Ted Rall: Why can't Obama see his wars are unwinnable?

[bigtree]

July 15, 2009

Barack McNamara Obama

{snip}

--- Like McNamara, Obama doesn't understand a basic truth: You can't successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.

"What went wrong in Vietnam was a basic misunderstanding or misevaluation of the threat to our security represented by the North Vietnamese," McNamara said in his Berkeley oral history. Today's domino theory is Bush's (now Obama's) clash of civilizations, the argument that unless we fight them "there," we will have to fight them here. Afghanistan and Iraq don't present security threats to the United States. The presence of U.S. troops and drone planes, on the other hand ...

In fairness to McNamara, it only took two years for him to call an end to the bombing of North Vietnam. By 1966, he was advising LBJ to start pulling back. But, like a gambler trying to recoup and justify his losses, the president kept doubling down. "We didn't know our opposition," concluded McNamara. "So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don't know our potential opponents today."

Actually, it's worse than that. Then, like now, we don't have opponents. We create them.


full article: http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/barack-mcnamara-obama/Content?oid=1106005

[Hannah Bell]

1. because "winning" isn't the point, maybe, ted?

[Sanity Claws]

2. "His wars?"

Let's never forget that these are Bush's wars.

[jgraz]

4. Not any more.

Bush may have started them, but it's up to Obama to end them. I have no problem giving him ownership if it lights a fire under his behind.

[lindisfarne]

12. It seems to me Obama IS making progress toward ending one of them. Of course, for some, he'll be

be criticized for not pulling out all the troops in Iraq on Jan 22, 2009.

[jgraz]

18. My response to his actions is my standard response to all Democratic politicians

"It's not enough, you need to do more."

If we don't push him on this, we'll end up with another half-loaf "solutiion".

[lindisfarne]

40. So nothing is ever enough. No credit where credit is due. Great life philosophy. He could have

approved $14 billion for community colleges but only approved $12 billion, so what's the point of giving him credit?
He could have thrown the baseball harder, but didn't, so he's a real screw-up.
Must be great being perfect (of course, you're defining what perfect is).

[jgraz]

56. I don't think Obama's really pining for my pat on the back. Or yours.

I honestly don't get the world of Obama fandom. He cares less about your approval than he does about that fly he killed a few weeks ago. Why do you feel compelled to heap praise on him? Who do you think is listening to you?

Perhaps you should stop thinking of him as an object of praise and view him as what he really is: your employee. If you don't tell him exactly what you expect from him, you'll never get it.

[aquart]

44. Problem is, there are two wars, not one.

Afghanistan is NOT our good, just war. It's a traditional invaders death trap. Only idiots get caught there. Which makes us as stupid as the Russians.

What happens if we leave? Probably the place explodes. There is oil in the Caspian basin. China, Russia, India, and the EU are all next door to it. We ain't. It's up to them to protect that oil, not us. It isn't like Exxon gives us a price cut for fighting and dying for their profits (and I don't know which oil companies are involved in this. They're all Exxon to me.)

I'm not a bit bothered if India destroys itself fighting Pakistan and Afghanistan. Russia won't likely make that mistake again but who knows which way China will jump when global climate change really kicks in. We need to be home.

[lindisfarne]

47. "toward ending one of them". n/t

[TheWraith]

14. Then you're spinning for the Republicans who want to blame Obama.

They are now and forever Bush's wars.

[jgraz]

15. Only for people incapable of distinguishing right-wing criticism from left-wing criticism

And I try to avoid talking with them if at all possible.

[bigtree]

19. surely Pres. Obama bears responsibility for the escalation of the occupations

. . . just as Nixon couldn't credibly blame Johnson as he prosecuted his own initiatives and deployments to 'win the peace' in Vietnam.

[rug]

38. Was Vietnam Johnson's or Nixon's?

[lindisfarne]

41. Kennedy's! Or- maybe Obama's, given the kind of things I've heard on DU. n/t

[Autumn]

6. Sorry

not anymore.

