Obama's speech on Afghanistan

[GPDP]

Somber was the word the ABC commentator used to describe it. I would substitute it for other, more appropriate adjectives, such as conservative, deceiving, and misleading.

Ironic how he addressed those of us who believe Afghanistan to be a lost cause (never mind a fundamentally wrong one) and compare it to Vietnam as possessing a "false reading of history," when he failed to mention even once why it is the U.S. was targeted on that oh-so historic morning eight years ago, and the role we played in securing Afghanistan's current misery.

The rest of the speech was just typical and unsurprising American exceptionalist bullshit. We don't operate in the business of invading countries and taking their resources. No, we just make mistakes from time to time. :rolleyes:

My prediction: Obama's "strategy" will fail, and it is very likely his presidency will go down with it.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Somber was the word the ABC commentator used to describe it. I would substitute it for other, more appropriate adjectives, such as conservative, deceiving, and misleading.

Ironic how he addressed those of us who believe Afghanistan to be a lost cause (never mind a fundamentally wrong one) and compare it to Vietnam as possessing a "false reading of history," when he failed to mention even once why it is the U.S. was targeted on that oh-so historic morning eight years ago, and the role we played in securing Afghanistan's current misery.

The rest of the speech was just typical and unsurprising American exceptionalist bullshit. We don't operate in the business of invading countries and taking their resources. No, we just make mistakes from time to time. :rolleyes:

My prediction: Obama's "strategy" will fail, and it is very likely his presidency will go down with it.

He was pandering to the middle. Same ol same ol

[GPDP]

He was pandering to the middle. Same ol same ol

Yeah, the middle between the status quo "centrist" Democrats and the brazenly imperialist far-right Republicans. If you can even call that a "middle."

[A.R.Amistad]

omber was the word the ABC commentator used to describe it. I would substitute it for other, more appropriate adjectives, such as conservative, deceiving, and misleading.

Ironic how he addressed those of us who believe Afghanistan to be a lost cause (never mind a fundamentally wrong one) and compare it to Vietnam as possessing a "false reading of history," when he failed to mention even once why it is the U.S. was targeted on that oh-so historic morning eight years ago, and the role we played in securing Afghanistan's current misery.

The rest of the speech was just typical and unsurprising American exceptionalist bullshit. We don't operate in the business of invading countries and taking their resources. No, we just make mistakes from time to time. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

My prediction: Obama's "strategy" will fail, and it is very likely his presidency will go down with it.

Damn it GPDP, you beat me to posting this thread :p

I have never been under the illusion that Barack Obama was going be any sort of progressive leader, but I was at least hoping that he would be just another inept liberal with sweet-talking fallacies. But I am now wholeheartedly convinced that Obama is an imperialist of the most dangerous character. What I heard was blatant lies, not a single iota different from anything Bush had said a few years earlier. 'What has made us different from other civilizations is that we don't seek world dominance...we seek a better future for our children'?????!!!!!! Well, If a bright future is a cold grave in Arlington Cemetery, than I don't want a "bright" future.

[GPDP]

Also, I cringed when he said if he wasn't absolutely convinced this strategy (escalation) was the best path to take, he'd pull back all the troops tomorrow.

He fucking knows what he has to do. But he won't do it.

[A.R.Amistad]

Did anyone else notice some subliminal glorification of the U.S. invasion of Vietnam in his speech or was that just me?

[GPDP]

Did anyone else notice some subliminal glorification of the U.S. invasion of Vietnam in his speech or was that just me?

I'd have to look at it again.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow. I heard clips of his speech on Democracy Now and it blew me away. I thought I was listening to George W Bush. It was the first time where I ever heard him be a generic politician wasting away with American slogans. It was weird. He really is just another politician.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did anyone else notice some subliminal glorification of the U.S. invasion of Vietnam in his speech or was that just me?

I'm not surprised that Mr. "Change" has stooped this low, if there were indeed literal subliminal advertising.

[BlackCapital]

It continues to amaze me how brazenly officials in the top tiers of the federal government spout this justification for the war in Afghanistan, which at this point the majority of US citizens do not even support. Obama speeches tend to have elements of pragmatism and leading (misleading) the audience to a conclusion through reasoning, but this speech in particular was appallingly lacking in that respect. He did the same dance about "keeping the pressure" on the Taliban and citing the region as a grave threat to national security in its present state. All this, even after military officials have been on the record saying they believe are few significant insurgencies in Afghanistan and the Karzai government is not at risk. It is well known at this point that the mass of the insurgency is in the Afghan-Pakistan border, along with the leadership of Al-Qaeda. It is also known that the CIA and allegedly Blackwater are carrying out significant operations in that region, which government officials will steadfastly deny. There are multiple videos of Pakistanis confronting Hillary Clinton about predator drone strikes killing civilians in massive amounts, which she refuses to comment on.

