Ritter V. Sheehan
Though I don't always agree with him, I give former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter a lot of credit. As a veritable hero of the American anti-war movement he could simply bask in the adulation offered up by its adherents and play to his admiring audience.
Instead, Ritter continues to rely on that scarce faculty known as critical thinking as he persists in criticizing and challenging that movement to grow up and move from the margins.
His latest piece, which I hope you read, takes some pretty serious shots at Cindy Sheehan who, as far as I can tell has pretty much slid off the rails of any reasonable political thought. Ritter rightfully frets about the self-referential and self-marginalizng factions of the pro-impeachment movement which are increasingly inter-mingling with the peace movement.
He also directly confronts what is often the hooey offered by progressives when they speak of being anti-war but pro-troops. Oh really? I'll let Ritter make his own arguments but he concludes by saying that Americans need to claim much greater ownership in the democratic and constitutional process and that one of the best ways to achieve this would be mandatory national service including some military training.
Though I reach the same conclusion from a different route I have long argued that such form of universal service is crucial to the strengthening of civil society and democracy.
Meanwhile, back to Sheehan. I've been reading on some liberal list-serves how last month Sheehan pulled together a meeting in Philly to explore --omigod-- how to unify the the peace, pro-impeachment and the"9/11 truth" movements. The latter, of course, are the certifiable loons who believe the Twin Towers were dropped by "controlled demolitions" set off, presumably, by the Bush Administration. These are the whack-jobs we want more unity with? Didn't Cindy Sheehan say she was retiring from politics? Can she re-retire, please?
Unfortunately, Sheehan's efforts have borne some fruit -- so to speak. Check out this upcoming event in which the "unity" sought be Sheehan is at least partially reflected. One expert fringe-watcher has extracted some real nuggets from the stew of participants and backers of this horrific event. He notes that speaker Webster Tarpley was a long-time militant in the proto-fascist LaRouche cult. One of the other guest speakers, Ralph Schoenman, has a long checkered history dating back to the 60's when he was accused of manipulating his then-boss Bertrand Russell into endorsing actions he knew nothing about. Jean-Paul Sarte threw a fit over the way Schoenman tried to hijack an international citizens' war crime tribunal over Vietnam. Since then Schoenman has been on a constant trajectory away from Earth and is now deep into 9/11 conspiracy crap which he professes on his regular radio show on the ultra-marginal WBAI.
More alarming, Susan Udry, a leading rep from the "moderate" anti-war coalition United for Peace and Justice is also participating. What she ought to be doing instead is running away as fast as she can from any association with the pebble-brained "9/11 truth" movement.
Also, Stewart Mott, a very wealthy long-time funder of liberal and progressive causes has also got at least tangential involvement in this freak show. He's loaning out his Mott House to be used as part of the facilities when he ought to be padlocking it.
This is precisely why we need more folks like Scott Ritter.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
If I’m not mistaken, David Horowitz worked closely with Schoenman at the “Bertrand Russell Center” back in the day, a few years before he hooked up with Huey Newton. There’s something very consistent about “apostates” like Horowitz.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
You write that Ritter believes one of the best ways for Americans to achieve greater ownership in the democratic and constitutional process would be mandatory national service, including some military training, and that you agree that “such form of universal service is crucial to the strengthening of civil society and democracy.”
As a veteran I also agree wholeheartedly, and therefore I was both proud and delighted when my daughter decided to become a Teach for America corps member after she finished college in 2003. (She taught high school in inner-city St. Louis, and stayed on for a third year there after her Teach for America commitment ended.) I hope my son, who will start his senior year in college later this month, will also decide to do some kind of service before thinking about what to do next — both because I think such service is “crucial to the strengthening of civil society and democracy” and because I think it’s important that each of us, who have benefited so greatly from the incredible gift of living in this country, should give something back.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Let me punch the clock with a few points once again:
The 9-11 nutball movement was given whatever tiny credibility it has by the pityable licence to exploit 9-11 handed to The Bush White House. THAT movement was anything but fringe; it was comprised by the two Republican Houses and about 95% of the media. If it had not been for the wives of some of the victims it’s probable that there would not have been an offical investigation into 9-11 to this day; even one obviously compromised by memebers who were put on the case simply to protect the White House. I find this infinately more distressing than the small and almost enevitable gang of lunitics and profiteers goosing up KPFK fund drives.
I agree with Marc Cooper and Ritter that
national service would be a great way for Americans to achive greater ownership in the Democratic Process. If you are talking about avoiding travesties like Iraq; however, ANOTHER way would be expect, through the media, some accountablity from the massive expendatures on Defence. Maybe an atmosphere where you didn’t have to wave the flag about our troops if you wished to address the billions that were sent to Iraq and simply vanished?
Webb’s work on war profiteering might be a good start. But if we are talking about fridges and nutballs, I’d like to ask Scott Ritter, as a longtime Republican, if he was really SHOCKED by what the fridge of HIS party was cabable of once handed power. If so, he was as nieve as the young hero of an Oliver Stone movie. It leaves him in a dubious posisition to be lording himself over the well meaning Cindy; never the sharpest knife in the drawer and unlikely to draw many votes away from anyone.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
>gang of lunatics and profiteers goosing
>up KPFK fund drives
I hate to change the subject and hereby request that we not rehash the general flame war about Pacifica.
That said, WTF is with the prominence this crapola gets in KPFK’s new all-fund-drive format? I have some insight into why conspiracy theories are popular on the left, but why does KPFK lead with this? Is this just a pet peeve of Jerry Quickley or is there some calculation that this is what will raise the most $? Peter, Paul, and Mary, we hardly knew ye!
August 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
You know, a few weeks ago I might have agreed with Ritter’s article 100%, but dammit Bush has pissed me off so much lately that I am fumed at Ritter’s assertion that domestic issues here in the US, as well as International problems like AIDS and the environment are not at all linked with the war in Iraq.
Bush has indicated that he is going to veto Congress’s bipartisan bill extending funding for the CHIPS health care program (which provides insurance for uninsured children). To fund this program for five years, according to Paul Krugman, would only cost five months worth of that bottomless sinkhole known as the Iraq War.
Bush’s rationale? “People who are uninsured can always go to the emergency room.” This from the same peckerwood who chastized, with a straight face, his Republican colleagues in congress back in his initial presedential run for not being “compassionate” to the poor. The same turd whose only so-called “business success” was unloading a baseball team at sizable profit only after getting his daddy’s connections to strong arm the taxpayers into socializing the cost of a lavish new baseball stadium.
The same hypocrite who diverts billions of taxpayer dollars each year into the National Institute of Health, which is little more than a research and development arm of the health and disease industry.
I know a few taxpayers who are currently denied care for their kids who would love to see Bush impeached, and rightfully so. And Mr. Ritter, and Marc - these aren’t 9-11 conspirators, Cindy Sheehan clones, blah blah blah. They are ordinary working class Americans.
I defy anyone to look at these people in the face and tell them that they are “nuts” for wishing to see a different president in the White House.
And finally, I am sick of these articles from both the left and right that resort to lazy guilt by association strategies as Ritter does in the aforementioned piece.
The one thing that I would agree with is mandatory national service. In fact, for boys who are healthy, I would like to see at least a year of military service. After all, if you look around at other world leaders, you find ex-war heroes, ex-soldiers, ex-nobel laureates, etc. Here in the US, we get the Einsteins who got their rocks off blowing up frogs in the Texas sun.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
We have spent half a trillion dollars on this war, and the resulting interest will probably hike that on the better side of two fold….and if Bush has his way, we will continue this money and blood pit for the next few years into 2009.
