After yesterday's whirlwinds of inscrutable developments on the health-care front -- by last night, on "Hardball," for instance, Sheldon Whitehouse persisted in conflating the newly proposed private-insurance exchange with a public option, while his colleague, Bernie Sanders, valiantly but rather sadly persisted in demanding a permanently discarded robustness -- let's turn momentarily to a much simpler subject, like ... Afghanistan.
Which, in the above order, is what Chris Matthews also did yesterday evening. Following his inconclusive interview of the two senators, both of whom I respect immensely, Matthews asked liberal scribe and foreign policy strategist Peter Beinart if he understood, by and large, what President Obama was up to in that medieval sinkhole. Beinart's immediate response was, "No."
A few days ago I similarly wrote that for the life of me I couldn't quite fathom what Obama was doing and why. Sure, the outlines of his revised Afghanistan policy are comprehensibly rectilinear enough, but there is something -- some inner, identifiable subtlety, some interior confidence, some exacting sensibility, something that always inheres in his other policies -- lacking here.
I gathered that Mr. Beinart was as bewildered as I am, although he framed his puzzlement thus: Obama is, perhaps, being "too clever by half." That insightful wording helped, at least a little; Beinart seemed to sense that Obama's superb intellect, for once, had gotten ahead of him.
The result was a mathematically and chronologically tidy, albeit ultimately incomprehensible, policy.
We are at Point A, with such-and-such numbers, though we're going to Point B, with additional but circumscribed numbers, at which precise time we'll revert, essentially, to Point A; then, or so it was cunningly implied for mass consumption, we'll vanish like the Cheshire Cat.
Forget, if you can, that there are millions of hidden variables swirling within that equation, each and every one of which could hopelessly derail its swift and efficient resolution. The sheer splendor of its simplicity would compensate, even if we can't seem to get its monstrous complications out of our head.
The ensuing, shall we say, ambiguity was what evidently led defense and state secretaries Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton to the Sunday talk shows, who, through assertive clarifications, promptly muddled things even more.
Absolutely, suggested Gates' presence on ABC's "This Week," we are leaving in July of 2011, just like the commander in chief said, although "We will have 100,000 forces, troops there, and they are not leaving in July of 2011."
Some troops might -- nay, some will: "Some, handful, or some small number, or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time," he said.
In normal military parlance this is known as an exit strategy, yet Gates emphasized that this here policy is not "an exit strategy. This is a transition." Mrs. Clinton heartily concurred.
And, of course, transitioning downward is no more exiting than surging is escalating or damaging Afghanistan's indigenous collateral is slaughtering innocent civilians. In postmodern warfare -- strike that, armed conflict resolution -- terminology is the key to victory.
I can guarantee you, however, that if so much as one flea-bitten doughboy comes home, sans replacement, in July of 2011, his transition will linguistically revert to an exit, and part of a strategy.
The only hope I can find in all this excessive cleverness came from the NY Times' Peter Baker, who, last weekend, in an expansive article on "How Obama Came to Plan for 'Surge' in Afghanistan," noted that upon the president's decision to escalate, he also "made it clear" to his assembled advisers "that in the next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops. 'It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we draw down,' he said."
Still, that hope must be countermeasured by the Politico's altogether judicious observation: "[O]ne of the ironies of the debate thus far is that while the administration keeps saying this isn’t Vietnam, they keep talking about it."
These season we are
love the references to the blatherfest shows
as if they were to be taken seriously. Chris Matthews especially.
In Carpystan propaganda we get muddled progressive vilifications
So what else is new? Carpy continues to root against the public option and against progressives:
"Sheldon Whitehouse persisted in conflating the newly proposed private-insurance exchange with a public option, while his colleague, Bernie Sanders, valiantly but rather sadly persisted in demanding a permanently discarded robustness"
Meanwhile, three nurses unions have merged and want a more progressive health care bill:
"we're going to make sure that we ... have universal healthcare that is truly universal and has eliminated the insurance companies"
I just love it when progressives are, as Carpy puts it, "sadly persisted," against the fascist upper 1% plutocracy!
But this muddled Carpy rant was supposed to be a rant about Afghanistan:
"I can guarantee you, however, that if so much as one flea-bitten doughboy comes home, sans replacement, in July of 2011, his transition will linguistically revert to an exit, and part of a strategy."
I wish Buzzflash was sans Carpy.
