Deaf, Dumb, and Blind by Paul Craig Roberts -- Antiwar.com

The White House is screaming like a stuck pig. WikiLeaks’ release of the Afghan War Documents "puts the lives of our soldiers and our coalition partners at risk." What nonsense. Obama’s war puts the lives of American soldiers at risk, and the craven puppet state behavior of "our partners" in serving as US mercenaries is what puts their troops at risk. Keep in mind that it was someone in the US military that leaked the documents to WikiLeaks. This means that there is a spark of rebellion within the Empire itself. And rightly so. The leaked documents show that the US has committed numerous war crimes and that the US government and military have lied through their teeth in order to cover up the failure of their policies. These are the revelations that Washington wants to keep secret. If Obama cared about the lives of our soldiers, he would not have sent them to a war, the purpose of which he cannot identify. Earlier in his regime, Obama admitted that he did not know what the mission was in Afghanistan. He vowed to find out what the mission was and to tell us, but he never did. After being read the riot act by the military/security complex, which recycles war profits into political campaign contributions, Obama simply declared the war to be "necessary." No one has ever explained why the war is necessary.
6 commentscategory: Military karma: 111

comments

  1. #1    Has anyone considered that this revelation makes things worse instead of better? If I understand it correctly, Obama's plan is to focus attention on the Afghanistan front in order to wind down Iraq without getting politically hammered for it. So far, it's worked as the troop numbers are already down to under 100k and plan to go to as low as 30k or fewer very soon, and those only in a support role and not a combat one. Then, once that's accomplished, limp along with a happy face on the Afghan front until the 2011 deadline, declare victory and go home.

    Doesn't revealing that things are worse there than advertised undermine the hell out of that? You can't "declare victory and go home" when the public is informed that you're not winning. And it's NOT POSSIBLE to admit defeat and leave. No presidency can survive that. You might as well hand the keys to the Republicans. Who will, of course, reverse the Iraq drawdown, dowuble down in Afghanistan, and probably attack Iran as well.

    Good job!
    written by DarthMeow504 since 33 days 5 hours 6 minutesDarthMeow504
  2. #2    The "wars" are necessary because the US can do whatever it wants where ever it wants. Who's in hell is going to stop this budget busting Fourth Reich war machine?
    written by bluefin since 33 days 5 hours 4 minutesbluefin
  3. #3    #1

    All thehorror storys you paint are being done in a Democrat administration too. I fail to see the horrors of letting the Republicans do it as being any worse than the Democrats doing it.

    And most of your reason for not leaking, or not leaving are the same ones I saw Republicans use when Bush was president and I thought they were crap excuses to continue an illegal war.

    I personally don't give a rats a@@ if Obama is president again. He has done crap all for the people and has shown every sign of obstructing any real change or accountability due to us, the American public.

    Maybe if he revisited who voted for him and why things would change he would have a chance at being elected. As is he turned his back on his voters and has become Bush Tan. Good riddance to no transparency and campaign promised lies.
    written by ixlnxs since 33 days 4 hours 25 minutesixlnxs
  4. #4    #3 Did you even read what I said at all?

    Let me reiterate. While the focus is on Afghanistan, Obama is quietly drawing down troops in Iraq and putting that war to an end. Do you think a Republican would do that? When do you think a Republican administration would end the Iraq war, if ever?

    If the plan is indeed to, as I said, "limp along with a happy face on the situation until the 2011 deadline and then declare victory and go home", how does revealing that the situation is worse than advertised help with the goal of ending the bloody thing? No president can end a war under defeat conditions without immediately handing over the next election to the opposition. Thus, he can't ...

    » ver todo el comentario
    written by DarthMeow504 since 32 days 4 hours 55 minutesDarthMeow504
  5. #5    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

    Note the parts about trying to get the Taliban to the negotiating table, trying to get a political agreement to put an end to the war, and speculation that Obama is "seeking excuses to stick to the 2011 withdrawl timeline regardless of if success can be shown or not". This is not an administration that is trying to prolong the war, it's trying to end it with the ability to still claim victory in order to avoid a political blowback in this country that would hand control back to the neocon warmongers that started the wars in the first place.

    Why we should be working against him instead of with him makes no sense unless the secret goal is to actually help Republicans and get the more war they would surely bring to the table.
    written by DarthMeow504 since 32 days 4 hours 21 minutesDarthMeow504
  6. #6    .

    @#4 - Obummer is following Dubya's time table for Iraq, that's all. It's a mix of draw downs and relabeling. Our presence there is still insane and will remain so.

    @#5 - Obummer has increased military spending beyond even Dubya's insane levels, and greatly expended the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    written by Mike5000 since 31 days 22 hours 59 minutesMike5000
closed comments

who are we
code: license, download  |  images license
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional    Valid CSS!   [Valid RSS]