Ritter should think about the kids and older Americans who could be helped with that kind of money before asserting that these issues are not related. The fact that this overseas fiasco has been the top priority of the congressional appropriation committee for the last four years speaks volumes.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Go, Dave from KS. Yes.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pm
BobH:
I salute your daughter and let me extend my best wishes for your son.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Love your comments about the 9-11 Deniers, Marc, and I agree with Ritter that the impeachment crowd is trying Hail Mary passes. Aligning with the 9-11 fruitcakes is the ultimate in Hail Mary attempts.
My apologies in advance if the nuts follow my link over here.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
The 9/11 conspiracy fruitcakes also end up slamming a lot of working people who would have had to have been complicit if their supposed “inside job” took place. They aren’t honest progressives, just morons who believe whatever they want to believe because it suits their world view.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Not to defend “fruitcakes” and “loons,” but with this administration’s own fruitcakes and loons, it makes you
question their motives and practices, doesn’t it Marc?
It took the surviving wives months to pressure bush to investigate the 911 attacks and why the buildings collapsed.
I read the 911 report and they have failed to explain, with facts, how building 7 imploded. And YES! It’s very important to know why.
The bushies, by just doing the things they do, encourage the “fruitcakes” and “loons” don’y they??
August 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Disagree with your proposal for a draft. And you call the 911 people crazy? A draft, first of all, is slavery and unconstitutional. Just because the “nation” (barf) has the power doesn’t make it right. Secondly, war is obsolete. Were you unaware of the nuclear age? The only wars since WW2 have been viking raids by the US, smashing and killing and stealing peoples’ property.
By praising Ritter’s critical reasoning, you set yourself up at an even higher level, one capable of discerning such things… I reject your whole page here. And by the way– If there was no complicity in the 911 attacks then why the extensive coverup and withholding of so much critical evidence? Let’s have the truth. We never got that with Kennedy. I suppose you believe the lone gunman theory too.
1. Bush must be impeached,
2. Cindy is way ahead of where you are at,
3. 911 has never been properly investigated, and some of the hypotheses of the 911 truth movement have merit. and
4. Scott Ritter is devoted to maintenance of empire. No friend of peace.
Todd
August 1st, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Scott Ritter and Cindy Sheehand have honest differences, and its not a bad thing that Marc brought this to our attention. I agree broadly with Ritter, thoguh I don’t think we should underestimate the importance of figures like Sheehan, and Ritter doesn’t seem to get that - though his critique, again, is prety apt.
To call someone who was nearly destroyed personally due to his opposition to empire a devotee of its maintenance is absurd. Sheehan just needs better handlers.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 am
It would never occur to the 9/11 conspiracy buffs that Bush and Co. did not want the attacks investigated because it would reveal (as it did) that they knew something was coming from all their vaunted intelligence but were too busy with the rightwing domestic agenda to do much about it. No, it must mean they planted explosives in all those buildings and only the 9/11 truthseekers got wise to it. Right. And why am I not surprised that KPFK (and other Pacifica stations) continue to lead with that stuff? Talk about your waste of potential progressive resources.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,645 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday:
FLOREXIL, Camy, 20, Specialist, Army; Philadelphia; First Infantry Division.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
btw I see that Obama is calling for 7000 more US troops to be sent to Afghanistan, as well as military strikes within Pakistan without permission of that country’s leaders. He obviously has not been reading Rory Stewart’s recent columns on Afghanistan, which everyone here who has not already should do. The US and NATO are in very big trouble in Afghanistan and more troops are not going to solve the problem, any more than they did for the Soviets when they were fighting basically the same enemy. He also has not been thinking much about how US military strikes in Pakistan would help that country’s growing extremist movements. I guess Obama is not going to think outside the conventional box after all. Disappointing.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 am
“National Service” is one of thos concepts that has left me conflicted over the years. I like the idea of people contributing to the country but I worry about the undemocratic element of state service. “Ask not what your Country can do for you; ask what you can do for country” has a noble ring. But does anyone here want to “Give” to state run by the likes of Bush and Cheney.
Put it this way. Back in 1969 here was a form of national service - it was called a draft. I suspect Marcv had a very different response to that call for the nation. Ienlistede the prtevious year under threat of that draft. I wouldn’t havbe gone in otherwise - by enlisting I assured a slot in a non-combat MOS. And even though I got to “See the Elephant” in SE Asia it was as a relatively safe eyewitness and not a particiapant in all the “Fun.”
(We had it easier than the current generation in Iraq. No IEDS and fairly safe base camps. From what I see there are no REMF’s in Baghdad.)
I have to say that I aqm glad I spenty time in the Army but I’m under no illusion that I would have done it without the element of coercion. And before I recommend anything like a dfraft I’d sak people my age - like Marc - to think how easy it is to advocate when we’re safe from its strictures and how we felt when it was very real and very close to our lives.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 am
As to Impeachment I am a great believer in it as the Constitutional Remedy prescribed by the Constitution. I certainly find several avenues of domestic malfeasance and nonfeasance to be ripe for consideration. Certainly the inaction on Katrina merits consideration as an example ofwhat Madison called the removal for Cause when the Executive shows extreme incompetene. Then there is the Plame affair, the perversion of the DOJ , the Libby Commutation (again see Madison on ther pardon power as away to obstruct the investigation of a President) and the “signing Statements.”
I have stated elsewhere why we should go forward. I’m not as adament as Sheehan but a little pushiness is not unwelcome.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 am
[...] FROM MARC COOPER. (Blog conversation goes on over here.) Unfortunately, Sheehan’s efforts have borne some fruit — so to speak. Check out this upcoming event in which the “unity” sought be Sheehan is at least partially reflected. One expert fringe-watcher has extracted some real nuggets from the stew of participants and backers of this horrific event. He notes that speaker Webster Tarpley was a long-time militant in the proto-fascist Larouche cult. [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 am
D.C. elites want you to shush on Iraq
Be afraid when the same centrist consensus that has a lousy track record on the war lashes out at partisans.
By By Matthew Yglesias Los Angeles Times
August 2, 2007
The united states is now well into the fifth year of a war in Iraq that has, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, managed to get more Americans killed than 9/11 while alienating global opinion, undermining our strategic posture around the world, arguably speeding nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran and detracting from American efforts against Al Qaeda. The nation’s elites, ever vigilant, have located the source of the problem: Public outrage over the sorry situation.
Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius, for instance, wrote on Sunday that “a good start” in finding an exit from Iraq “would be for Washington partisans to take deep breaths and lower the volume.”
That same day, Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton’s prestigious Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, argued in the Post that, in the foreign policy realm, “the fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship.” The former, with its hard-right hawks and strident antiwar types, is bad, of course.
Given that the initial authority to use military force in Iraq was a completely bipartisan affair, with backing from the then-leaders of the House and Senate Democratic caucuses, plus the two men who would eventually make up the party’s 2004 presidential ticket, and also the woman who’s currently the front-runner for the 2008 nomination, one might wonder when, exactly, this partisan tussle was so fierce. To Slaughter, though, criticizing people for collaborating in policy fiascoes is part of the problem, not the solution. “In the blogosphere,” she complained, “pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport.” What’s more, “[Barack] Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well.”
It’s true. I, for example, write a blog where I have criticized Clinton frequently and Obama on occasion, just as Slaughter warns. But what of it? There’s a presidential campaign underway, and they’re both running. What better time is there to pillory someone than when they say something you think is wrong?
