The President’s Afghanistan Speech

Obama’s plan is a fig-leaf exit strategy. It is “Peace with Honor”. It is Vietnamization. It is “Afghani’s stand-up so America can stand-down”. It is a bloody 18 month “slog”.

It is Obama’s war now.

The only benefit will accrue to Pentagon contractors.

This quote from Sue Sturgis’ article in Common Dreams sums it up for me.

“But while the president may be showing disloyalty to his political base, he’s remaining faithful to the defense industry interests that so generously funded his campaign.

“According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org database, the top recipient of defense industry money in the 2008 election cycle was Barack Obama, whose haul of $1,029,997 far surpassed Republican contender Sen. John McCain’s $696,948.”

The question that hasn’t been answered is whether Obama is continuing the Bush Doctrine that the US can and will preemptively retaliate against potential threats before they become real threats. The admitted fact is that presently, Afghanistan no longer is a present threat to US national security. So what is the justification for the US staying, let alone escalating the war, which has become a civil war between the Taliban and an illegitimate national government.

This is not only in the national security interest of the US, it is against US interests, unless the real reason is not being admitted, like say, energy in the region, or a cover for a covert war in Pakistan.

@ vastleft;
Thanks for the link; never heard of Arthur; glad I have now.

I think it’s the “fuck all” part that ties in to Arthur’s great post, not the “blah blah.” Arthur’s very hi-res; Celsius 233 takes the more 50,000 foot view….

Anyone think that we’ll actually pick up and leave as Obama suggested?

I don’t.

And i think that Dec 1, 2009 may stand in the history books as the day the American Empire took the shit. Sure, there will be much sound and fury to follow…but it looks all down hill from here, right down to the hard landing at the bottom.

Shorter Arthur Silber: better is worse.

In large part, the danger represented by Obama arises from the fact that Obama’s election gutted whatever effective opposition might have existed. To their eternal shame, the Democrats never opposed Bush in any way that mattered — but at least the possibility of opposition had not been obliterated entirely. In the near term and probably for longer, that possibility now appears to have been extinguished.
…

To return to one of the points from which we began: when Bush or others in his administration made efforts in this direction, they were quickly condemned. If McCain had offered similar statements, he would almost certainly have been similarly condemned, out of primitive partisanship if for no other reason. But who will object when Obama makes such statements? Other than a few disaffected people like me, anyone at all? Anyone of note? I very much doubt it. We shall see.

I’ve seen this argument from elsewhere as well—that one of the downsides of Obama is that his status as a nominal ally of less crazy Americans has the paradoxical effect of diminishing the capacity for credible opposition to him—especially when he continues to reflect the consensus of the elite.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but it leads to two possibilities:

(A) Progressives (or whatever you want to call them) should not support nominally left-of-American-centre leaders, because that reduces their capacity to oppose the rest of the right-wing enchilada.

But because no politician who is seriously outside the elite consensus can ever come to the fore, we then have:

(B) Progressives-or-whatever should check out of electoral politics as such.

Again, I’m not saying that Arthur Silber is wrong, and he’s not the first to express this idea. It’s just that it seems to imply conclusion (A), or, for the ambitious, conclusion (B). Incrementalist politics will always contain the taint of complicity with an immoral order, so what to do in a world where electoral politics only permits at best a very minute incrementalism?

Dude,

Make an effort…outside of pointing to your failure make an effort, it’s not worth my time to make a refutation.

#
Mandos permalink

Shorter Arthur Silber: better is worse.
#
2009 December 2
S Brennan permalink

Huh? Example?

@ lambert strether
I think it’s the “fuck all” part that ties in to Arthur’s great post, not the “blah blah.” Arthur’s very hi-res; Celsius 233 takes the more 50,000 foot view….
===========================================
So, I need less altitude? Interesting; I have never considered myself as a high altitude guy, but sometimes a shotgun works better than a rifle. Depends on the game, no?

Well, it’s another one of those prognosticative dichotomies. Is it better to have a bloodthirsty empire managed more competently or less competently? If you’re going to have a bloodthirsty empire, I tend to lean towards “more competent.” That’s because, at least in the medium term, an incompetent imperial management has all the downsides of a competent one—plus it is imcompetent, and will lead to more suffering, IMO.

On the other hand, competent management leads to a further entrenchment of the empire. Which is a bad thing if your goal is to end imperialism.

Splitting hairs. By “competency”, I meant “management-tactical skill”.