that day but also Saddam might have had a hand in them. This while the rest of the Country was intently focused on the devastating Deaths and Destruction and while the President was flying around the Country instead of directly back to Washington from the Florida visit when the attacks took place. Not three days later even President Bush was talking up possible Saddam’s guilt

Real News Network CEO Paul Jay talks with Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, about the politics behind Barack Obama’s Afghanistan “surge”, who explains the devastation of the US Military by the occupation, and how a combination of Obama’s own presidential campaign rhetoric and manipulations by his generals had “locked him in” to escalating the occupation of Afghanistan.

Wilkerson then gives us his take from the perspective of being a teacher on the subject of presidential national security decision making about what the geopolitical consequences of this escalation will likely be.

Also see: Part 2, Pure Politics Of Obama’s Afghanistan Escalation

Sometimes, people read…

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.

What they want to read…

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.

Rather than what was intended.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.

Sometimes, people read…

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

What they want to read…

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

Rather than what was intended.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

Read.

But under Republican questioning, Mr. Gates acknowledged that the surge troops could remain in Afghanistan longer if the American military and its NATO and Afghan allies failed to reverse the Taliban’s recent gains.

“It is our plan to begin this transition process in July of 2011,” Mr. Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “But if circumstances dictate in December, I think the president always has the freedom to adjust his decisions.”

Sometimes, people read.

Obama’s widely expected surge in Afghanistan is the “gift” US taxpayers received right in the middle of the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression.

The Pentagon for its part got (more or less) what it wanted – for now. As much as Obama stretched himself to stress this was not a new Vietnam, he trapped himself by conflating al-Qaeda with the Taliban and rehashing the same “war on terror” rationale – all clad in the glorious robes of a “noble struggle for freedom”.

Pepe Escobar argues the most significant point about Obama’s West Point address is what he omitted. He simply ignored the current, high-stakes New Great Game in Eurasia, on which the Pentagon is focused like a laser, and of which Afghanistan is just a peon.