This is 2009, not 1919, and we're fighting in Afganistan, not in WWI Europe. So the returning veteran of the immoral, illegal, imperialist, genocidal "war OF terror" to control Middle East fossil fuels and to steal U.S. tax dollars will not be "flea-bitten".
No, instead the vet will be contaminated with depleted uranium, and the VA may deny the problem and may deny him or her adequate coverage when he or she gets cancer and becomes disabled.
The same goes for his or her spouse, who can also get contaminated from the depleted uranium simply by living with the vet.
Iraqi/Afghani Vets, good luck with having normal, healthy babies. Iraq is already suffering from an epidemic of still born and deformed babies, just like Kuwait did and still is from the depleted uranium U.S. made WMDs that were immorally and illegally used in the last U.S. Gulf insurgency to control Middle Eastern fossil fuel.
Here's something that all the talking heads, including the muddled propaganda parrot Carpy aren't talking about. It was less than one day from when Obama immorally announced that he would send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, when Gates announced that we would need at least another 3,000 more troops.
So the goal posts get moved back, again, and again, and...
And none of the talking heads talk about Dennis Kucinich's appearances on MSM last week when he made this, this, this, and this powerful argument against continuous imperialist wars OF terror, "one troop sent to war costs one million dollars. That's equivalent to 25 jobs here at home in the U.S."
Multiplied times 33,000 troops, that is equivalent to 825,000 U.S. jobs earning $40,000!
That's the difference between fighting in Afghanistan and in Vietnam. Back then, we were a financially strong country, but today we are virtually broke, living on virtual funny money, and the middle class becomes serfs, while the upper 1% fascist plutocracy increases their wealth and power over all of us.
But the relevant facts for ending the occupation, like jobs instead of war, continue to get muddled in clarifications about justifications for moving back the goal posts, again.
The actual reasons why we are staying and surging in Afghanistan
The actual reasons why we are staying and surging in Afghanistan (and we are not being told for political reasons) are: 1) the economy: one of the few sectors of the economy that is strong is the defense industry. If Obama annouces a withdraw from Afghanistan, the stock market will drop like a rock. 2) the military-industrial complex is the most politcally powerful entity in the world. They would have Obama and the democrats for lunch, ruining the 2010 elections. 3) If Obama annouced he was pursuing peace instead of war, he would probably be assasinated. If the truth were known, that is probably what happened to Kennedy. 4) Pursuing war makes the President look strong, whereas pursuing peace makes him look weak. It would take too much strength to defend peaceful action, strength he and the dems do not have.
Anything else?
Oh yeah! I forgot the gas pipeline running from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. I heard about this, but hardly anyone talks about it. You can bet the the "U.S. interests" involves controlling energy supplies in some form.
hidden meanings
What are we to understand by "Operation Cobra's Anger"?
Who's angry at whom and why? Is "cobra" intentionally meant to bring India to mind?
Any ideas?
Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
"... this isn’t Vietnam ..."
It's much more like one of those last Roman Empire graspings before their decline and fall.
Regretably, only America's collapse will end this hubris ......... as the Gods we trust intend.
But also, this isn't the last of the Roman Empire
The only collapse we need, is the collapse of the upper 1% plutocracy who have a strangle hold on D.C. politicians.
And we don't need any Gods to trust. What we need is for WE THE PEOPLE to stop being wee, the sheeple.
Reality
The American populace is well past the tipping point of being able to maintain a democracy. Most of 'We The People' are now incapable of casting a rational, informed vote on anything.
The USA faces many dire problems at the moment, any of which has the potential of causing a collapse ......... and it is unable to address any of them in a timely, meaningful manner. So as Rome we go ...
Carpy Chicken Little Balls, is that you?
Don't give up yet, unless you really are Carpy Chicken Little Balls. In which case, I recommend a very high bridge from which to cackle off.
Take a dose of this, and snap out of it.
The sky is not falling, but we are in one hell of a financial and political storm caused by a small minority who are trying to take over the country permanently and turn us all into their serfs.
We can very quickly turn this situation around, if only WE THE PEOPLE would stop being wee the sheeple.
Regarding article linked:
Very shallow and virtually useless.
Look for some naturally watered, arable land above 200' elevation in a good climate zone, but not too close to a large population ........ good luck, Pangloss.
Is that your suicide note?
Apparently, Palin's new book, which is all about quitting and thinking only of ones self, has worn off on you.
Perhaps you need to take some happy pills. Or move to a state that allows medical marijuana to be legally sold to the mentally depressed.