[Echo In Light]

7. Exactly...and even Bushco's "war$" weren't really 'his' per se (PNAC)

I wish more people would realize our corporate/state nexus doesn't 'decide' to
'go to war' based on any one individual's personal whims. Doesn't work that way.

[redqueen]

I wish I could rec this post.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. They're not Bush's wars anymore.

[Deja Q]

31. Agreed. 100%.

They started under Bush's watch. President Obama doing what he can to pull out, properly and ethically. You just can't say "Yoink!" and yank everyone out... there are ramifications, not to mention the President knows things we don't. Even Bush did, but that's not enough to declare him "not guilty" of being a pompous, mentally deficient twit...

[Autumn]

3. True

We create them. Thats all we have done.

[DJ13]

5. Dont think of them as wars

Think of them as large welfare programs for the defense industry.

[Echo In Light]

8. Poor ol MIC needs a hand-up periodically. Killing is their biz and biz is GOOD!

Especially when you just invent phantom boogeyman enemies.

[readmoreoften]

16. mass murder welfare: military keynesianism

bank bailouts= socialism for the rich
imperialist wars= socialism for the sociopaths

[JVS]

45. It's called the "Military Stimulus"

[Cha]

9. red rall wrote that he misses bush who

started those wars so he can just shut his hypocricy the fuck up.

[redqueen]

11. No way...

why would he miss bush?

[Cha]

20. Exactly..it was a big deal on

DU..a while back. Because, he's a fucking idtiot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=459989&mesg_id=459989

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8504652&mesg_id=8504652

That's just a couple of the threads.

[redqueen]

26. Geeeeeeeez... I knew Turley said he was worse than Bush...

but I guess I missed that one.

Thanks for the links... LOVE the comic. :hi:

[Cha]

34. I didn't know Turley said

that..thanks for the info, redqueen. No wonder turley lost his cred with a lot of people.

:hi:

[redqueen]

43. I was wrong... he only agreed with others that Obama is no different than bush...

with one very slight exception. Damning with faint praise, I think they call that.

"It is not surprising that civil libertarians feel that we have succeeded in merely upgrading to Bush 1.2 (with the added ability to pronounce multisyllabic terms)."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5655689#5655760

:hi:

[Cha]

46. Yeah, I don't buy

that crap..you were correct the first time. "It's not surprising.. blah blah blah":silly:

:hi:

[redqueen]

50. It is kinda weasely and cowardly isn't it?

Hiding behind others... bleah!

[Spazito]

53. Turley is despicable, imo...

He is touted as a Constitutional expert while he deliberately misleads the public about President Obama's actions when he knows were Obama to act as Turley infers he should Obama would, in fact, be acting in contravention of the Constitution.

[stray cat]

10. Define win. I think the choice is what is the best way to leave the countries

and I don't think the average DUer or columnist really knows the answer to that. No one does.

[bigtree]

13. the president has defined winning

. . . or 'success' in Afghanistan in terms of defeating al-Qaeda in the region and preventing Taliban rule of Afghanistan or Pakistan:


{snip} "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just . . ."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/

[HamdenRice]

17. His wars? Winnable? He's winding down both of them, surging and leaving.

Rall is a certified idiot who thinks Bush was better than Obama.

[bigtree]

22. he makes sense in his opinion on the occupations

. . . and those views are in direct opposition to whatever Bush was pursuing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[sasquatch]

21. Ted Rall needs to spend time glaring at a wall that's painted gray

[Cha]

23. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8504652&mesg_id=8504652

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. Ted? Is that you?

If so, please go away. Heck, if not, you can still go away.

[Political Heretic]

24. Honestly, I think Ted Rall is such an asshole that I can hardly read this articles

And that's coming from a strong critic of establishment politics.

There are better voices than Ted Rall on these issues. I think you just post this stuff so you can stir up a huge ruckus then go back to other boards feeling smug and superior and talking about how weak and pitiful "poor DU" is for not seeing the "truth" of Ted.

Kind of cheap, if you ask me.

[bigtree]

29. you do no better than your criticism of Rall

In portraying me as someone who wants to just 'stir things up' here.

