- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Robert Scheer: Saving the Obama Revolution
The Obama revolution — and there was the hope of one — still might succeed. But only if President Barack Obama follows the model of the incredibly successful Reagan revolution and heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.
Love him or not, President Ronald Reagan had at least one outstanding political virtue — his respect for the concerns of those who placed their trust in him. And whenever the political vultures that feast on power tried to lead him astray, they were fired at the insistence of Reagan or his remarkably savvy wife, Nancy. Hopefully, Obama and his no-less-impressive mate, Michelle, will do the same.
The first obligation of Obama as president is to be a peacemaker, since he as a candidate seized that mantle, successfully exploiting his early opposition to the Iraq War, which his closest rival, Hillary Clinton, had supported. Obama, as opposed to her flirtations with U.S. imperial arrogance, has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.
In that regard, he is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians with an unneeded and unworkable missile defense on their border. He also seems serious about getting the Israelis and Palestinians to peace negotiations, the one issue in the Mideast that must be solved if the region’s religious fanatics are to be neutralized. And he will deserve credit if he backs his attorney general’s quest to hold the enablers of a U.S. government torture policy accountable.
The deal-breaker in foreign policy so far has been his escalation of the folly of U.S. nation-building in Afghanistan, which feeds rather than mitigates terrorist recruitment. That is the unmistakable, if unintended, conclusion of the 66-page declassified report of Gen. Stanley McChrystal that became public this week. It states: “(M)any indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans — in both their government and the international community — that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents.”
The report makes clear that the insurgents are deeply divided into three camps (one of which previously fought against the Taliban) and are basically homegrown, and provides no evidence that defeating them has anything to do with making us safer from attack by al-Qaeda terrorists. Lest we forget, the Sept. 11 hijackers found it easier to operate from Germany, San Diego and Florida than forlorn Afghanistan.
The foreign influence behind the insurgency comes primarily from one of the countries we are allied with; as the report notes, “Afghanistan’s insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan.” And the document goes on to say that the historical India-Pakistan rivalry has now been transferred to Afghanistan, where “the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian.” Great, another Kashmir battlefield in the making.
Obama was right during his appearances Sunday on the TV political talk shows to put the emphasis on going after what remains of Osama bin Laden’s forces in Pakistan and elsewhere, rather than simply throwing more troops into the Afghanistan war. He raised the all-important question of what U.S. troops in Afghanistan are expected to do.
The McChrystal report agrees that the key is the question of mission rather than simply increasing troop numbers: “Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down’ on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate.”
There is a sobering honesty to McChrystal’s report that those who want to “win” in Afghanistan must take into account. The mission he outlines is one of nation-building with a vengeance by U.S. forces that must forsake the safety of their bases, learn the local languages and enter into the administration of local life without being able to count on the support of the hopelessly corrupt and, after the rigged election, illegitimate Afghan government. “Afghans are frustrated and weary after eight years without evidence of the progress they anticipated,” the report says.
It’s the old winning-hearts-and-minds strategy that has never worked — as Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s point man in the region, should know from his failed efforts to win hearts and minds during the war in Vietnam, where he specialized in “rural pacification.” That was a Democrat’s war, and the base of the party, which knows better than to repeat that disastrous error, should tell Obama so.
— TruthDig.com editor in chief Robert Scheer‘s new book is The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America. Click here for more information. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 09.25.09 @ 08:38 AM
Mr. Scheer, My problem is that even though I voted for him I did NOT vote for a revolution. I voted for a different approach to our leadership…NOT this revolting cult like following. It is painfully obvious that your profession has failed us by not properly researching this young adolescent; and offer the public a balanced appraisal of his qualifications. This is not a game, not an experiment, not the dream come true of a selfish bunch of aging 60’s radicals…this is OUR country, our children’s future (and don’t tell me that you give a darn about their future) – if that were true you’d want to offer them the chance to excel and not the forced bondage of the collective with a tax burden that will kill them.
» on 09.25.09 @ 10:02 AM
Mr. Davis I could not have said it better myself. I think most of the people that voted for him feel the same way and are now going through buyer’s remorse.
» on 09.26.09 @ 08:59 AM
The President has a remarkable, even brilliant staff to call for intelligence, national security and director of central intelligence. Thst writ, however: Having juste watched C-SPAN2’s US Senate (a) Finance Committee mark-up session [Friday - Sept. 25th]; then (b) Armed Services Committee hurriedly covened hearings [Thursdy - Sept 24th] - just a week folloing The White House’s & Pentagon “dog-/n/-pony show” announcements of ballistic missile defense [BMD] ‘architecture changes’—- I am convinced The Obama Administration ‘is truly selling’ both products - but a bi-partisan coalition of Senators from both sides of the main aisle “aren’t buying” - NOT NOW!!!
FURTHER, what is mysterious to me - Typical BMD advocacy groups such as (#1) = High Frontier (in Alexandria, VA) are conspicuously MIA from the playing fields!
Likewise on timely topics such as Bush Administration interrogation techniques [at GITMO in Cuba] = = (#2) The Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO) in Northern Virginia is also most conspiculously silent today!
BUT = WHY? It’s a wonderment!
» on 09.27.09 @ 10:03 AM
Are BECAUSE he listens to the extreme corrupt communists who put him in power. Wasn’t ACORN largely responsible for putting him in power? Somehow he ran as a candidate who would be moderate, but his true colors show that he is farther left than a President has ever been.
More Local News »
Robert Scheer: A War of Absurdity
With remnants of al-Qaeda barely hanging on, it's time to declare victory in Afghanistan and begin to get out
Robert Scheer: Exorcising America’s Diplomatic Demons
China's 60th anniversary is a good time to reflect on the United States' long-standing failure to engage
Robert Scheer: Saving the Obama Revolution
It still might succeed if, especially on Afghanistan, the president listens to the base of people who put him in power
Robert Scheer: Obama’s Presidency Isn’t Too Big to Fail
The candidate who campaigned against Bush's blunders on Afghanistan, banking and health care, now embraces them as president
Robert Scheer: 9/11 Unleashed American Barbarism
In blind retaliation, we wreaked havoc on Iraq and continue to slaughter peasants in Afghanistan
Weather: Overcast 62.0º
Search Noozhawk »