The urge to urge calm is hardly limited to the Washington Post. Monday saw a perfect storm of anti-partisan elites, as Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both scholars at the liberalish Brookings Institution, complained in the New York Times that “the political debate in Washington is surreal” and that “the administration’s critics” — who, unlike Pollack and O’Hanlon, have not had the privilege of recently taking a guided tour of Iraq organized by the very officials conducting the policy the two scholars are defending — “seem unaware of the significant changes taking place” there.
O’Hanlon and Pollack are both Democrats, so their endorsement of current policy and “sustaining the effort” in Iraq indefinitely are examples of the sort of razor-sharp thinking we can expect from Washington if we all just stop and submit ourselves to soothing bipartisanship.
Of course, those of us who read Pollack’s celebrated 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” and became convinced as a result that the United States needed to, well, invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn’t actually have) might feel a little too bitter to once again defer to our betters.
Meanwhile, the very elites we’re supposed to trust can’t seem to get their stories straight. Ignatius says everyone’s looking for the exits in Iraq, and we should just calm down. O’Hanlon and Pollack want us to stay put. And as TPM Media’s Greg Sargent pointed out Monday, the optimism of O’Hanlon and Pollack is at odds with the conclusions of Brookings’ own Iraq Index project. It reported July 23 that “violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past two-plus months,” and that — contrary to their enthusiasm about the provision of electricity and other essentials — “the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day,” far less than they had under Hussein. More ironically still, the person in charge of the Iraq Index is none other than Michael O’Hanlon!
Citizens who have come to fear letting the powers-that-be sort things out from above have some sound basis for their anxiety — the bipartisan elite turns out to have a fairly awful track record on Iraq. Indeed, one might begin to suspect that the real agenda here is to try to stifle political debate lest it risk displacing current elites from their cozy positions in favor of some new experts who’ve shown better judgment.
That, though, would be shrill and partisan. Better to not complain and just assume it’ll all turn out for the best.
Matthew Yglesias blogs for the Atlantic Monthly. matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 am
This opinion piece in the IHT today illustrates some of the intricacies of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that neither the Bush administration nor, sadly, Barack Obama seem to appreciate (even if the descriptive parts of this piece are more persuasive than the prescriptive parts.) The latest from Obama is very serious indeed, because it indicates to me at least that in his quest for the White House he will engage in the same kind of opportunistic, head in the sand, ignorant of what is going on in the world rhetoric that Bush, Hillary, and every other leading politician is currently engaged in. The lack of any real alternative vision from Democrats means that America and its foreign policy goals are indeed in big trouble, although that may be just fine to its enemies and maybe even a lot of its friends. For my part, I would hate to see more Americans die in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of yet more bad policy.
The Pashtun time bomb
By Selig S. Harrison
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
International Herald Tribune
The alarming growth of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Pashtun tribal region of northwest Pakistan and southern Afghanistan is usually attributed to the popularity of their messianic brand of Islam and to covert help from Pakistani intelligence agencies.
But another, more ominous reason also explains their success: their symbiotic relationship with a simmering Pashtun separatist movement that could lead to the unification of the estimated 41 million Pashtuns on both sides of the border, the breakup of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the emergence of a new national entity, “Pashtunistan,” under radical Islamist leadership.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are fragile, multiethnic states. Ironically, by ignoring ethnic factors and defining the struggle with jihadists mainly in military terms, the United States is inadvertently helping Al Qaeda and the Taliban capture the leadership of Pashtun nationalism.
In Pakistan, where the military regime of Pervez Musharraf is dominated by the Punjabi ethnic majority, the Pashtun mountain tribes have resisted Punjabi domination for centuries and have fiercely guarded their semiautonomous status.
Yet the United States is pushing Musharraf to bring the autonomous tribal areas under central government rule and is threatening unilateral airstrikes against suspected Al Qaeda hideouts unless Pakistan takes more aggressive military action on its own.
Musharraf is understandably resisting U.S. demands. His military assault on the Red Mosque, where many of the madrassa students were Pashtuns, has touched off Pashtun anger not only in the tribal areas but among his Pashtun generals.
In Afghanistan, where the Pashtuns are the largest single ethnic group, they bitterly resent the disproportionate influence enjoyed by the Tajik ethnic minority in the regime of Hamid Karzai, a legacy of U.S. collaboration with Tajik militias in overthrowing the Taliban.
More important, it is the Pashtuns who have been the main victims of U.S.-NATO bombing attacks on the Taliban, who are largely Pashtuns and operate almost entirely in Pashtun territory. In one authoritative estimate, civilian casualties have numbered nearly 5,000 since 2001.
Under pressure from Washington for action against suspected Qaeda sanctuaries, Pakistan launched operations with gunships and heavy artillery in early 2004 that displaced some 50,000 people, inflicting heavy civilian casualties. The International Crisis Group reported “the use of indiscriminate and excessive force alienated the local populace,” and a Pashtun former law minister reported “seething anger” throughout the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the mountainous, 10,510-square mile border region.
To pacify his Pashtun generals, Musharraf later authorized peace agreements with tribal leaders, bitterly criticized by the Bush administration, under which Pakistani forces suspended military operations in return for pledges by tribal leaders to prevent the use of the FATA by the Taliban as a staging area for Afghan operations. But the damage was done. The FATA population had been politicized and polarized as never before.
The peace agreements were subverted in many areas by aroused Islamist and Pashtun nationalist groups, and have now broken down completely in the angry aftermath of the assault on the Red Mosque.
The radicalization of the Pashtun areas has intensified both Islamist zealotry and Pashtun nationalism.
In the conventional wisdom, either Islamist or Pashtun identity will triumph, but a more plausible possibility is that the result could be what the former Pakistani diplomat Hussain Haqqani has called an “Islamic Pashtunistan.”
At a Washington seminar March 1, convened by the Pakistan Embassy, the Pakistani ambassador, Mahmud Ali Durrani, a Pashtun, commented that “I hope the Taliban and Pashtun nationalism don’t merge. If that happens, we’ve had it, and we’re on the verge of that.”
What should the United States do to defuse the “Pashtunistan” time bomb?
First, in both Afghanistan and the FATA, minimize airstrikes that risk civilian casualties, relying to a greater extent on commandos and special forces.
Second, encourage Karzai to put leading Pashtuns from the large Ghilzai tribes into key security posts in Kabul, replacing minority Tajiks. Ghilzais dominate the Taliban.
Third, press for a civilian government in Pakistan that will implement the 1973 constitution, which gives provincial autonomy to the Pashtun, Baluch and Sindhi minorities. To offset Punjabi domination, Pashtuns want a consolidated Pashtun state that would link the FATA with the Pashtun-majority areas of the Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan. The FATA could then participate in Pakistani politics and secular Pashtun forces led by the National Awami Party would be strengthened.
The administration’s proposed $750 million aid program for the FATA would be a colossal boondoggle. Economic aid would be desirable, but aid administered by the hated Punjabi regime would polarize tribal factions, strengthening separatist leaders who would brand anyone accepting the aid as a collaborator with the enemy.
Democracy, in short, is the precondition not only for combating the jihadist forces in Pakistan more effectively, but also for the long-term survival of multiethnic Pakistan in its present form.
