Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Civil War President

Barack Obama's intensification of the occupation of Afghanistan is nothing less than a full commitment to one side in the civil war raging there. What he calls a threat of a Taliban takeover is actually a Pashtun resistance to the U.S. occupation and the corrupt Karzai government it backs. Obama's and Hillary Clinton's spin cannot change those facts.

Obama's story isn't even coherent. Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, he says, not Afghanistan. (Obama's speech said nothing about the continuing "secret" drone assault that the U.S. military is conducting there. See this and this.) Yet he insists that we must see Afghanistan through because that's where the 9/11 attacks were planned. Well, not actually. You can just as easily say they were planned in Germany and Florida. Why are those terrorist sanctuaries not feeling the wrath of the U.S. military?

Obama vows to defeat al-Qaeda, but what does that mean in the case of a highly decentralized "organization" under whose banner anyone anywhere may claim to be operating? How do you defeat an idea?

Obama promises that U.S. forces will begin leaving in July 2011--maybe, depending on conditions on the ground.

Our only hope is that opposition will keep growing--where is that antiwar movement anyway?--and that the looming 2012 presidential election will prompt Obama to get out.

But in the meantime, Afghan people, expect more U.S.-sponsored violence, more maimed and dead babies and children, compliments of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

I don't know about you, but I don't regard someone as my enemy merely because he refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Karzai's gang.

1 comment:

Fredric Dennis Williams said...

While I disagree with Mr. Obama on a great many issues, I think we should acknowledge the real rationale behind the decision.

Mr. Obama can escalate, stay the course (maintain troop levels), or withdraw. If the US suffers another terrorist attack, Obama's political future is made much less vulnerable by his escalation. This is a CYA strategy familiar to all bureaucrats.

If he maintains current levels, it will be seen as doing nothing -- anathema to those who wish to expand or end the war. He may be justly blamed for "not doing more" (escalating) to disrupt terrorist organizations.

If he withdraws, and an attack occurs, he will be blamed for inviting an attack through weakness.

Just as Mr. Bush instantly pinned 9/11 on Osama bin Laden and quickly attacked Afghanistan to win an easy, symbolic victory, Mr. Obama will follow self-interest.

Lacking higher principles, lacking the courage to admit our misteke, lacking the humanity to stop the killing, our presidents are dedicated to gaining and keeping power at whatever price must be paid in the lives and treasure provided by others.