In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, President Barack Obama misleadingly announced the gradual resolution of the war in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of another 34,000 US troops in 2013.
“Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women,” the President said. “This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.”
But Obama is overselling this withdrawal: by the end of this year, the number of troops in Afghanistan will be about equal to the number that were there when Obama was elected. This is only a “withdrawal” because he decided to triple troop levels in an ill-advised military surge.
“Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change,” Obama insisted. “We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.”
In other words, the war will go on – just with fewer US boots on the ground.
“A decisive end seems nowhere in sight,” The Associated Press reported in October, noting the enduring Taliban insurgency, the failure of a negotiated settlement, and the weakness of the US-backed Kabul government.
“We are probably headed for stalemate in 2014,” says Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University professor who has advised US commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq. Biddle warns that the US will probably be pumping billions of dollars a year into Afghanistan for decades to come in an attempt to prevent collapse and civil war.
After declaring the core of al-Qaeda as “a shadow of its former self,” the President admitted that “different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa.”
But “we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations,” to counter this threat, he said.
Instead, Obama explained, we will prop up favorable regimes in “Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and beyond, “and, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.”
This was a vague reference to the drone war, which continues to be waged in all of these countries, mostly in secret and without Congressional approval or oversight.
The drone war’s effectiveness in eliminating threats, as Obama framed it, is far from certain. The Washington Post recently reported that the Yemeni government as a policy tries to conceal when US drones kill civilians, instead automatically and systematically describing the victims as al-Qaeda militants, regardless of the truth.
And it may be exacerbating the terrorist threat. After a September drone strike that killed 13 civilians, a local Yemeni activist told CNN, “I would not be surprised if a hundred tribesmen joined the lines of al Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake. This part of Yemen takes revenge very seriously.”
“Our entire village is angry at the government and the Americans,” a Yemeni villager named Mohammed told the Post. “If the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.”
Obama claimed to be “tirelessly” working “to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations.” But most critics view the drone war as illegal or extra-legal, given that it is secret and kills suspects in targeted killings with no due process.
“Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts,” Obama argued. But his administration continues to refuse Congressional demands to provide their legal rationale for killing American citizens without due process, on secret Executive decree.
Obama also demanded that “the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution,” as he warned “we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”
But most of Obama’s so-called diplomacy with Iran has been “predicated on intimidation, illegal threats of military action, unilateral ‘crippling’ sanctions, sabotage, and extrajudicial killings of Iran’s brightest minds,” writes Reza Nasri at PBS Frontline’s Tehran Bureau.
After the failed talks in 2009 and 2010, wherein Obama ended up rejecting the very deal he demanded the Iranians accept, as Harvard professor Stephen Walt has written, the Iranian leadership “has good grounds for viewing Obama as inherently untrustworthy.” Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has concurred, arguing that Iran has “ample reason” to believe, “ultimately the main Western interest is in regime change.”
And Obama’s bluster about stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons seems to contradict his own intelligence community’s consensus that Iran has not yet made any move to develop nukes.
Obama also spoke about the ongoing Arab Spring. “In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy,” he claimed, even as the US continues to support dictatorship in numerous countries like Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain, and throughout the Persian Gulf.
Thanks to John for dissecting the "Os" obfuscations…. A very well done piece I believe. I would have gotten less than half of the misrepresented items…..
Just remember …. (D) is for Liar.
This is how vulture capitalism works and in real time counts for its asserts.., first the system increase the price with 50%…, in Afghanistan case.., with 34000 man then they give you 10% off during the election…, in the second term of their accounting they increase the amount of solders by 50% and then they bring home the first 34000 calling it…, reduction or savings or even "doing you a favor" job which is just a publicity to fool you again.
Why is Obama allowed to "kill his own people"…in some cases: people who are half-way around the world in remote locations…many 'people' who pose no 'real' credible "threat" to the "American People"? Why does so-called almighty "democracy" allow all of this, yet Assad is somehow 'not allowed' (in the so-called "minds" of many) to enforce the "rule of law" inside of Syria…the actual nation Assad is Head of State of…without being labeled, among other things, a "brutal Dictator" on par with Adolf Hitler??? Even here at AW.C, some "people" seem to consider Adolph Hitler's "regime" and the "Bashar Al-Assad's regime" to be somehow comparable–which is not only intellectually dishonest, it also flies in the face of actual "facts" and the notion is simply absurd.
But taking this further, and even considering some "may" 'think' Obama, Assad, and Adolph Hitler are all one in the same:
Why do the "American People" go along with Obama and previous POTUSs on all of this? If the "American People" go along with all of this "killing" of Americans, as well as non-Americans (for example "the Surge" in Iraq)…and'if' many "American People" actually 'support' all of this, how in blazes does this make US 'democracy' significantly different than the form of Syria's "democracy" (as the current Syrian Constitution is written, that is)?
Also, how/why is so-called "democracy" something to "support" imposing on "people" who do not necessarily want it–meanig: a form of government not necessarily approved, much less requested, by either the incumbent 'legitimate' government, or by the "people" of the nation via a "vote" ("popular vote" or otherwise)?
Again…why can't Assad enforce "the rule of law" in his own Country–even if it means killing actual (real) "law breakers" and "terrorists" who are looting homes, vandalizing and destroying property, wounding and killing civilians and Syrian Security services, detonating car bombs, decapitating and dismembering people, and employing other acts of terrorism inside of Syria–without being demonized?