Selig S. Harrison is director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and author of “In Afghanistan’s Shadow.” This article first appeared in The Boston Globe.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 am
Thanks, MB for putting these articles up.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 am
Obama’s statements, if you actually read them, make absolute sense. Lefists who think any military action against al Qaeda should be off the table need a reality check. Obama said that if there was actionable intelligence against high value targets, he would move against them. He’s NOT proposing an “invasion” of Pakistan as some hysterics - including the Nedra Pickler of the AP, one of the worst reporters on the planet - would have it. But it would be idiotic not to take out bin Laden if it could be done effectively. That is all Obama is saying, and frankly if he wasn’t willing to say that, he doesn’t deserve to be President nor could he get elected. The article MB posts itself proposes “relying on commandos and special forces” includint the Pastun tribal areas on the border regions Afghanistan and Pakistan. What, exactly, is the difference between that and what Obama proposed ? I’d like MB to address that, since he put up that article as some sort of reason to consider Obama “ignorant” and “opportunistic”. Frankly, Michael, I think you’re ignorant and opportunistic on these matters when you make that charge. I doubt that you’ve read Obama’s speech in its entirety. Also, there is nothing in Obama’s speech that contradicts the articles criticism’s of Mushareff’s strategy. Obama spoke one line in the speech that I would want anyone I would consider voting for to make clear.
It’s here - http://tinyurl.com/2ejayo
Here is the key paragraph:
Obama:
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. (end clip)
Your characterization is nonsensical.
I’m sick of leftist bullshit that glibly mischaracterizes Democrats who actually live in the real world and are willing to shoulder real responibility for national security strategy - responsbilities that segments of the “Left” deride, much less take seriously. Rather than informed analysis, we get totally predictable hyperbole from folks who reside in their bubbles. Dishonesty and predictably disingenuos horsehit that’s rooted in deep-seated and often irrational bias are as bad coming from the “Left” as from Woody.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 am
Selig Harrison is a serious Korea scholar, and I’m not surprised at his similar intricacy on South Asia. I’d like to read his book.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 am
On national service - in a “new republic” - a post-Imperial America, it should be a part of life. Before that I’m skeptical.
As I say I like much of what Ritter says (and forgive him, somoene without left roots for criticizing “Radical Associations” on Sheehan’s part) but am I the only one who thinks he is just a little bit new age/management theory language?
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 am
Reg and Obama, don’t believe in national sovereignty (hey wait jcummings who is against borders is invoking sovereignty - yes I am, in terms of the laws of war, not immigration!)
Obama is a cynical politician trying to run away from the dove image that Hillary tried to paint on him by assuring the Dem establishment (not the base at all!) that he’s willing to kill Muslims for peace.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
Here, from today’s NYT, is what I consider the offensive proposal by Obama:
“In the second major foreign policy address of his campaign, Mr. Obama outlined a series of proposals to fight global terrorism, including a plan to send at least 7,000 soldiers and special forces troops to Afghanistan, in addition to the roughly 22,000 troops there now. At the same time, he said, he would also increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion to improve economic opportunities there.”
If he thinks that there is a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan, he has his head as far up his ass as reg does in his hysterical inability to brook any criticism of his hero. Obama does not know what he is doing nor what he is talking about, he is simply trying to get elected. He will prove that increasingly as time goes on, that is for sure.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 am
I am just going to add that the same criticism I make of Hillary, that she has to be seen to be “tough” to get elected and will make sure she is, goes for Obama too. I thought he might take a little longer to try to out-Bush the Bushies, but no such luck.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 am
Michael, you’re the one talking out of your ass because you still haven’t read his speech. And what the hell is the problem with sending more troops to Afghanistan as part of a broader strategy ?
Typical crap from the Naderist margins. Nothing there…
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 am
For what is wrong with sending more troops to Afghanistan, I suggest that bloggers here read Rory Stewart’s series of oped pieces in the NYT on this subject. Stewart, unlike Obama and reg, has actually spent time in Afghanistan.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 am
Since you need to pay to get Times archives, and I already have, here is Stewart’s latest. What’s this, he actually is writing from Kabul! And he is actually taking issue with Obama and Hillary on these very issues! Oh, but let us bow to reg’s superior knowledge on these subjects. This is how we got into Iraq in the first place, when well intentioned but ignorant fools like reg forget to use their brains.
July 23, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Where Less Is More
By RORY STEWART
Kabul, Afghanistan
AMERICA and its allies are in danger of repeating the mistakes of Iraq in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and even some Republicans are insisting on withdrawing from Iraq and sending more troops and resources to southern Afghanistan. The Bush administration’s gloomy National Intelligence Estimate last week on the fight against Al Qaeda will only lead others to make such calls.
But they should think again. The intervention in Afghanistan has gone far better than that in Iraq largely because the American-led coalition has limited its ambitions and kept a light footprint, leaving the Afghans to run their own affairs.
Much has been made lately of setbacks and the resilience of the Taliban. But given its history, Afghanistan is doing relatively well. International terrorist training camps have been eliminated (or at least pushed across the border to Pakistan); national wealth has nearly doubled in the last five years; Kabul’s population has expanded from less than a million in 2001 to almost four million today.
It seems ground is broken on another huge blue-glass commercial building every week. The wage for an unskilled laborer in Kabul is now $4 a day, four times that in neighboring Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Millions of Afghan refugees have returned home at a time when Iraqis are fleeing Iraq. The central regions of Afghanistan are safe enough for foreigners to travel alone unharmed.
There are, however, serious problems in the south and east of the country. Taliban forces raid villages and military posts before retreating to safety across the Pakistan border. In Helmand Province, the government is associated with kidnapping, murder and theft. Thirty-five highway policemen were arrested this month, accused of robbing vehicles. This province alone produces 50 percent of Europe’s heroin. Afghans in such areas are justifiably angry.
NATO has tried to solve the problems of the south with more troops. This has only added to the problem. For example, Britain decided in 2005 to bring good government, security, rule of law and economic growth to Helmand Province. At the time, there were few Taliban attacks in the area. The British deployed some 4,000 soldiers last year and more civilian advisers to replace a few hundred international troops who had been in the province since the fall of the Taliban.
The British effort failed. A year and a half later, with 7,000 British troops in Helmand, the provincial government is more corrupt, the streets less safe for citizens, the poppy crop larger and the legal economy and infrastructure more eroded. Worst of all, the foreign presence has provoked a wide Taliban insurgency. Dutch troops in Uruzgan Province and the Canadians in Kandahar have had similar experiences.
NATO’s failures in the south should serve as warnings to those who would intensify Western efforts here; the results were inevitable for fundamental structural reasons. Many Afghan officials are simply not committed to state-building in southern Afghanistan, and many are connected to the drug trade. Narcotics makes up more than half of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product and there is no sufficiently appealing alternative crop for farmers.
Most important, none of the factors that led to success in history’s classic counterinsurgency campaigns are present in the fight against the Taliban. In British Malaya in the 1950s, for example, success depended on direct imperial control of the government, a powerful and cooperative local administration, large numbers of troops, active support from much of the population, a detailed understanding of local culture and politics, control of the borders and strong political support at home.
In Afghanistan, by contrast, the American-led coalition is not the government and has to operate in tandem with an Afghan civil service, military and police force that are at best ineffective and at worst actively undermine coalition operations.
The dominant Pashtun tribes in the south and east are suspicious of foreign troops and are reluctant to side with them against the Taliban, who are from their own ethnic group. Coalition-backed governments have been unable to prevent the insurgents from taking sanctuary and receiving armaments and money from across the porous borders with Pakistan and Iran. American and European voters will not send the hundreds of thousands of troops the counterinsurgency textbooks recommend, and have no wish to support decades of fighting.
Worst of all, an increased foreign troop presence will help the Taliban, who are unable to deliver government services and often live parasitically off the people, and whose best selling point is that they are fighting for Afghanistan and Islam against a foreign occupation. If we commit more troops we will find it very difficult to withdraw them later without losing credibility.