Obviously the additional 30k troops are being put in place in an attempt to rapidly secure Afghanistan, with the confessed aims of creating a stable military and government in the region. So they a want powerful US client state in Afghanistan, not a surprise, but what is the grand strategy? Ive read a decent amount about the region being critical for oil and natural gas pipelines to reach markets in Asia, but if anyone else has additional information/speculation on this I would love to hear it.

[maya]

Obviously the additional 30k troops are being put in place in an attempt to rapidly secure Afghanistan, with the confessed aims of creating a stable military and government in the region. So they a want powerful US client state in Afghanistan, not a surprise, but what is the grand strategy? Ive read a decent amount about the region being critical for oil and natural gas pipelines to reach markets in Asia, but if anyone else has additional information/speculation on this I would love to hear it.

The strategy is exactly the same as the one employed by Nixon in Vietnam. Increase troop levels to keep the Taliban/VC at bay, while US forces train a 'native' army to take over in 1-2 years time. It didn't work then. It is not going to work now. But that is the public face of the campaign, and hides what I think is the true motivation.

From what I hear, the administration is absolutely terrified of a destablized Pakistan, and are basically holding off until the Taliban are mopped up in Waziristan and they can secure their borders, after which they won't give a flying fuck what happens in Afghanistan.

[ZeroNowhere]

Relevant articles:

A Death Warrant for the Future (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1882-a-death-warrant-for-the-future.html)
A Deadly Liar and Manipulator (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html)

[x359594]

The speech itself was a farrago of lies, half-truths and cant. Of course the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany and Florida, the attackers were based in the US, the Taliban placed Bin Ladin under arrest and was holding him pending evidence that he was behind the attacks (the US refused to supply any; they also offered to turn him over to Pakistan for trial,) etc.

Comrade Maya in post #11 has succinctly summed up the reality of the situation.

[GPDP]

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/12/07/tomo/story.jpg

Is anyone else looking forward to Oslo as much as I am? I am itching to hear a warmongerer justify his acceptance of the so-called Peace Prize.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah yes, the Idea of Obama. Awesome.

But eh, to be honest, Obama justifying his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize will probably just be a fairly dull wall of rhetoric. At least Bush had the decency to be slightly more interesting. Of course, it will probably be hailed in the media as the beginning of a new era or some such, just like Obama taking more or less the exact same approach to Iran that Bush did was.

[redwinter]

I thought Larry Everest's article, "Obama's War Speech: The Questions It Raises...And the Answer That Must Be Given" was a really good analysis of Obama's speech.
Read it here: http://www.revcom.us/a/185/obama_speech-en.html

Here's a short excerpt about one particularly shameless call for Bush/911-era uniting around the flag, and denouncing that nationalist/chauvinist bullshit for what it is:


Do We Need 9/11-Style "Unity" Again? Obama ended his speech with a stark assessment of the difficulties confronting the empire, and a call for the kind of support the rulers had following 9/11:

"[W]e as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. It's easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again."
Unity like we had after 9/11? If you recall, that was a time of a lynch-mob atmosphere of chauvinist hysteria, fear-mongering, and the suppression of any critical thinking about why the 9/11 attacks happened and what should be done about them, and any critical resistance to the crimes the U.S. empire was preparing before our eyes. Wars were launched on the basis of lies. Basic freedoms were severely truncated, and in some cases eliminated. Now, eight years later, after the horrors of what that "unity" and support for America brought to the world—over a million dead in Iraq, legalized torture, and the devastation of Afghanistan—why would anyone with a shred of concern for humanity want to repeat THAT chapter in U.S. history?


But that's precisely what Obama has called on people to do—to blindly get behind the empire as it violently forges ahead in Afghanistan and globally. Obama's course is a criminal course; to fall blindly behind this, or to merely express trepidation or opposition and then impotently shrug your shoulders… especially for those who knew better when Bush did the same… is nothing less than complicity.
(Source: Larry Everest, "Obama's War Speech: The Questions It Raises...And the Answer That Must Be Given (http://www.revcom.us/a/185/obama_speech-en.html)")





All of this is a clarion call for people to get in the streets and oppose the war in Afghanistan. How many people here have been organizing resistance in the streets where they are to stop this war? There were protests all over the USA the day of and the day after his West Point speech. We have the responsibility to figure out how to unleash a huge wave of anti-war resistance in the US especially but also worldwide, and to break out of the killing dynamic of "US imperialism vs Islamic fundamentalism" that far too many are locked into.

[Drace]

"If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.... I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



I thought its purpose was to liberate the Afghans and to spread democracy? :laugh:

He goes on to say...


This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here we were attacked on 9/11 and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."

Quite paranoid?
Terrorism - "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Obama is a terrorist himself, eh?