If, and when, Assad is "elected" by the "Syrian People", will this election victory make things "different" in some 'people's' minds who think he's a "brutal dictator" undeserving of the title "Syrian Head of State"…simply because of the original form of Government he initially acquired this position? If even a "popular vote" via an "election" will not change people's minds (specifically Obama's), why exactly should non-Syrian's decide what the "Syrian People", as an aggregate, 'really' want? Is "State Sovereignty" irrelevant and/or trumped by so-called "natural rights" in the real world–even if the "people" have a "right", and the ability, to leave the Nation if they do not like it and choose to do so?
Can anyone please 'explain' this?
Anyone who thinks this is a "stupid question" should have a strait-forward answer…. Logically…
Why even decry "dictatorships" in general, if such forms of Government typically don't currently produce, in today's world that is, the negative outcomes for "humanity" (i.e. "people" in general) US so-called 'democracy' seems to produce–humanity and "freedom" of the "people" of the world that is?
Should "we", the US, continue it's hard-line with North Korea in the name of so-called "democracy"? If not, why not? Aren't "we", as the US, simply taking the correct "stand" for so-called "democracy" when "we", the US, refuse to "negotiate", or even 'reasonably' discuss anything, with the North Korean government? Are Iraq and now Libya so-called "democracies" which provide more "freedoms" than Syria? Are there different "kinds" of "freedom"?
It seems to me that you can't have it both ways here: either respect North Korea as a Sovereign state or continue down the road the US is currently on…
Just wondering…
Corporate America has done what was predicted in the book 1984: Up is down, left is right, black is white, right is wrong, because Big Brother says so and his media makes it appear as though America speaks in one solid, loud voice…echoing the sentiments and aims of corporate America so their BS seems legitimate and anyone who speaks out against the "prevailing wisdom" is marginalized and ignored. Noam Chomsky called it "Manufacturing Consent"
If the people who lived thru the Great Depression and WW2 were still around running things instead of their poisonous, spoiled Boomer offspring I doubt half of what we see today would be allowed to transpire. They knew hardship and actual war. They spoke plainly and didn't mince words. And they wanted us to resemble the USSR or Nazi Germany in as few ways as possible.
Corporate America has done what was predicted in the book 1984: Up is down, left is right, black is white, right is wrong on any given day because Big Brother says so and carefully controlled media echo chambers makes it appear as though American people speaks in one solid, loud voice of approval for whatever Big Brother and his useless hated Kongress deems fit…echoing the sentiments and aims of corporate America so their BS anti-people colonial agenda seems legitimate and anyone who speaks out against the "prevailing wisdom" is marginalized and ignored. Noam Chomsky called it "Manufacturing Consent"
If the people who lived thru the Great Depression and WW2 were still around running things instead of their poisonous, spoiled Boomer offspring I doubt half of what we see today would be allowed to transpire. They knew hardship and actual mass mobilized war, sacrifice and delayed gratification. They spoke plainly about the problems of their day and didn't use weasel words to maintain perpetual war. Also, they might not have been perfect (of course who is), remember they wanted us to resemble the USSR or Nazi Germany in as few ways as possible. The word HOMELAND should have never entered our lexicon. And imagine back in the day…a President with a weekly Kill List…
Now former denizens of the USSR say people had to be tortured and imprisoned for the type of control the US gets willingly from its little people.
read George Orwell's 1984.
"Oceania" was America and Britain.
"War is Peace
The Truth is a Lie
Freedom is Slavery"
"those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.” We can but wonder what possible evidence there is that large numbers of AlQaida and associated "islamist extremists" stand ready, with no push from US attacks, invasions, killings, destruction of their homes, to attack a distant land already throbbing in pain from the ONE alleged successful attack by this "organization".
The USA in its overreaction, its demonising of Muslims at home or wherever they live, its persecution of US Muslims who provide humanitarian aid to Muslim charities, its removal of hardwon liberties of the US people, has greatly exacerbated any "terrorist threat", but it is still not great compared with other likely causes of death to Mercans eg 180000 murders in the USA since the famous "9/11".
Saying that in SOTU Obama misleads on foreign policy is an understating. To know when Obama is lying, one only need to see his lips move.
This is what happens when a nation of monstrous egos and tiny dicks gets itself into a war it cannot win and is too proud to admit the whole endeavor was an idiotic mistake from the get-go. Stir in a considerable amount of selfishness and lack of empathy, and this is the garbage you get.
Not like I own a crystal ball or anything…
This is what happens when a nation of monstrous egos and tiny dicks gets itself into a war it cannot win and is too proud to admit the whole endeavor was an idiotic mistake from the get-go. Stir in a considerable amount of selfishness and lack of empathy, and this is the garbage you get.
This is what happens when a nation of monstrous egos and tiny dicks gets itself into a war it cannot win and is too proud to admit the whole endeavor was an idiotic mistake from the get-go. Stir in a considerable amount of selfishness and lack of empathy, and this is the garbage you get.
So, after 5 years in office, on Afghanistan, Obama will be just as bad as Dubya, when can be considered a slight improvement after 5 years of being worse than Dubya.
Of course, that's not considering that Obama is worse than Dubya in unconstitutionally starting wars from Libya to Syria to Timbuktu of all places. Even Dubya didn't want a war for Timbuktu.