I have been known to be critical of the decision to award Obama with the peace prize, but this is not about that. This is about all of the people that elected him, and the people all over the world who supported him, and how naive they were.
For a long time it has been known among my friends, that I prefer the republicans over the democrats any day. Just like I rooted for McCain (not Palin though) in this last election. People have a hard time understanding this given my political stance. I am hardly a republican, to say the least.
However, I don't trust the democrats, and I certainly don't see them as furthering my world. I don't see the real difference between the two parties in any other way than that I know where I have the republicans, and I know that people aren't fooled by them. People are certainly fooled by the democrats though.
Obama spent most of his campaign talking about change, and how he was gonna end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. And I said: "No he's not." I expected him to do just what all other democrats had done before him. Fight wars, take less international responsibility and increase military engagement abroad. And he did.
I may be a cynic, but I was correct.
Obama has not been able to shut down Guantanamo.
Obama has increased the number of troops engaged in combat to a level far above anything Bush ever did.
Obama has not set a date for withdrawal, or even clear goals for the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama has filled his cabinet with people from the Clinton administration, just like I said he would.
Obama has made no serious efforts at real diplomacy or consolidation. He has proven (with regards to Iran in particular) that diplomacy is synonymous with threats to americans. "You do as we want, or we punish you."
Like I said: I may be a cynic, but I was correct. And I want to state once and for all. You cannot trust democrats. Traditionally they have been more aggressive, less willing to take responsibility for their actions and just as arrogant as the republicans. Kennedy invaded Cuba, increased military presence in Vietnam, Clinton involved the US in more conflicts than one can count. Some of the more well known actions were: bombing Iraq every day for eight years, bombing Sudan, bombing Serbia and firing rockets into Afghanistan. (Much good that did.) The only president that has ever used nuclear weapons in a conflict was a democrat. The list goes on. And still people say that the democrats are so fantastic and humane. I don't get it.
I know, I am anarchist, and to many of you that means I should just shut up about this stuff. I will never be pleased with any president anyway. Granted, this is true. But I still predicted Obamas foreign policy better than any of you. You all believed him when he said he would shut down guantanamo or bring the troops home.
Well. He's sent more troops, and 2009 has seen more dead US troops than any year under Bush. As well as more drone attacks and further escalation of the conflict into pakistan.
I was right. You should admit it. And I get to say:
I TOLD YOU SO!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
While I do agree with you that many people were overly naïve concerning Obama, I disagree with several of your premises.
Regarding the withdrawal dates, the dates for Iraq were announced in February this year. Only troops in non-combatant roles will remain after August 31, 2010, and all US troops withdrawn by December 31, 2011. Whether or not you believe that is another matter, but you can't claim they're not set. As for Afghanistan you are indeed right that no firm date has been set yet, only a fuzzy July 2001 goal for the beginning of the exit.
Also, you claim that Obama promised to "end the wars" during the campaign, which I grant that a lot of people might have believed, for whichever reason, but it goes contrary to fact. During a visit to Kabul in 2008, Obama called for an increase of troops in Afghanistan - in fact a central part of his election campaign was to call for the transfer of US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
I'd also like to see the sources for your claims of more troops engaged in combat and more dead US troops. The highest US death toll during the Bush administration was in 2007, with 1021 reported US casualties. So far the count for 2009 is 451. This is from icasualties.org, and it seems to agree with other sources I can find online. Unless you're only considering Afghanistan of course, in which case you are correct, although it is not clear from the paragaph.
I did support Obama in the election, but mostly for other reasons than foreign policy - primarily his efforts against lobbyism. I believe corporate influence on government policymaking has been one of the biggest threats to democracy in recent years, and if the US can institute rules to reduce this influence I hope other governments will follow suit. Of course, if you don't care too much for democracy one way or the other this might be less important to you :)
I was refering to deaths in Afghanistan, much like Afghanistan was the main concern for my entry in general. I should have explicit and more specific about that. Wrote the entry much too fast, under the influence of a head cold. :)
As for number of deployed troops, I base my numbers for Iraq on globalsecurity.org. There are currently less than 180.000 troops in Iraq, but I can't find the exact numbers. All I can find is that the number has been increased with 15.000. The numbers for Bush's reign vary from 30.000 during the invasion to 155.000 in 2007.
In Afghanistan I am also uncertain about the total level. Obama has however increased the number three times since he took office. First by 17.000, then by 70.000 and last by 30.000 more.
According to Cindy Sheehan's speech yesterday he commands about 80.000 more troops than Bush ever did. (She also claimed that Obama has increased the use of torture, but I cannot verify that.)
And troops have certainly not been transferred considering that the number of troops have been increased in both countries. And, while we're looking at numbers we should take a look at the use of drones. Look at this list showing attacks in Pakistan, a country supposedly not even at war with the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan - smells like escalation to me. Actually, it smells like a long list of massacres to me, and more of them after Obama took over than any time before. Look at june 23. It's a real beauty.
As for ending the wars, you are correct, and misrembembered his rhetorics. But as I have shown there has been none of the promised transfer, just a steady increase. Additionally, while honesty is admirable, militarism hardly is.
