The Bush/Obama/Clinton war in Afghanistan
by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 07:24:53 AM EDT
How's the "war" going? As predicted. A complete failure, waste of resources and lives. But very profitable for military corporations and companies like BP. I mean, doesn't the irony lift at all on the mouth-pieces that for, on the one hand, BP is the villain, but on the other-hand they turn a blind eye to the flow of money from our hands to theirs?
The U.S. doesn’t win wars anymore. We just funnel the stressed and underpaid troops in and out of the combat zones, while all the while showering taxpayer billions on the contractors and giant corporations that view the horrors of war as a heaven-sent bonanza. BP, as we’ve been told repeatedly recently, is one of the largest suppliers of fuel to the wartime U.S. military.
Seven American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Monday but hardly anyone noticed.
Yea, don't you remember the days when it was Bush leading the war, and we'd see the dead soldiers plastered on the frontpage of the anti-war blogs and liberal mags? Boy, that took guts. Now that its Obama's leading the corporate war, nothing but silence. Oh, I know the talking point: Iraq was the "dumb war" and Afghanistan is the "smart war" we took our eye off of the ball. Whatever.
What’s happening in Afghanistan is not only tragic, it’s embarrassing. The American troops will fight, but the Afghan troops who are supposed to be their allies are a lost cause. The government of President Hamid Karzai is breathtakingly corrupt and incompetent — and widely unpopular to boot. And now, as The Times’s Dexter Filkins is reporting, the erratic Mr. Karzai seems to be giving up hope that the U.S. can prevail in the war and is making nice with the Taliban.
This isn't that hard to figure out. Anyone with a simple grasp of history could have told you that the tribal factions there will take all the money you want to give and declare their allegience for a while. But stop the money and then what happens? That's predictable too.
Americans have zoned out on this war. They don’t even want to think about it. They don’t want their taxes raised to pay for it, even as they say in poll after poll that they are worried about budget deficits. The vast majority do not want their sons or daughters anywhere near Afghanistan.
...Ultimately, the public is at fault for this catastrophe in Afghanistan, where more than 1,000 G.I.’s have now lost their lives.
I think we can narrow that down a bit. Democrats, and the partisan supporters who turn a blind eye to the fault, are to blame for the escalation in Afghanistan. There was no need for it, no public acclamation for it, and nothing but corporate military greed, and Pentagon thirst for global power, to satisfy with an escalation of the occupation.
This is at or near the top of the list as for why Democrats are losing. Democrats took over the Congress in 2006 on the promise of "Had Enough?" of the foolish wars. Obama got elected on the promise of an anti-war speech. It was an amazing bait-and-switch to de-escalate in Iraq while escalating in Afghanistan. The "progressives" didn't even notice or see it coming.
Pro-war Democrats are lucky that they are part of a duopoly that's duping the public with these deficit-growth wars. What's the alternative? Well, not showing up, which you can pretty much count on happening from the portion of the progressive base that's had enough.
Tags: (all tags)