[Peace-discuss] Obama's take-out

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Obama (like many) supports resolving the situation in Afghanistan, which is growing worse day by day, by all accounts, fincluding for the civilian population. That doesn't make him pro-war, or deceptive about his stance as an anti-war candidate for US senate when the Bush admin was gearing up to attack Iraq. He's not the first (progressive and other knowledgables) to call Pakistan a loose cannon, the most dangerous country in the world (not counting the US, especially under the present administration!). He believes in putting economic and political pressure on Musharek to reduce the dangers to the US and others. (We want our gov't to get rid of the SOA, why would we not want Pakistan to get rid of its terrorist training camps, etc??)
   
  Please also note that Obama says he will address the REASONS for the anger of the tiny minority of committed extremists, by doubling (should be quadrupling) aid/eliminating poverty, providing education to 60 suffering countries in Asia and Africa because it's the right thing to do, which also will reduce the number of disaffected turning in desperation to Al Queda et al.
   
  Obama called for other good stuff -- closing prison camps, and adhering to the Geneva conventions and the US constitution. 
   
  I understand the real (and political) reasons for this speech, and I didn't and don't have a problem with it. More militaristic than I'd wish? Yes, but I'm inclined to be optimistic and turn a blind eye to reality and hope for the best. Do I reverse the items on the list re their importance? Of course. But Obama is not planning to do these sequentially, but promises to do all of these as he takes office.
   
  I continue to think Obama is by far our best bet among those who have a chance of getting the nomination and winning the election. 
   
  Jenifer 
  

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  Anyone who thought that Barack Obama was an anti-war candidate should 
read the speech he gave today in Washington, about the war he likes -- 
"The War We Need to Win": 
.

Obama has presented himself to the US political elite as the answer to 
the problem they're having with the populace. They have this war, see, 
and it's consistent with their long-standing foreign policy principles, 
and they have no intention of giving it up, whatever rearrangements will 
have to be made because of the awkward fact that a majority of Americans 
are opposed to it (and said so in the last election).

Obama offers himself as the solution to the problem. He can charm the 
masses and neutralize their anti-war sentiments by pretending he shares 
them ("against the war from the beginning"), while assuring the elite 
that he will continue their policies. He's confident his lawyerly 
skills can influence the majority into thinking that he shares their 
opposition to the war.

Obama's like a Mob lawyer who thinks he can convince the jury that his 
clients -- criminals who in this case control wealth and power in the 
country -- are just ordinary folks, no different from you and me, and of 
course we all just want the same things...

The Neocons saw through this act and recognized that Obama was 
acceptable to them while others were still listening to his disingenuous 
I-was-against-the-war: see Robert Kagan, "Obama the Interventionist"
. 


On the other side, people who actually paid attention to what Obama said 
-- Obama has perhaps too much confidence in his rhetorical ability -- 
like Chicago activist Paul Street, have been on to his real views for a 
while. See Street, "Running Dog Obama" 
.

Today's speech has to be read to be believed. He begins by out-Bushing 
Bush. What's Bush's mantra to sell Iraq and the GWOT? Of course, it's 
the constant repetition of "9-11!" So where does Barack begin?

"...one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here ... It 
seemed all of the misery and all of the evil in the world were in that 
rolling black cloud, blocking out the September sun ... what we saw that 
morning was a challenge to a new generation." [Guess who?]

He continues with more of this over-written guff, immediately invoking 
Pearl Harbor (the new edition of which was eagerly awaited by the 
Neocons) and "a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific" 
(but no mention of next Monday's anniversary). "After 9/11, our calling 
was to write a new chapter in the American story..."

But the Bush administration has wimped out -- by not being war-like 
enough. "We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We 
did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a 
comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did 
not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland." Bummer.

"What's more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells 
of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. [We'll 
ignore the fact that those decisions were made in the Pentagon and the 
White House.] What could have been a call to a generation has become an 
excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was 
turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us."