As for the withdrawal from Iraq I was not aware that a final date had been set. I had heard some recent unclear notions about a coming withdrawal. The actual withdrawal however, remains to be seen. I sincerely doubt it is possible to do on that time scale.
On a different note, it's good for Obama that he wishes to cut down on lobbyism, or corruption as it should be called by a more honest name, and good luck with that. Especially considering that yesterday's nobel dinner was filled with corporate officials, whereas government officials were largely nonpresent... And of course let's not forget that Obama has continued the practise of using mercen... err.. "private security companies" to assist the armed forces in their tasks. xE securities were recently indicated in a public debate in the states when it was found that they were running bases for drone attacks in Pakistan. Admirable stance once again.
If I were american, I would probably prefer Obama over McCain based on his public health care, and attempts at decreasing lobbyism. I do not however. I live in the rest of the world, where we are more concerned with american bullets, threats and pollution than with american patients. My highest hope is that they fix their own problems, and stay away from ours, whether there natures are economic, environmental or security.
I still say you can't trust democrats. ;)
Sorry, that was in Erling Borgens introduction to Cindy Sheehan's speech, and it's 36.000 more troops. Not eighty. And the numbers are based on the coming summer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APtT9Ovigss&feature=player_embedded
Fuck all. I can't spell properly today. I'll be back with more well written bile when I don't have a cold... :P
I still can't find anything about an increase of troops in Iraq during the Obama precidency - on globalsecurity.org, the best document I could find was this, which details a peak of 168 000 US ground forces in November 2007, and declining since then. However, that document also has future projections, so I'm not sure until which date it's been updated, but it's the best I could find. The page was last modified in June this year, if that's anything to go by.
I also can't confirm your numbers when it comes to the increase of US forces in Afghanistan. The 17 000 in February and 30 000 this month are correct, but the 70 000 is news to me. I did find a few news stories from April talking about discussions to increase the total number of troops in Afghanistan to 70 000. By the way, if the globalsecurity.org projections I mentioned above are correct, that means a decrease of troops in Iraq by 45 000 since the start of his precidency, and an increase of troops in Afghanistan by 47 000. Even at a net increase of 2 000 troops, I'd still say that constitutes a transfer. Like I said though, I don't know how much those numbers can be trusted and would be grateful if you could point me to a better source.
I do fully agree with you his increased use of drone attacks in Pakistan should be condemned, and I think it's a travesty that this hasn't received more media focus, especially in the light of his Nobel prize award (side note: at least someone noticed the irony). I'm not familiar enough with the details of the use of mercenaries that I feel qualified to comment on it, but I will at least say that this is a matter where Obama is, if nothing else, consistent with his statements pre-election.
I agree that the numbers on globalsecurity are confusing. I found a text in there somewhere that says increase with 14.000, and those were the most recent numbers I could see. The were a projection though.
I have seen references to Department of Defence supposedly having detailed numbers, but I can't find them. They were used as reference in the washington post (which is consistent with your claims, but without actual numbers, just a graph.)
The most detailed numbers I have found are the ones sited by Borgen, but I can't confirm them. Also they include future projections.
I suspect there are different methods of counting troops here, and they clash with each other. It could well be that some numbers only include troops in combat arenas, while others include support personell and reserves and whatnot, for instanceI do see some of the numbers on global security lists both. As in the document you site. This could certainly account for confusion, considering that the number of combat troops is consistent, but support troops have been decreased.
About the 70.000, you are correct, and I grant you that. I misrembered, because the article I had read contained both projections for total number of troops and how many they actually deployed. Still, this is a net increase, like you say, and the transfer has not been of combat troops, but support personell. If I read the numbers correctly.
Even with a minute transfer like this we can clearly see that the current president is escalating warfare in two countries (pakistan and afghanistan), not decreasing combat ready troops in iraq, and in general being aggressive and militaristic. He made claims that he would use diplomacy. We have not seen this with regards to the conflict he is escalating. Instead he continues to use violence and threats against poorly defined enemies to prop up a regime that is corrupt, hard to differantiate from the former in several issues as well as regarding the actual people in office. Karzai did after all support the Taliban actively, untill the killed his brother. Ironically, Karzai claims that US violence in the two countries, and threats against pakistan is causing instability and damaging the effort.
As for mercenaries. Not entirely consistent. He does say that he will use them, but only if they are accountable to US law. xE was formerly known as Blackwater. And well, I guess they have been held slightly accountable for murder and instigation and corruption etc, but I hardly think that's what he meant. Not only are they criminals by any account, they are also further blurring the line between private interests and official interests. Hardly consistent with critique of "pernicious influence of corporate interests in promoting dangerous foreign policies[.]" from this text.
As such, I certainly feel I have proved that Obama is a hawk. While he may or may not be dressed up like dove, depending on your perception of the former regime, he is not the messiah people seemed to expect. This is my point, and this point remains - without a notch.
Oh, and btw. Concering democracy.
I think we saw the true face of Obamacracy during the recent G20 summit. I am talking about cencorship, both in the media and otherwise, extreme violence against protesters and bystanders, use of military personell and equipment against civilians (including "less than lethal" combat weapons), unprovoked attacks on peaceful gatherings. It's not just plain out disgusting and oppressive, it's also very unconstitutional.
Like I have said earlier: Sure, your voice counts... when you agree.
Post a Comment