Our best hope in Afghanistan is to continue to manage the country through a light civil and military presence. Southern Afghanistan will remain unstable for some time to come. Although we cannot change this, we can contain the situation. We can prevent Qaeda units from using the area as a base from which to attack the United States, and we can prevent the Taliban from again mobilizing conventional forces or capturing major northern cities like Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif.
This will not require large numbers of troops. If the Taliban tried to raise another conventional army, it would be an easy target for coalition forces and air power. The most efficient and sustainable way to protect American soil from a terrorist attack is not to deploy tens of thousands of troops to occupy rural areas of Afghanistan, but to invest in intelligence to identify the few radicals who want to attack Western targets, and use special forces operations to eliminate them.
We can do much more to show people the benefit of cooperating with the coalition. Projects in hostile areas, where the local population is not working with us and where a minority wants to attack us, are not a constructive use of our limited resources. Our best hope is rather to focus on the many secure and welcoming parts of Afghanistan’s center and north. Efforts to jumpstart local economies led by members of those communities are more effective, more relevant and more sustainable than those dictated by outsiders. We have a great opportunity in the north, center and west of Afghanistan to lead development projects for which Afghans will still be grateful 50 years from now.
This does not mean that we should withdraw and partition the country, or that the Pashtun south is doomed. But only the Afghans have the power to end the insurgency and create a stable and democratic south. It will not be easy. Residents have not yet mobilized effectively against the Taliban. Other Afghan ethnic groups still see the insurgency as a Pashtun problem and would rather not be involved. Twenty-five years of war has left a power vacuum. Politicians concerned with Afghanistan continue to underestimate the power and autonomy of provincial groups and the appeal of tribe and religion.
Stabilizing southern Afghanistan will require uncomfortable compromises. It will certainly take 20 years for Afghanistan to develop an economy to match even Bangladesh, or a civil service or military to match that of Pakistan. In the meantime, the Pashtun areas may remain as wild and unstable as the tribal areas of Pakistan. But Afghanistan on the whole can become more stable, more humane and more prosperous than it is today.
American-led military occupations and counterinsurgency campaigns are unsustainable and counterproductive, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan but in all nationalist Muslim countries. But this is not a call for disengagement.
We need a new strategy that can be applied not only in Iraq but also in Pakistan and wherever else these threats emerge. It should not rely on large amounts of troops and money but on intelligence, pragmatic politics, savvy use of our development assistance and on special forces operations. Rather than throwing more troops at Afghanistan and turning it into a second Iraq, we should use it as a model for a lighter, smarter approach.
Rory Stewart is the author of “The Places in Between†and “The Prince of the Marshes.â€
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
MB - the fact that you’ve got cummings on your side should give you pause.
“kill Muslims for Peace” - yeah, that sums up Obama brilliantly !
cummings, you epitomize “infantile leftism”, just as Woody epitomizes the right-wing KnowNothings. That you often converge in your resentments isn’t surprising. Unfortunately, Michael Balter has been around longer and should know better.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
Many commenters call for documentation of every little point with which they disagree. If you don’t want to waste your time discussing what the definition of is is, then those people will justifiy themselves in ignroing the argument. To these people, I thought that this cartoon was appropriate.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
Obama’s proposal - the issue of troop numbers notwithstanding - is consistent with the issues Rory Stewart raises. I’m not going to get in a google war over details of strategy in Afghanistan. My point is that you’ve pulled charges out of your ass and DIDN’T EVEN READ OBAMA’S SPEECH. If I’m wrong correct me. If I’m right, my point stands as stated and you’re just trying to pick up the pieces.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
I am going to let the material I have posted speak for itself. I am confident that visitors to this blog will get more out of it than reg’s hysterics.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 am
Unfortunately the material you’ve posted - which is valuable in itself - doesn’t speak to the question or criticisms I raised about your predictable hysterics and ill-informed charges. Obviously you didn’t read Obama’s speech prior to calling him ignorant on the basis of…the speech you didn’t read. Kind of pathetic.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 am
MB: “If (Obama) thinks that there is a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan, he has his head as far up his ass as reg does in his hysterical inability to brook any criticism of his hero. Obama does not know what he is doing nor what he is talking about”
Obama: As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban… We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared.
(end clip)
Obviously one of these guys “doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 am
Reg invokign Lenin?
I agree with anyone who thinks that using intelligence resources and other tools to enhance human security by apprehending - and handing to an international authority -al qaida terrorists. I am not for bombing Pakistan.
Reg, if this is the kind of attitude we’ll get from liberals when they’re in power, count me out. Liberalism is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, not accusing rivals of talking out their ass.
You have no problem with American Imperialism, thats fine. Some of us don’t think killing people will help secure humanity against the terrorist threat.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Reg - Canadian generals, no conservatives at all, are very doubtful of a military solution to Afghanistan and they should know because they’re doing America’s job for them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 am
i meant no leftists at all. “cummings on your side”…I’m a run-of-themill moderate socialist, well in the mainstream of every industrialized country on Earth. And like most intelligent people, I see US Imperialism as a threat to humanity.
Reg is a Stalinist. Period, and like Michelle Malkin says, he’s unhinged.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is no different than Bush’s. More boots on the ground, more dollars to spread around.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
“no different than Bush”
The all-purpose refrain. Works every time. Certainly put Al Gore in his place.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
The US Empire has no business meddling in Afghanistan or any other country I agree with Balter and Cummings and reg’s psychiatrist.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am
I do believe that reinstituting the draft would have the effect of making our rulers more reluctant to deploy our troops wherever the rulers like. However…
When I was a kid I participated in the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps for several years. I did a two-week boot camp on Treasure Island near San Francisco, and spent a week aboard a guided missile cruiser. I was thoroughly immersed in the culture of Tom Clancy and Republicanism. The military experience is a force for conservatization (please forgive the term) for those people who don’t retain their critical-thinking skills. I really think the national political center of gravity would shift even further to the right if we instituted national service. I don’t wish to discount the experience of Europe, where France’s national service continued until the 90s, and France also enjoyed a healthy welfare state. But I think the historical circumstances in France outweighed the influence of whole generations of people putting on uniforms and practicing drill. The military is not like the Scouts. It perpetuates hierarchical socialization and authoritarian respect for power and rank.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
We think of the military as right wing, but in many nations the military is where the Left makes its long march through institutions. Leftists should make their presence known in the military. The Left needs the military on our side.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Invoking Pakistan’s “national soveriegnty” to defend the notion that al Qaeda assets hiding among the tribes in “Waziristan” or whatever the hell it is should be exempt from any strategic military action by the U.S., irrespective of Mushariff’s obvious impotence is nonsensical. No more and no less.
I’ll let the titans of strategic analysis - MB, cummings and Sergio ! (and thank you, S, for checking in and confirming just how half-baked this attitude is) - hash out any further details.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 am
FYI - an actual coalition, authorized by the UN ! Who knew ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am
# jcummings Says:
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
We think of the military as right wing, but in many nations the military is where the Left makes its long march through institutions. Leftists should make their presence known in the military. The Left needs the military on our side.
Tell that to some of the Veterans who post on Veterans For Peace listservs.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Carl Webb
Date: Aug 1, 2007 1:02 PM
Subject: [vfptalk] We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers, ”
To: vfptalk@yahoogroups.com, UFTers Stop-the-War , Black Anti-War Movement , txlaw@yahoogroups.com
And this is wrong somehow?