The main problem with torture and the massive violation of international 
law is that it's become "a political wedge issue used to divide us"! 
Street points to a similar move that Obama makes in his book, "The 
Mendacity of Hope," when Obama observes that, in regard to the Vietnam 
War, "perhaps the biggest casualty of that war was the bond of trust 
between the American people and their government –- and between 
Americans themselves." Street comments, "It is left for 'unreasonable 
zealots' [in Obama's words] of the radical fringe to note that the 
'biggest casualty' of the war on Vietnam was suffered by THE PEOPLE OF 
VIETNAM. The terrible U.S. GI body count (58,000 during the war and more 
through suicide since) pales before the astonishing damage done to 
Indochinese villages, cities, infrastructure, ecology, agriculture -– 
not to mention the millions killed in more direct fashion. The number 
of South Vietnamese civilians murdered just by the CIA’s Operation 
Phoenix (assassination) program was equivalent to 45 percent of the U.S. 
body count in Vietnam."

But Obama knows that the job he's auditioning for is salesman. He has 
to overcome the sales-resistance of the majority to the elite's wars. 
We can't let anything "divide us."

So, he says today, "It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a 
new chapter in our response to 9/11."

"The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent 
extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, 
but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and 
child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a 
repressive caliphate [the Neocons' bete noire]. To defeat this enemy, we 
must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting 
for. [But we must not mention oil, so I don't in this speech!]

“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a 
comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq [but not 
really getting out, as I've explained elsewhere] and on to the right 
battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan [sic]; developing the 
capabilities and partnerships we need to take out [ooh, tough words] the 
terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to 
dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and 
securing a more resilient homeland [Patriot III?].

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and 
taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan." Has he 
really learnt nothing in five years?

"[In spite of that boilerplate about getting out of Iraq] my plan would 
maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq 
... Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the 
incentive and opportunity to take them out [ooh, I like that phrase]. It 
will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan 
[where I can make my bones].

"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. As we step up our commitment, our 
European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome 
restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts [you know -- those 
burdensome restrictions that tried to keep them from killing civilians].

"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. [Our military is in the ME to stay.] As 9/11 showed us 
[9/11. 9/11, 9/11...], the security of Afghanistan and America is 
shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and 
Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan. ["We 
seek no wider war" --LBJ; "Cambodia is a sanctuary" --R. M. Nixon.]

"Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications 
in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking 
in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety. This is the 
wild frontier of our globalized world. [Yee-haw.] There are wind-swept 
deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as 
nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come 
and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and 
pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough 
place [But that's fine writing].

“There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. [We 
don't need no stinkin' badges.] We cannot fail to act because action is 
hard.

“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 [tough, 
again] an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005 [Read: Rumsfeld was a wimp 
to cancel the military incursion]. If we have actionable intelligence 
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we 
will.

"I will not hesitate to use military force to take out [yeah, I'm 
over-using it] terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This 
requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and 
Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual [written by David Petraeus, 
author of what Frank Rich calls a de facto military coup]. I will ensure 
that our military becomes more stealth [sic], agile, and lethal in its 
ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and 
equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign 
militaries to do the same.

"As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to 
forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure 
to take down [as opposed to 'take out'] terrorist networks from the 
remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa [more f.w.].

"And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an 
occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing 
on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive 
leader. {How could they?] They say we are at war with Islam. That is the 
whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle 
of ideas but blame -- blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And 
often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. 
Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some 
basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun. [I 
will at his point ignore what jihadists including bin Laden have 
actually said.]

"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions 
Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our 
Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with 
the terrorists. [What does 'reject' MCA mean? Prosecute the CIA for 
torture?] ... I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies with the tools they need to track and take out [OK, OK, I'll 
stop] the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our 
freedom, etc., etc."

Predictably, liberals are salivating over what they call Obama's 
"inaugural address" (I'm not making that up) and writing that, "At the 
invitation of Lee Hamilton, one of the nation’s wisest elders, Barack 
Obama made the speech of his life today, one that presages what he might 
say as President in January 2009" 
. 


Onward to victory against the "oppressive caliphate" in the 
new-and-improved global war on terrorism, led by the SS(PP)...

As for me, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, GMAFB. --CGE
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070803/8300f4b5/attachment.html