I'm guessing you exclude yourself from that group because of your view that all of your opinions and posts are somehow immune from the same consideration. There are many folks here who can't accept that people actually care about these issues they represent on this board. To assume that I'd post here to merely titillate folks here is a misinformed and ignorant observation which smacks of projection and arrogance. That's one of the qualities of debate and response here which have made me increasingly less willing to express anything substantive here regarding my opinion on anything. Is that your goal? Good luck with that.

Oh . . . and produce ONE post on any rival or objectionable site from me, or else shove it with your lame accusation.

[Political Heretic]

36. Show me where I excluded myself from anything?

Though I don't say things like Bush was better than Obama :shrug:

[Spazito]

25. Ted Rall sucks at so many things....

a cartoonist most of all, give me Mike Luckovich any day of the week. Rall's loathing of the current President has been constant in his columns to the point of making him, imo, no better than a freeper.

[HamdenRice]

28. One of the things he sucks at is that he really can't draw

That's the most shocking thing about him being a cartoonist. I mean, he can't draw at all.

[Spazito]

39. I agree! I honestly thought, when I saw his 'toons' that they had been drawn by...

an adolescent, a sadly untalented one at that, and that was when his 'toons' were about Bush. When I found out they were drawn by a commercial cartoonist I really was shocked.

[frylock]

27. face the truth, you cowards..

every one of you who unrecc'd this can't deal with the truth. Obama now owns these wars. Deal with it.

[Deja Q]

33. K& un-R -- just for you.

:*

Everything else I have to say I already said in responses to others. I've been told not to repeat myself lately, so therefore not repeating is something I shall do. (Except for this disclaimer as not everybody read the news... probably because it wasn't on the sodding front page... :eyes: )

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. +1

:thumbsup:

[Spazito]

48. I proudly un-recc'd this...

Ted Rall isn't merely criticizing Obama, he has always loathed him. When he writes a column inferring Bush was better than the current President he loses ALL credibility, imo.

Genuine criticism of Obama appears in many forums and on the Greatest Page and so it should, crap from Rall is NOT genuine criticism, imo.

[SidneyCarton]

49. Define cowardice my friend.

The truth is that it is infinitely easier to destroy than to create. The truth is that it is far simpler to get thousands of soldiers into a place and blow the crap out of it than to remove them in good order after you have blown the crap out of it. The truth is that no matter how we remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan Pres. Obama will be criticized by the right wing for "giving up the good fight" but it will be far worse if our withdrawal becomes a rout, like in Somalia and Iran in 1979. No one wants another scene of people hanging off the skids of helicopters like in Saigon in 75, obviously the easiest way to avoid that is not to engage in more of these kind of wars, but that line of argument is moot in the already existing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We destroyed these nations, leaving them without attempting to stabilize them (even if its only long enough to get out) is both sloppy and suicidal.

[ecstatic]

35. I agree that all of the wars should end, but Ted Rall is a PUMA asshole

"His wars" my ass! :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. It's bad PR for politicians to admit a war is lost. Obama is a politician.

So, just like Nixon, he's looking for "Peace with honor", complete with more troops and incursions into a neighboring country.

Too bad about the dead and maimed as long as the press doesn't use words like "cut and run".

[derby378]

51. We actually have a reason to station troops in Afghanistan

It's not our fault that George W. Bush decided to drop the hunt for bin Laden and the Taliban and refocus the military on Iraq. Obama is slowly picking up where Junior slacked off.

[FiveGoodMen]

57. You don't use an army to go after one guy.

[derby378]

58. The Taliban is more than one guy (n/t)

[FiveGoodMen]

59. They're always blaming a few leaders like OBL

Anyway, the Taliban is just one branch of religious extremism that can crop up again at any time regardless of how many of their innocent countrymen you kill.

You have to go after terrorist orgs with covert ops, not armies.

[EC]

52. "Winning" is not the objective..

this whole article is a straw-man arguement.

[Xicano]

54. Its about the military industrial complex

Sadly, people are killing and dying for what they've always been manipulated into killing and dying for - someone else's money and/or political gains.


:-(