—–Original Message—–
At 06:22 PM 7/30/2007, Michael Pugliese wrote:
And, Todd, the jpg. photo in the e-mail I sent that
you replied to w/the banner, “We Support Our Troops
When They Shoot Their Officers, ” was taken right in
front of the San Francisco Public Library.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/ShootOfficers3.gif
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
And here is a Denver member of Veterans for Peace, on how to reach out to the military. Scroll down to the 17th, http://raimd.wordpress.com/2007/03/
March 17th, Denver Anti-War Protest
The pigs head is str8 out of the revolutionary art of Emory Douglas of the old Black Panther Party. The rest from a vitriolic anti-Zionist artist named Latuff.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Reg’s pro-Obama apologetics is a preview of how many liberals will act should a Dem win the WH in ‘08. Libs like reg have been waiting 8 years to support imperialist violence by a Dem prez, and it’s sooooo close they can taste it. The Dems’ fealty to AIPAC and related sabre-rattling towards Iran is part and parcel of this (though Edwards is trying to corner the “reason” market when it comes to Iran). Thus reg’s bitchy tone when his hero is taken to task.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 am
It’s not surprising that a marine (Ritter) will suggest national service as a civilizing force; it’s the old joke that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The draft didn’t make LBJ less likely to send troops to Viet Nam, it enabled him in doing so. One reason that we don’t have 500,000 troops in Iraq is that there is no draft.
As an alternative to forced national service, how about the simple alternative of teaching the Constitution? I’m not sure what is required in the public schools nowadays, but I had to pass that class in the 8th grade, and we had another civics class requirement in high school. It would be interesting if the right and the left together would support efforts to educate the whole country about the Constitution, so as to bring the younger population up to speed on what it actually says. When I learn that most Americans have trouble answering how many Senators each state has, it certainly worries me. I fail to see how memorizing the details of the M16 will cure that deficit, and I worry about the effects of making a forced authoritarian system the national model.
That having been said, I agree with Marc and with Ritter that the current circus over impeachment is not going to accomplish anything for the simple reason that we are already well along in the presidential election campaign. The country (and the rest of the world, for that matter) is now simply waiting out the end of the Bush presidency, knowing full well that Bush is largely impotent in pushing any new policies, and beholden to the opposition party for whatever budgetary favors he can get.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Nice barrel bottom scraping, citing what many in the movement believe are agent-provacateurs in what we will find out was a co-intelpro operation, let alone Frontpage. Pugliese, do you even care about what you’re doing?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 am
Reg - you’ll notie that I don’t have a problem of using intelligence ops, even special ops, to target Al Qaida, though I prefer this be an international force. I do have a problem with rattling sabres with nuclear Pakistan.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“Libs like reg have been waiting 8 years to support imperialist violence by a Dem prez”
Screw you. You’re an idiot. Woody in “Left” drag.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“Screw you. You’re an idiot. Woody in ‘Left’ drag.”
Who said I was “left” or anything else, for that matter? But your reply is typical, and I expect to see more of the same when your heroes are bombing other countries.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“I do have a problem with rattling sabres with nuclear Pakistan”
As a characterization of Obama’s speech, that puts you in the same sandbox of mindless nattering as Corliss.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Corliss, it’s a compliment.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Its not the point of whether or not thsi is Obama’s itnent, it is clear to anyone - including well within the acceptable libral mainstream, that Obama was using an opportunity to show the party establishment that he can “break” wit hthe base…indeed that is the narrative being formed around him, as if this should impress people - he’s a neoliberal so he’s “breaking” with the teachers unions, he’s open to changing social security, etc.
Obama thinks that now that he’s built up a fanbase, he can re-assure the establishment. And looks liek his fans will eat it up since they are mesmerized by his charisma and their hatred of Bush which prevents them from seeing that the enemy of your enemy is not neccesarily your friend, in fact he may be another one of your enemies.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Corliss -
Its sadder than that. Its not that reg adn loyal Dems wnat to see imperial violence. they want social reform and I think they are sincere in that. Yet they believe the only way to achieve this reform is a sort of bestiality of Gramscianism - ie achieve “hegemony” and power then one can set the ground rules. In fact in American politics, to rise to the top one has to sell out any principles, but the likes of reg acknowledge that, but prefer this lack of principle to another lack of principle.
I think tis a fair point to make, reg, etc. if you can honestly say, yes these aer all serious flaws with Obama but he’s preferable to Bush. But like with Hillary, you defend him. Why not be critical?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Would you accept Cuba, Venezuela and many of the other Latin nations killed by US proteted terrorists, invading Miami?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Why would anybody support Marc Cooper, who supported the war in Iraq, over Cindy Sheehan, or over anybody?
It looks as if the Cruise Missile Left is making a comback.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Nov2002/Herman1102.htm
Next Stop Pakistan.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Yes the CML never left. That said, I think Ritter makes good points in regards to Sheehan’s involvement with, say, 911 truthers.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I just want to briefly echo Bob G’s concern that national service might lead to more military adventurism and not less. Given that the outcome is pretty unsure, it’s an awfully nasty experiment. Like most commenters here, I could get behind a national sevice model that offers other options for those uninclined toward military service.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Let me make very clear that when I say I am in favor of mandatory, universal national service I do NOT mean I favor a universal military draft. Rather, I (like Mavis just above) favor a “national sevice model that offers other options” — many others, because so many things need to be done. Nor can I agree with Michael Escobar’s comment that “military experience is a force for conservatization.” That may be true in the all-volunteer situation, but when conscripts are added to the mix you see an entirely different story; that, at least, was the case when I was in the Army in the late ’60s. I think that if we instituted mandatory national service the “national political center of gravity” (to use Michael’s term) would stay pretty much the same.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Michael Balter can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe by law, conscriptees in France may not be sent overseas. That’s what the Foreign Legion is for.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
All it would take to get “the military on our side”, would be to call on the right on it’s effortless explotation of this particuliar Goverment Agency. For instance, Bush firing our marginalizing The Generals who don’t tell him what he wants to hear; and then claiming the shots are being called by the Gernerals. Such nonsense would never be critiqued by the likes of Cummings, becuase Mr. Canadian tough judgement doesn’t do Republicans.
I’ve no doubt a lot of service people, including many Gays, are far from right wingers. So why is the nonsensical Military Right ( “We never lost a battle in Vietnam!” “We were spit on by hippies at the Airport!”) taken with any seriousness at all?
Sentimentaility, I guess.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
It looks as if the Cruise Missile Left is making a comback.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Nov2002/Herman1102.htm
Groan. From another anarcho-communist (smarter by far than the Keating fellow I just noted), a response to Edward Herman’s bilge,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8327
“Why Does Z magazine support genocide?” Read his Wotld War 4 Report, intelligent anti-imperialism, not Edward Herman’s apologias for Milosevic like tyrants. Where his Herman’s piece lauding Mugabe?
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
http://opensources.davy.us/index.php/b/2007/08/02/martial_law_is_now_a_real_threat
Sheehan on KPFK last Monday noted this conspiranoid hallucination that Bush 43 was just about to declare Martial Law and even cancel ther elections next Nov. From the URL above >…Could a false flag “terrorist attack,†perhaps during the second phase of “Operation Noble Resolve†(reportedly slated to commence in Portland on Hiroshima Day, August 5th), trigger martial law? Following an embedded link in that quote, the, “Reality Based, ” Blog @ http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5D786528F96529A2D79FD597A39C1ABB?diaryId=8058
says that on August 5th Portland will be the target of a False Flag Terrorist Provocation by BushCo.
