A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen FordClick the flash player below to listen to or the mic to download an mp3 copy of this BA Radio commentary.
If the Afghanistan-Pakistan war is a necessity, then it certainly must be escalated. President Obama's framing of the conflict leaves no room for peace, yet purported peace activists refuse to confront him. Such a movement is not simply shallow: “it is a fraud.”
The Sham Debate Over Obama's Af-Pak War
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“Obama has not altered the Bush war on terror paradigm, he has reinforced it.”
With the help of cooperative corporate media, President Obama attempts to create the impression of a vigorous internal debate within his administration over how much bigger the so-called Af-Pak theater of war is going to get. The charade is designed to demonstrate that, unlike the “dumb wars” that Obama opposes, this one is being transformed into a smart war, intelligently escalated. That U.S. troop levels will increase, even as reluctant European allies move towards downsizing their commitments, is a foregone conclusion, since the president has already characterized the conflict as a “war of necessity.” If a war is necessary, then by definition, the national commitment must be open-ended and beyond question.
So what is there to debate? The president has framed the issue as one of inevitability. Last month Obama told a veterans group that, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." That's the same rationale that George Bush deployed to justify not only the Afghanistan invasion, eight years ago, but the Iraq invasion, the war against Somalia and, indeed, the whole concept of global American wars without end. Barack Obama has not altered the Bush war on terror paradigm, he has reinforced it.
Once one accepts the Bush-Cheney – and now Obama-Biden – logic of necessary war, peace becomes impossible. To the extent that those who claim to be part of the U.S. peace movement remain ambivalent on Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they become accomplices in the aggression.
“Much of what passes for a U.S. peace movement has no more respect for international law than the administrations they protest against.”
The U.S. anti-war movement fails to institutionalize itself, acting only in fits and starts when it acts at all, because much of its leadership refuses to recognize the United States as an imperial power. They allow themselves to become enmeshed in phony debates about how U.S. forces should comport themselves in other people's countries, rather than question America's right to inflict itself on other peoples. They agonize over levels of U.S. military force deployed and monies spent; whether the frequency of U.S. atrocities is up or down; and embroil themselves in discussions of the relative merits of American-imposed puppet regimes. Shamefully, much of what passes for a U.S. peace movement has no more respect for international law than the administrations they protest against. They seek only a more benign imperialism, in which they can see themselves as the good guys.
To the extent that a purported peace movement accepts that the United States has any rights that smaller nations do not possess, it is not simply a shallow movement: it is a fraud – just as fraudulent as Barack Obama was as a “peace” candidate. Such a movement is helpless against the logic of imperial war, because it accepts the underlying premise, that the United States has a right to intervene in the affairs of others. If that is true, then U.S. General Stanley McChrystal should be commended and supported when he claims that all he wants to do is “protect” the Afghan people, whether they like it or not. At any rate, it's necessary. Obama says so.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to www.BlackAgendaReport.com.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
Comments
Afghan War
The Afghan War is going to separate the sheep form the goats as far as the so called progressive go. There was no push back to the WH threats to the Congresspersons who objected to the $83 billion three month suplemental and increase to 68,000 the number of troops in Afghanistan. And you are right, the media is getting it's story straight to support President Obama's "necessary" war. For the past several months, the "word" out of Afghanistan has been how badly things are going, while the WH says that the President laid out the winning strategy in the Spring. Well now the line is, the President's winning strategy is working and we need to move to the next phase. The next phase is 1) replacing 15,000 support troops with contractors and send in 15,000 more combat troops. 2) for President Obama to decide between three options to "move forward" a) "high risk" 15,000 more troops b) "middle risk" 25,000 c) "low risk" 45,000 more troops (these will be in addition to the 15,000 combat replacements. Basically the "low risk" option is "doubling down" on his "winning strategy by sending 60,000 more combat troops to Afghanistan. If the Progressive, Black and Hispanic Caucuses buy into this plan, then this country is screwed. Just ask the Russians how well Afghanistan worked out for them.
Expect bald-faced lies from Mr. "Transparency"
Here's the latest, for example, on "troop pullouts" in Iraq.
US Increasing Force Size in Iraq by Adding Contractors
Thousands of Contractors Being Added to Cover for Troop 'Pullouts' Which Still Aren't Happening
by Jason Ditz, September 09, 2009
A report by Raw Story’s John Byrne notes that despite President Obama’s pledge with withdraw troops from Iraq, the overall force size is actually increasing in recent months, as thousands of new private contractors are being brought in.
The Pentagon is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the new contractors, mostly mercenaries from Uganda and Kenya, and its estimates involve adding significantly more contractors at the bases to cover for the US pullout. In one example, 900 contractors are to replace 400 soldiers. This is adding to concern that while the US is pretending to “stand down” in Iraq, it is actually still as active as ever and is just using contractors to do the jobs that were previously done by the American troops. This puts the whole pullout in a different light. Or it would if the pullout was even happening. Nearly eight months into his administration President Obama has not significantly reduced the number of troops in the nation since taking office, and what was roughly 135,000 when he arrived is now still 131,000 or so, and this number is not expected to change until at least 60 days after the January election. So indeed, these thousands of new contractors are “replacing” troops that haven’t actually gone anywhere, and amount to a covert escalation of the overall force operating in the nation.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/09/added-contractors-increasing-overall-...
The US military is now a gang of mercenaries, undoubtedly not subject to any rule of law, immune to the local jurisdictions. We are doing the same shit Rome did before it's fall.
hello. Jeremy Scahill does a good fact job covering Xe,
formerly called Blackwater, and other contractors on
his blog, http://rebelreports.com/ Thanks for the links.
There's no room for peace
If the Afghanistan-Pakistan war is a necessity, then it certainly must be escalated. President Obama's framing of the conflict leaves no room for peace, yet purported peace activists refuse to confront him.
* Discount luxury bedding set, silk sheets,silk bedding,silk blanket, silk pajamas, silk cushion covers, etc. Free international shipping.