Helluva job, Mr. President

[stilltrucking]

I suppose it would be political suicide to withdraw at this point in time. Lord lord, I hope you are as shrewd a politician as I think you are. Mr President.

“This is the political crisis confronting Americans today
“Our governmental system poses a clear and present danger to those it is meant to serve.”

The Limits of Power - Andrew J. Bacevich

Consensus Renewed
by Andrew J. Bacevich

.Several reporters called me this week, asking for comment on the Afghanistan war’s latest milestone: The total American war deaths in that conflict have surpassed one thousand.

My initial reaction was to wonder why anyone would think the issue sufficiently noteworthy to merit a story. It struck me as one of those situations where journalists grab a random factoid and try to endow it with significance, recruiting people (like me) to unearth its hitherto unappreciated meaning.

The real story—which just about no one seems to have noticed—is this: In Washington, the bipartisan consensus in favor of open-ended global war has been restored. As far as national security policy is concerned, this may well stand as the Obama administration’s principal accomplishment to date.

Recall, please, the immediate aftermath of 9/11. President Bush and his lieutenants wasted no time in committing the United States to a global war. America’s purpose was to eliminate terror—perhaps even evil itself—and to spread democracy around the world. Bush and others in his inner circle were quite candid in declaring that this enterprise was likely to require decades if not generations before achieving complete success.

In Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike responded with applause, with blank-check authorizations, and with massive appropriations of money. Few voices were raised to wonder if open-ended war might not be such a good thing. Bring 'em on: That was the order of the day.


Once elected and after due deliberation, Obama decided that endless war remains an imperative. The new president just wanted to focus on Afghanistan and “AfPak” rather than on Iraq and the Persian Gulf. So he hired his own version of General David Petraeus and announced his own version of the surge. In Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike responded with applause, with blank-check authorizations, and with massive appropriations of money.

Which leaves us pretty much back where we were after 9/11—except that no one any longer believes that the concerted use of military power will enable the United States to eliminate terror—much less evil itself—or to spread democracy around the world. The fighting continues. The bills mount. To what end?

Helluva job, Mr. President.

[SadLuckDame]

Today I'm armed with more political knowledge then yesterday. I'd went to my Aquarius friend's house and as he mentioned the 'Tea Party' I jumped right in; for I felt comfortable allowing him to know I knew nothing. And I said, "Yes, can we talk politics? What is this deal with the Tea Party?" He told me how it was a similarity to the historical one where they threw the tea overboard in protest. I said, "Then it's not at all related to the mad hatter?" For I picked up the aggressive comments towards the Tea Party, but thought maybe it was some unhappy with the new Alice movie.

At which point he laughed and said there was a Doonsbury comic on it recently that went just that way. That made me smile. Though I'm air-headed, at least it follows character and can be o.k. in the end.

I know a little more today than before.
Which is the point.

Hope I'm not too overly off topic, but you're right, where's the end of the evil? That I don't know nor count much on. War is War and I don't know if it'll ever not be.

[mnaz]

well said, andrew j. bacevich. couldn't have said it better myself.

several possibilities here:

1. it's all about Big Energy and the pipeline project(s)-- troops stay in place until the "riffraff is cleared out sufficiently." (and/or we have iran sufficiently squeezed strategically) and obama is essentially just as much a part of the machine as the bush crime family was.

2. obama is not in bed with the Energy Giants, at least not to the degree the bush crime family was-- certainly not enough to justify endless war in hellholes such as afghanistan. as such he didn't fully believe in extending/escalating the war in afghanistan, but he inherited a bad situation and politically his "hands were tied," and he felt he had to make a showing to "finish the job," etc. (I don't buy it, but you know... big politics and all).

3. obama fully believed (and still believes) in extending/escalating the afghanistan war, and was (is) serious about that 2011 timetable he gave, and figures his generals and strategists are oh-so-clever as to actually "resolve everything" by then. (hmm...)

when will we start challenging this open-ended, non-democratic, imperial mercenary global militarism and military service (to "protect our freedom") as untouchable in its honor and patriotism?

[constantine]

i think we are. it always starts with artists and intellectuals. plus, demonstrations are not being televised - the news - such as it is - is under stricter control than at any period in our history.