[Peace-discuss] Raimondo on the war

[C. G. Estabrook]

	February 27, 2009
	The Silence of the Liberals
	As Obama launches "war on terrorism" II

I see that the Pentagon has reversed its old policy of refusing to allow 
photographs of those flag-draped coffins as our dead soldiers return from the 
battlefield. One wonders, however, how much interest there will be in taking and 
publishing such photos now that President Barack Obama is in office. One also 
wonders how long it will take the media to acknowledge the new quagmire we're 
sinking into if and when the numbers of casualties start increasing – as they 
are sure to do.

After all, Obama's war is going to be taking place on a much larger, more 
difficult canvas than that of his predecessor's, which was confined in large 
part to Iraq. All of Afghanistan will soon be teeming with newly-arrived US 
soldiers, sent there – direct from Iraq – to fulfill the President's pledge to 
start fighting the "right war" in the right way, a "smart" way. Oh, these guys 
(and gals) are the Best and the Brightest, alright, aren't they?

The smarty-pants tone and style of this administration is already beginning to 
grate on my nerves, as they pander to their base on the symbolic issues – like 
the coffin question – in hopes no one will notice as they backtrack on more 
important matters. So far, it doesn't seem to be working out all that well.
Glenn Greenwald isn't cutting them any slack on the torture brouhaha – he's 
already pointed out that they'll still be torturing people, albeit not with 
their own hands in some instances, and that if Guantanamo is closed, Bagram – 
where similar activities are known to take place – is going to be open for 
"business."

Most of the Obama-zoids are happy, however, because, after all, Keith Olbermann 
assures them we've entered the new millennium, the Dear Leader is in the White 
House, and all's right with the world. But is it?

Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month 
withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the 
"residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere 
afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?

Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet 
now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted 
counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of 
thisNew York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press 
secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct 
combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."
In short: we aren't leaving.

I don't care what the status of forces agreement says: that document has more 
loopholes than the bank bailout bill's provisions for paying back the American 
taxpayers. Those 50,000 "residual" occupiers will simply pull back into their 
permanent bases, which are even now being constructed throughout Iraq, to be 
called on when our sock-puppets find themselves unable to tamp down the growing 
spirit of rebellion.

What kind of a "withdrawal" is this? It is one so burdened with contingencies, 
conditional footnotes, and amendatory clauses, that it falls beneath its own 
weight and collapses into a fair approximation of the status quo.
Antiwar voters who cast their ballots for Obama have succeeded in rolling the 
stone all the way up a rather steep hill, only to see it fall down the other 
side – and we are right back where we started. The next hill is called 
Afghanistan, and beyond that is yet another: Pakistan.

Not even Bush tried to fight a two-front war: Obama, however, is leaping into 
Afghanistan with alarming speed. Sending those 17,000 troops was one of the 
first acts of his administration, announced well before any of the economic 
measures. The economy may be crumbling, but the empire cannot be allowed to go 
the same way – that's the lunatic mentality of our rulers, whose priorities 
reflect a Washington mindset still stuck in the glory days of American hegemony.

Under Obama, the military budget will rise by 4 percent, and this isn't counting 
the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. As Cato Institute research fellow Benjamin H. 
Friedman puts it: "Many Americans believe that Barack Obama and the Democratic 
majority in Congress will lower defense spending and restrain the militaristic 
foreign policy it underwrites. The coming years should destroy that myth."

Yes, but myths die hard. It will take a couple of shiploads of flag-draped 
coffins – and perhaps a couple of alarming incidents in Afghanistan and environs 
– to wake up Obama's liberal supporters to what they're presently enabling with 
their silent complicity. In the meantime, the creaking wheels of empire are 
turning as we gather our forces for another even more perilous mission that will 
take us straight into the fabled graveyard of would-be world-conquerors 
otherwise known as Afghanistan. Why? How? To what purpose? A thousand questions 
raise themselves up, like the first crocuses of spring – but the Obama 
administration isn't answering, because no one of any importance is asking. Just 
little old me – and, maybe you. And maybe Rachel Maddow, now and then: and 
that's pretty much it. Surely the alleged "antiwar movement" isn't interested – 
they're too busy hailing Obama's election.

The President's budget requests for Iraq and Afghanistan total $75 billion 
through the fall, and $130 billion for next year. That means we'll be spending 
nearly $11 billion per month for at least the next year and a half.

This bothers exactly no one in Washington, and especially not in the White House 
or the Democratic caucus chamber: after all, these people believe that 
government spending – anysort of spending – is what will fix our ailing economy 
right now. So why not increase the mis-named "defense" budget, anyway – don't 
you want an economic recovery, or are you, like Rush Limbaugh, hoping the 
President will fail?

Yes, you know we've entered a new era when I start citing Limbaugh favorably, 
and yet that's the sad part about all this: it is now left to Limbaugh and his 
talk radio confreres to point out the backsliding and howling hypocrisy in this 
administration's policies, both foreign and domestic, because the liberals – 
with a few exceptions – have been struck dumb by their "victory."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14319