Paul Simon
2008-11-13 13:52:12 UTC
Sparing Obama Criticism Isn't Doing Him (or Us) Any Favors
By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 13, 2008.
Obama is about to enter a hornet's nest of entrenched interests and
ideology. Electing him was the easy part. Now the real work begins.
On the day that Americans turned out in near record numbers to vote, a
record was set halfway around the world. In Afghanistan, a U.S. Air
Force strike wiped out about 40 people in a wedding party. This
represented at least the sixth wedding party eradicated by American
air power in Afghanistan and Iraq since December 2001.
American planes have, in fact, taken out two brides in the last seven
months. And don't try to bury your dead or mark their deaths
ceremonially either, because funerals have been hit as well. Mind you,
those planes, which have conducted 31% more air strikes in Afghanistan
in support of U.S. troops this year, and the missile-armed unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) now making almost daily strikes across the
border in Pakistan, remain part of George W. Bush's Air Force, but
only until January 21, 2009. Then, they -- and all the brides and
grooms of Afghanistan and in the Pakistani borderlands who care to
have something more than the smallest of private weddings --
officially become the property of President Barack Obama.
That's a sobering thought. He is, in fact, inheriting from the Bush
administration a widening war in the region, as well as an exceedingly
tenuous situation in devastated, still thoroughly factionalized,
sectarian, and increasingly Iranian-influenced Iraq. There, the U.S.
is, in actuality, increasingly friendless and ever less powerful. The
last allies from the infamous "coalition of the willing" are now
rushing for the door. The South Koreans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians --
I'll bet you didn't even know the latter two had a few troops left in
Iraq -- are going home this year; the rump British force in the south
will probably be out by next summer.
The Iraqis are beginning to truly go their own way (or, more
accurately, ways); and yet, in January, when Barack Obama enters
office, there will still be more American troops in Iraq than there
were in April 2003 when Baghdad fell. Winning an election with an
antiwar label, Obama has promised -- kinda -- to end the American war
there and bring the troops -- sorta, mostly -- home. But even after
his planned 16-month withdrawal of U.S. "combat brigades," which may
not be welcomed by his commanders in the field, including former Iraq
commander, now Centcom Commander David Petraeus, there are still
plenty of combative non-combat forces, which will be labeled
"residual" and left behind to fight "al-Qaeda." Then, there are all
those "advisors" still there to train Iraqi forces, the guards for the
giant bases the Bush administration built in the country, the many
thousands of armed private security contractors from companies like
Blackwater, and of course, the 1,000 "diplomats" who are to staff the
newly opened U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone, possibly the
largest embassy on the planet. Hmmmm.
And while the new president turns to domestic matters, it's quite
possible that significant parts of his foreign policy could be left to
the oversight of Vice President Joe Biden who, in case anyone has
forgotten, proposed a plan for Iraq back in 2007 so filled with
imperial hubris that it still startles. In a Caesarian moment, he
recommended that the U.S. -- not Iraqis -- functionally divide the
country into three parts. Although he preferred to call it a "federal
system," it was, for all intents and purposes, a de facto partition
plan.
If Iraq remains a sorry tale of American destruction and dysfunction
without, as yet, a discernable end in sight, Afghanistan may prove
Iraq squared. And there, candidate Obama expressed no desire to wind
the war down and withdraw American troops. Quite the opposite, during
the election campaign he plunked hard for escalation, something our
NATO allies are sure not to be too enthusiastic about. According to
the Obama plan, many more American troops (if available, itself an
open question) are to be poured into the country in what would
essentially be a massive "surge strategy" by yet another occupant of
the Oval Office. Assumedly, the new Afghan policy would be aided and
abetted by those CIA-run UAVs directed toward Pakistan to hunt down
Osama bin Laden and pals, while undoubtedly further destabilizing a
shaky ally.
the rest of the article and discussion group:
http://www.alternet.org/story/106828/
By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 13, 2008.
Obama is about to enter a hornet's nest of entrenched interests and
ideology. Electing him was the easy part. Now the real work begins.
On the day that Americans turned out in near record numbers to vote, a
record was set halfway around the world. In Afghanistan, a U.S. Air
Force strike wiped out about 40 people in a wedding party. This
represented at least the sixth wedding party eradicated by American
air power in Afghanistan and Iraq since December 2001.
American planes have, in fact, taken out two brides in the last seven
months. And don't try to bury your dead or mark their deaths
ceremonially either, because funerals have been hit as well. Mind you,
those planes, which have conducted 31% more air strikes in Afghanistan
in support of U.S. troops this year, and the missile-armed unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) now making almost daily strikes across the
border in Pakistan, remain part of George W. Bush's Air Force, but
only until January 21, 2009. Then, they -- and all the brides and
grooms of Afghanistan and in the Pakistani borderlands who care to
have something more than the smallest of private weddings --
officially become the property of President Barack Obama.
That's a sobering thought. He is, in fact, inheriting from the Bush
administration a widening war in the region, as well as an exceedingly
tenuous situation in devastated, still thoroughly factionalized,
sectarian, and increasingly Iranian-influenced Iraq. There, the U.S.
is, in actuality, increasingly friendless and ever less powerful. The
last allies from the infamous "coalition of the willing" are now
rushing for the door. The South Koreans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians --
I'll bet you didn't even know the latter two had a few troops left in
Iraq -- are going home this year; the rump British force in the south
will probably be out by next summer.
The Iraqis are beginning to truly go their own way (or, more
accurately, ways); and yet, in January, when Barack Obama enters
office, there will still be more American troops in Iraq than there
were in April 2003 when Baghdad fell. Winning an election with an
antiwar label, Obama has promised -- kinda -- to end the American war
there and bring the troops -- sorta, mostly -- home. But even after
his planned 16-month withdrawal of U.S. "combat brigades," which may
not be welcomed by his commanders in the field, including former Iraq
commander, now Centcom Commander David Petraeus, there are still
plenty of combative non-combat forces, which will be labeled
"residual" and left behind to fight "al-Qaeda." Then, there are all
those "advisors" still there to train Iraqi forces, the guards for the
giant bases the Bush administration built in the country, the many
thousands of armed private security contractors from companies like
Blackwater, and of course, the 1,000 "diplomats" who are to staff the
newly opened U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone, possibly the
largest embassy on the planet. Hmmmm.
And while the new president turns to domestic matters, it's quite
possible that significant parts of his foreign policy could be left to
the oversight of Vice President Joe Biden who, in case anyone has
forgotten, proposed a plan for Iraq back in 2007 so filled with
imperial hubris that it still startles. In a Caesarian moment, he
recommended that the U.S. -- not Iraqis -- functionally divide the
country into three parts. Although he preferred to call it a "federal
system," it was, for all intents and purposes, a de facto partition
plan.
If Iraq remains a sorry tale of American destruction and dysfunction
without, as yet, a discernable end in sight, Afghanistan may prove
Iraq squared. And there, candidate Obama expressed no desire to wind
the war down and withdraw American troops. Quite the opposite, during
the election campaign he plunked hard for escalation, something our
NATO allies are sure not to be too enthusiastic about. According to
the Obama plan, many more American troops (if available, itself an
open question) are to be poured into the country in what would
essentially be a massive "surge strategy" by yet another occupant of
the Oval Office. Assumedly, the new Afghan policy would be aided and
abetted by those CIA-run UAVs directed toward Pakistan to hunt down
Osama bin Laden and pals, while undoubtedly further destabilizing a
shaky ally.
the rest of the article and discussion group:
http://www.alternet.org/story/106828/