Failed war president or prince of peace? - Asia Times

LBJ escalated a lost war and that's his legacy. Now, Obama is facing the same decision.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ27Ak02.html

The US military is unquestionably powerful and has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to mete out tremendous amounts of destruction and death. From Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia to Iraq and Afghanistan, enemy fighters and unfortunate civilians, military base camps and people's homes have been laid waste by US forces in decade after decade of conflict. Yet sealing the deal has been another matter entirely. Victory has repeatedly slipped through the fingers of American presidents, no matter how much technology and ordnance has been unleashed on the poor, sometimes pre-industrial populations of America's war zones.

Now, the Nobel committee has made a remarkable gamble. It has seen fit to offer Obama, who entered the Oval Office as a war president and soon doubled down the US bet on the expanding conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an opportunity for a lasting legacy and real achievement of a sort that has long escaped American presidents. Their prize gives him an opportunity to step back and consider the history of American war-making and what the US military is really capable of doing thousands of miles from home.

It's an unparalleled opportunity to face up honestly to the repeatedly demonstrated limits of American military power. It is also the president's chance to transform himself from war-maker by inheritance to his own kind of peace-maker and so display a skill possessed by few previous presidents. He could achieve a more lasting victory, while limiting the blood, American and foreign, on his - and all Americans' - hands.

More than 100 years after their early counter-insurgency efforts on two tiny islands in the Philippines, US troops are still dying there at the hands of Muslim guerillas. More than 50 years later, the US still garrisons the southern part of the Korean Peninsula as a result of a stalemate war and a peace as yet unmade. More recently, the American experience has included outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia; debacles in Lebanon and Somalia; a never-ending four-president-long war in Iraq; and almost a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan without any sign of success, no less victory. What could make the limits of American power any clearer?

Oh well glad Obama isn't listing to them.

And, congress finally defunds the farce.

people of Afghanistan die a horrible death.:sarcasm:

...more like aroused, excited....

On Edit:
Just noticed he fell asleep further down this thread....
so there you go.
I wonder if he smokes a cigarette first.

want to see people die for no reason. I'm sure you feel it's the right thing to do. My question is, are you sure you have sufficient information about what's happening to take such a strong stance? Have you seen The Power of Nightmares, a BBC program which explains how we got here?

You can watch Part 3 (the most important bit) on Google Video here if you're interested:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254#

video.

Afghanistan is an immoral war.

and war crime's apologies. You should be so proud.

:nopity:

I'll be sure and remember you supported them. Hopefully you'll be able to commiserate with your fellow war criminals in the Hague.

:boring:

I wonder why the warmonger isn't in uniform, with boots on the ground in either Iraq or Afghanistan?

I smell chickenhawk....

proud of it.

the troops the way you do on DU you would get beat up a lot though.

care to link a post where he talked about the troops in that way?

I'll be waiting for your response...

Maybe you aren't if so that is good.

I've been in the military, have you? If not, why not?

If you're so pro war, why aren't you in uniform fighting alongside the troops you want to see die?

I think you need to learn the truth behind the Afghanistan Invasion & Occupation, how it came about. You do know that it was started over bullshit, too, don't you? Do you know anything about the lead-up to the invasion? If so, please feel free to tell us what you know to be "the truth"...

Thanks,

Ghost

I do it CLASSROOMS. :rofl:

If the president it stupid enough to continue this ridiculous and ultimately losing war in Afghanistan, he'll be yet another president in the dust bin of History, taken down by his inability to gut it up and tell the war machine "NO."

Can't help but admire your intellectual honesty. (No sarcasm.) :hi: I thought you used to be an unquestioning "cheerleader"...

And I thought he took some steps early on for the economy that were sound. But he's been weak on important issues like gay rights and war crimes. He's being led around by the nose on Afghanistan. He's not even running this war. He's abdicated entirely the duty of overseeing it.

He's beginning to remind me of some of the guys I've known over the years. They're bright enough, but they lack a fire or the commitment to finish things, and to do so timely. They'll drag a case out for four years that should have resolved in two. They drag their feet. They don't show leadership. They slow walk everything, and although they may ultimately get a result that is not hideous, they'll never impress. He doesn't seem committed to doing anything well.

This is not a time for our new president to just split the difference between the aspirations of the lingering rear-guard of the Bush-era militarists and his own stated admonitions against unbridled militarism during the campaign. He needs to recognize the import of his decision to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq on the future of our nation, as well as on the legacy of his own office. Staying just means more war, albeit with some kind of justifying muddle in the middle of all of that for him to point to in his defense. Leaving removes the most aggravating instigation to violence in the entire equation - our invading and occupying forces. Any choice in the middle just invites the same self-perpetuating cycle of attacks and reprisals which has defined the self-imposed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, so far. The president needs to decide whether he's going to continue the Bushian strategy of stringing these politically motivated and orchestrated occupations outwith promises of defining 'elections' and such, or whether he's prepared to just take the flack and end them outright. Many folks here won't agree, but I think this next decision will significantly define Mr. Obama's presidency for the term and beyond. Nice article. Rec'ed.

LBJ thought he could get away with "guns and butter", and Nixon thought he could wriggle out of the morass. It didn't work out too well for either of them.

As I see it, Obama is trying to bail out while appearing to be "tough on terror" to avoid bad PR. His likely decision to follow a middle course is just delaying the inevitable and causing more casualties and the bankruptcy of the nation.