First, some background:
- May 1, 2003 [1] President George W. Bush, while standing in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, declares “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
- October 27, 2007 [2] Presidential candidate Barack H. Obama, speaking on the Iraq War, declares “I will promise you this: that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will bring an end to this war, you can take that to the bank.”
- November 4, 2008 Candidate Obama is elected to the presidency.
- January 20, 2009 Obama’s inauguration.
- January 21, 2009 First full-day of Obama’s presidency passes with no sign that he intends to bring the troops home.
- February 18, 2009 [3] President Obama orders 17,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan.
- February 27, 2009 [4] President Obama declares “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” Ok, so it’s not the “first thing he will do”, but he will definitely do it. Someday. For sure, all the troops from Iraq will be out by 2011. [5] It’s hard to tell though, the 2012 elections will be right around the corner by that point…
- December 1, 2009 [6] President Obama announces his plan to send an additional 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. This brings the total US forces in the country to about 100,000. Officially, it’s a NATO action, so including all the soldiers involved in the occupation brings the total to some 140,000 [7]— “the same level as the peak of Soviet forces during an eight-year war that ended in a humiliating defeat.” Oddly enough, US forces have been there about 8 years also, as of October 2009.
- December 10, 2009 Nine days after announcing a major increase in war-fighting strength in Afghanistan, President Obama will accept the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. George Orwell will roll over in his grave, as “war” officially becomes “peace”.
This is exactly why there is such widespread voter apathy– because there are no real choices. You may vote for candidate A or candidate B (but not C!). Oddly enough, both candidates have remarkably similar stances on a narrow set of “issues”. Other issues are not even open for discussion– issues such as election financing, whether globalization has been a boon or a disaster, and so on. Obama was ostensibly the “peace candidate”, and promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, as the very first thing he did as president. Almost a year into his presidency, there are still 115,000-120,000 troops there. How would McCain’s strategy have been any different? If you, as a voter, want to elect someone who will bring the troops home, who do you vote for: the guy who says it’s irresponsible to bring them home prematurely, or the guy who says he’ll do it, if only you elect him? Trick question– the truth is neither one will do it. But don’t you feel a little bit worse by knowing you were suckered into voting for the guy who just told you what you wanted to hear? “Hope, change” etc… meaningless rhetoric.
Meanwhile, a plurality of Americans [8] now think that America should “mind it’s own business internationally”. Of course, 60% want a public health care option [9], but they won’t get that either. Hell, calls into congressional offices were running 90-1 against the bailout, and we all know how that turned out (note also that both Candidate A and B supported it).
Numerous others have pointed out the contradictions in Obama’s strategy, but suffice it to say that you can read whatever you want to into it. If you believe it’s important to win this war, Obama says that can be done in 18 months. If you think the troops should come home, that will start to happen in 18 months (barring “unforeseen” developments on the ground). Arthur Silber’s analysis [10] is quite good:
…let me note that Obama made very clear that he purportedly intends to extricate us from Central Asia by involving us in increasingly complex ways in the affairs of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you think that is a glaringly obvious contradiction, you’re entirely correct. How exactly do you leave that region of the world more quickly by involving yourself in ever more complicated and numerous ways? The answer is that you don’t. But as my previous article stated, we aren’t leaving. Obama and the U.S. government are not unlike the dreaded house guest who insistently tells you he’s going home in just another week or two — honestly, he is, and how could you possibly not believe him? — even as he redecorates your extra bedroom at notable cost and takes over several of your closets for many of his most precious belongings. You hear his words, and you see what he does — and your heart sinks as you realize that a life of independence, a life that is yours, is gone.
Lastly, see Glenn Greenwald’s analysis [11] which shows the striking similarities between Bush’s Iraq surge and Obama’s Afghanistan surge. Nevermind the “similarities”, it’s the exact same language.
Print this post [12]
[13]