Get ready for the implementation of NSPD 51, and get ready to eat MRE’s in that FEMA camp,
http://www.google.com/search?q=FEMA+KBR+camps
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Pugliese, you’ve got to learn a bit about HTML tagging, or keep your links down to one per post, or work on crafting clearer sentences, so that they actually distinguish your words from the quotations you provide. Your posts make the eyes glaze over, which is too bad since they might contain some interesting and relevant information. So maybe slow down, catch your breath, and put together a single point at a time. My two pesos.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Nardy. I’m being honest. Stop the bullshit. You don’t really believe a lot of the nonsense you are spewing about my beliefs.
In fact I agree with everything in your post. My opposition to Democrats (who also oppsoe your point of view) shouldn’t blind you to the fac tthat we share beliefs on this issue, and most others (except I don’t trust snake oil salesmen)
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
jcummings continues the spew:
“Obama’s” a neoliberal so he’s “breaking†with the teachers unions, he’s open to changing social security, etc.
OBAMA: “Privatization is not something that I would consider, and the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is — that’s the floor. That’s the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can’t be frayed, and we shouldn’t put at risk.”
Obama’s speech to the National Education Association below.
http://tinyurl.com/2ncurs
This is offered on the premise that there are some thoughtful people who value honest discourse still attempting to follow this thread. I’m open to discussing any aspect of Obama’s policies. What I find very creepy is the cynicism and dishonesty on display in much of the crap coming from the “Left” in twisting his positions and motives to fit their pre-fab ideology and biases.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Way to take quotes out of context….Obama may be against full privatization but he’s open to changing many things.
The crap coming from the “Left” is a philosophical difference I have with bourgeois centrists like Obama. I would hope people would see through reg’s O’Reilly-Vishinskyism and understand that whether he’s a principled advocate of centrism or (more likely) an Obama cult follower, he doesn’t argue with any courtesy at all, or believe that an idea can eb diffrent than his.
My ideology is not pre-fab and I have clear biases. From my point of view, Obama is unsatisfactory. That being said, what really galls me is people such as yourself who are passionate about so many issues that Obama won’t do a whit about, yet defend Obama so fervently.
Next thing you know he could eat puppies and yo’d be like “who’s to say puppiesw don’t taste good.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
It is solid mainstream liberal to be against any change in public education and social security benefits except to add more funding and give more power to unions to set education agenda, and fight vouchers.
Obama is not on board with this solid mainstream liberal agenda. He’s a covert neoliberal privatizer who probably really believes what his corporate advisors are telling him.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“he’s open to changing many things”
Horror of horrors. If you actually made any point about what changes and why you disagree with them, your whining might have merit.
“he doesn’t argue with any courtesy at all”
Not with dishonest and/or totally ignorant crap.
I don’t give a shit what you think. But don’t try to badger me into respecting you if I don’t think you deserve it. You think and talk in cliches and soundbites. If there’s an “O’Reilly” in this discussion, it’s you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“It is solid mainstream liberal to be against any change in public education”
A totally idiotic statement.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Frankly, jc, you remind me of Glenn Beck, with your admonitions about my “Vishinsky” tendencies. He claims Al Gore is doing “Nazi-like” science and Hillary’s healthcare has something in common with the Holocaust.
I’m not joking when I make the point that you’re increasingly sounding like Woody.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Incidentally, every “mainstream liberal” I know here in Oakland PRAYS for major changes in the public education system, including more accountability for teachers. You know NOTHING about this issue or how its perceived and experienced by “mainstream liberals” (the most reliably “mainstream liberals” being, of course, African-American Democrats.) Defending the status-quo bureaucrats of the teachers unions against any change or accountability is totally bankrupt - and a sign of leftwing pathology IMHO, judging by the malign influence of a handful of Trotskyites in the Oakland local. They are held in total contempt by “mainstream liberals” who care far more about education reform than cliched sloganeering by “left” opportunists.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
And you are more than welcome to disagree with me. But don’t hide behind stale cliches and half-baked characterizations that betray either ignorance or dishonesty.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
sorry this turned into a serial post. I should have gathered my thoughts rather than shoot them out in bits and pieces.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Don’t forget O’Reilly - Vishinksy, O’Reilly, Goebbells, Reg, Jim Jones - all unwilling to put up with cognitive dissonance…take it down a level, dude….
I don’t know of the situation in Oakland, but “accountability” is often code for less job security, while it can be an issue. Education reform often means vouchers. The overriding issue is underfunding, which breeds all sorts of stupidity.
And thank you for your “welcome.” I don’t give you “welcome” to disagree with me, because it isn’t mine to give. I will say that one man’s cliche is another man’s principle. Obama is deviating from a Left agenda. Are you shocked that he’s taking heat - including from many blogospheric liberals?
Obama is a centrist. He won’t do a thing to improve your life.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I consider this argument closed because I really don’t have time to argue with someone who personalyl insults me yet feels personally insulted when his hero is taken down a notch.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
You don’t have an “argument” - only ad hominem and bullshit assertions. You never opened an argument worth having. And you can take that as personally as you want to.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“Obama is deviating from a Left agenda.”
Thank god.
And “blogospheric liberals” are, in the main, a bunch of white boys I wouldn’t expect to be particularly enthusiastic about Obama’s perspective.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Check out Matt Stoller’s recent “bloggingheads” if you think my comment about clueless white boys who dominate “blogosphere liberalism” is unfair.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
rlo, France has not had obligatory military service since about 2001. I would have to research it to be sure, but I believe that when it did, soldiers had to go where they were ordered to go and many did serve abroad. I knew a few soldiers at that time and I do not recall them having any choice about it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,647 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
KESSLER, Jason M., 29, Cpl., Army; Mount Vernon, Wash.; 75th Ranger Regiment.
MADDIES, Stephen R., 41, Sgt, Army; Elizabethton, Tenn.; Tennessee Army National Guard.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
This is probably repeating what I basically said before, but bottom line is that Obama is well on his way to becoming a centrist Democrat no different than Hillary or any of the other centrist Democrats, and that process will continue and possibly even accelerate as the months roll by and particularly as he is attacked for “lack of experience” etc. Obama is also allowing himself to be trapped by the wimp-baiting that is increasingly part of the electoral campaign. These days the way a politician shows that they are experienced is by taking the most conventional possible positions on very serious matters like Afghanistan and Pakistan that require new thinking. Our friend reg is in considerable denial on that point.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
cummingslite
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
MBthanks for the update. I was under the impression that, as aresult of Algeria, deGualle kept them at home.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 am
Looking back over this thread, I can see that the quality of discourse on this blog has degenerated to the point that even Woody now feels comfortable being a regular here again. Let’s try to raise it up in the next round, shall we? That goes for me too, no exceptions.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 am
Michael Balter, am I mistaken in that the FFL was limited to “foreign” nationals joining but that it was led by French Officers? I seem to recall that somewhere.
I’m also enjoying watching that serial poster and ad hominem specialist (and yes reg, I do it occasionally, you do it regularly and often when you disagree with someone) reg get a little reality check from the left. While Obama was absolutely right to say that he would talk to anyone, his taking the position that “nukes” were off the table shows a Kucinich like stupidity about what others in this world are like. Yeah Obama, tell the would be thugs that they don’t have to worry about ‘ole uncle sam, you bet. Reg, wake up and smell the roses bud, your belief in Obama as a candidate is fine, but don’t discount everyone else for every other thought because you don’t agree with it.
And, reg, your comment “Check out Matt Stoller’s recent “bloggingheads†if you think my comment about clueless white boys who dominate “blogosphere liberalism†is unfair,” would quickly be labled a RACIST comment if it was made by Woody or me or jcummings or MB.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 am
Not to disappoint you, MB….
Balter: France has not had obligatory military service since about 2001.
A lot of good it did for them before then.
Also, since you guys put so much faith in polls of people who are alive but only know what the liberal news media tells them, if even that, here is this recent Zogby poll result:
Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:38 am
You don’t have an “argument†- only ad hominem and bullshit assertions.
That’s his metier.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
Given that representatives of both parties are in congress and that the Senate in particular is very nearly 50/50 (especially with Joe Lieberman), it’s always a good idea to look at poll numbers with a little more detail:
A great deal of detail may be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/32sj8u
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 am
Frankly, I think the quality of discourse began to degenerate when you made a series of charges - “opportunist”, “ignorant”, “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” - on the basis of having read a couple of MSM news clips about Obama’s speech rather than the speech itself, or obviously even excerpts. If you’re going to make your case by posting long NTY’s oped, maybe you should at least also read a fuller version of what you’re proposing to strike down with that kind of amped up rhetoric. (At that point, of course, the real crazies leapt in and revealed that I’m an imperialist stooge and Obama’s all about “killing Muslims”.)
I don’t regret for one moment my reaction, i.e. that you were pulling most of these charges out of your ass because they fit your pre-fabbed script. It all boiled down to the same-old-same-old about how another Democrat is selling out. Of course, I think there are times in any Presidential election in particular when candidates - with the possible exceptions of Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, but NOT Dennis Kucinich who in a Mitt Romney moment changed his stance on abortion, no less, so he could run on “the left” - pander to particular audiences. But Obama’s speech deserved more consideration than you were willing to give it. At least as much as consideration as you were asking for Selig Harrison and Rory Stewart. Having read a paragraph in the New York Times doesn’t always qualify you to call someone else ignorant or assume you can sum up the flaws in their thinking. The irony is that you approached the question of Obama’s remarks with all of the sophistication and eagerness to paint him as a neophyte of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Of course, I’ve defended Hillary against similiar reductionist critiques.
The merits of whether Obama is right to suggest military action against al Qaeda on “actionable intelligence” in the Pashtun region without an official green light from Mushareff or whether adding several thousand troops to the forces in Afghanistan reduces Obama’s strategy to a simple “military solution” never really got discussed coherently, because it was all about his motives or his alleged “ignorance” coming out of the gate - leaving some of the more crazed charges aside. (I’ll note that it would probably be doing Mushareff a favor if the U.S. criticizes him for inaction against Pushtans and sends some special forces against al Qaeda in Waziristan. Also, ironically, Obama now is being criticized by Hillary Clinton because he didn’t respond to a typically stupid press question about using “nukes” against al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan by saying that a nuclear option was “on the table” - against guys living in tents and caves. Actually,perhaps this is not quite as crazy or irrelevant as it seems, because I think BushCo had actually considered using tactical nukes in some related circumstance. In any event, Hillary has made it clear presidential contenders who aren’t “ignorant” and “know what they’re talking about” don’t make pledges not to use nuclear weapons in counterinsurgency.)
But underlying the particulars of this thread or a discussion of what might be positive, what might be ill-conceived or what might be campaign rhetoric in Obama’s recent foreign policy addresses is a bigger problem IMHO - a profound cyncism that takes itself as some sort of “radical critique” of people who are actually involved in the political process. It’s knee-jerk, it’s posed as “knowing” and it’s ultimately paralyzing to any actual involvement in the mainstream political process beyond standing on a streetcorner (or a comments thread) and holding one’s sign.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 am
“inaction against Pushtans”
That should have read “inaction against al Qaeda”
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 am
Re Obama’s speech: Although Obama does not agree with Bush on Iraq (not many do these days, both Republicans and Democrats) his prescription for Pakistan and Afghanistan is pretty much the same as Bush administration current policy in its basic outlines. Calling for putting more development money into Afghanistan is not a difference in policy, anymore than calling for putting more troops than Bush currently has there is a difference in policy.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
I’m ad hominem, eh?
As I said, take it down a level. We have different belief systems. No need to evangelize.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
Glad to see Randy Paul also defends imperialism.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 am
I’m glad Obama took nukes off the table, and hope that you go back on any and all defense of HRC who thinks nukes should be on the table.
None of my critiques in any way implies that I’d prefer to se Mitt or Rudy as president. The point is that if liberals don’t hold a very hot fire to the feet of their chosen candidates then they will simply do - as per Obama - the establishment’s bidding.
As I’ve said since the Harpers’ story I’m far more worries about Obama’s economic stance than foreign policy. I don’t actualyl see him doing what he said he would do yesterday. I think he’s a little more principled, or I hope. But in regards to capital, he’s a tool
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:04 am
What would you suggest ? Withdrawing from Afghanistan and leaving Karzai to fend for himself ? I supported the action in Afghanistan and think the biggest problem there has been LACK of commitment to the mission due to the clearly crackpot intent to shift gears and invade Iraq. I believe this was one of the prime reasons for the failure to take bin Laden out. That, and perhaps the illusion that we could outsource the job of killing bin Laden.
That said, the broader UN-sponsored mission in Afghanistan can’t be achieved by adding 7000 more troops and Obama obviously knows that as well as Rory Stewart. The difference is that he’s taken it on himself to gain access to the power to actually formulate and carry out a policy to try to do what he can to lift us out of some of the holes that have been dug deeper during the Bush years. Thankfully he hasn’t confined himself to the parameters of just writing books and NYT’s op-eds.
Overall, there is a fundamental difference in policy between Obama and Bush. Obama emphasizes negotiation, economic development, what might be termed “constructive engagement” and - most important - limited strategic objectives for any military action. This is a very substantive difference between them and it would impact far more than Iraq.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 am
That last was a query of MB…
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
Glad to see Randy Paul also defends imperialism
To be insulted by a dilettante who’s factually incorrect on a regular basis is a badge of honor to me.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Let me zero in on a big difference between what Obama is saying and what Rory Stewart is saying (btw, Stewart works in Afghanistan and is the head of an organization there, reg seems not to have noticed this. That means that Stewart knows more about the country than Obama does.) Obama is saying send in more troops, Stewart is saying don’t. This is fundamental, because once a president starts sending in more troops, he tends to send in more if the first bunch aren’t enough to “get the job done”–and that has been true of both Republican and Democratic presidents as we all know.
As for Obama going to the trouble of getting the power to do what he is proposing: That is only a good thing if what he wants to do is a good idea. And as far as him actually getting it, he doesn’t have a prayer if he does not distinguish himself dramatically from both Bush and Clinton, and takes seriously different arguments direct to the people. As I said earlier, Obama is already showing us that he thinks right in the middle of the box.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:17 am
And for the record, the author of “the Harpers story” wrote the following, among other more complex observations in discussion on the Harpers website, regarding his article: “Obama is not a mouthpiece for his donors; neither does his voting record mirror the wishes of his contributor list.”
Of course, while its ridiculous to assert that Obama is a “tool of capital”, neither is Obama “anti-capitalism”. Frankly, although I’m very critical of “free-market” illusions and support a fairly comprehensive social-democratic agenda, neither am I “anti-capitalist” in the sense the “pie-in-the-sky” revolutionary leftists of this world would have it. Nor is that a debate I’m interested in at this late date.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
Randy Paul: Given that representatives of both parties are in congress and that the Senate in particular is very nearly 50/50.
Pathetic. To think that someone who considers himself as being brilliant thinks that 49% has about as much power as 51% in politics. The Democrats have bascially told the Republicans to go to hell because the Democrats are in charge now. Grow up and accept responsibility.
And, handpicking an older poll doesn’t disprove the newest one.
Here is how the “most ethical Congress in history” does its job: