When
she comes around to Obama, Maddow includes a bit about his escalation
of the war on Afghanistan, but understates by half the number of troops
he sent, and claims he sent them only until 2014, while any eventual
withdrawal is very much in doubt at this time for that future year. On
Iraq, Maddow's account is worse: "[E]ven for President Obama, a man who
had made a name for himself as an avowed opponent of the Iraq War,
getting out was not easy. In year nine of the war, Obama finally got
the Iraqi government to provide the fig leaf of insisting upon our
departure." Where to start? Obama had a treaty that Bush had put in
place. All he had to do was comply with it. He had his own campaign
promises to withdraw much more quickly than that, and he'd won the
election. All he had to do was order the promised withdrawal. Instead,
Obama sought approval from the Iraqi government to keep troops in Iraq
beyond Bush's deadline. Obama failed to obtain that approval.
Meanwhile Obama increased military spending, but Maddow makes no mention
of it. On her television show she celebrated it and falsely depicted
it as a decrease: http://warisacrime.org/node/41507
Obama launched a war on Libya that goes unmentioned. He claimed new powers to murder or imprison anyone, including U.S. citizens. He openly asserted the presidential power to make war without Congress, the United Nations, or any other body. This goes unmentioned. He fumbled his way toward possible wars in Syria and Iran: no mention. He persuaded Israel not to attack Iran until 2013, and according to Maariv provided the arms with which to do it then: no mention. He also killed Osama bin Laden without attempting to capture him: Maddow calls this a "bright spot." She says Pakistan was "shamed" by the event. Apparently "we" were not.
Two flatly contradictory claims toward the end of "Drift" sum up my ambivalent attitude toward the book. First, Maddow writes that "there are no examples in modern history in which a counterinsurgency in a foreign country has been successful. None!" Then, a few pages later, back on the theme of reckless spending, Maddow writes: "'We don't have any enemies in Congress,' a senior defense official told me in 2011. 'We have to fight Congress to cut programs, not keep them.' And those are basically the only fights the Pentagon ever loses." Well, except for every single counterinsurgency, every single war, the war on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan, the war on Pakistan, the war on Libya, the wars back to the start of the book in Vietnam. None of those nations are better off because of U.S. bombs. The United States is not better off because of having bombed them. The United States does not control them. They have not submitted to its will. Why not admit that the Pentagon always loses? Why not admit that its losses are crimes and must always be immoral and illegal in every instance? What does Maddow want us to do with a story of the dogs of war gradually going mad, if the story claims that those dogs provide a "service" and tend to "win"?
Well, the last few pages provide a to-do list. The items are good, if limited. They are almost entirely systemic changes within our government: wars must be paid for; no secret militaries; no more use of the military "to do things best left to our State Department, or the Peace Corps, or FEMA." That last one deserves praise, as many hold the misguided but well-intentioned view that the military should be transformed into a sort of Peace Corps. In one of Maddow's to-do items, the looming threat of a war on Iran appears to receive its only possible mention in the book, as Iran is included in a list of countries where war "is not always the best way to make threats go away." If Maddow stands by that position in 2013 and does not meet the fate that Phil Donahue met, her voice could make a major difference.
One
to-do item on the last page of the book includes something for you and
I, rather than just our government, to do. Sadly, that something is
"vote." Specifically: "Republicans and Democrats alike have options to
vote people into Congress who are determined to stop the chickenshittery
and assert the legislature's constitutional prerogatives on war and
peace." That's not so obviously the case in most districts. Most of us
have a choice between this warmonger or that warmonger. We do however
have the option of nonviolent action that moves our entire society in a
better direction. I hope this book can help with that. I just wish it
were a little bit better.
Obama launched a war on Libya that goes unmentioned. He claimed new powers to murder or imprison anyone, including U.S. citizens. He openly asserted the presidential power to make war without Congress, the United Nations, or any other body. This goes unmentioned. He fumbled his way toward possible wars in Syria and Iran: no mention. He persuaded Israel not to attack Iran until 2013, and according to Maariv provided the arms with which to do it then: no mention. He also killed Osama bin Laden without attempting to capture him: Maddow calls this a "bright spot." She says Pakistan was "shamed" by the event. Apparently "we" were not.
Two flatly contradictory claims toward the end of "Drift" sum up my ambivalent attitude toward the book. First, Maddow writes that "there are no examples in modern history in which a counterinsurgency in a foreign country has been successful. None!" Then, a few pages later, back on the theme of reckless spending, Maddow writes: "'We don't have any enemies in Congress,' a senior defense official told me in 2011. 'We have to fight Congress to cut programs, not keep them.' And those are basically the only fights the Pentagon ever loses." Well, except for every single counterinsurgency, every single war, the war on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan, the war on Pakistan, the war on Libya, the wars back to the start of the book in Vietnam. None of those nations are better off because of U.S. bombs. The United States is not better off because of having bombed them. The United States does not control them. They have not submitted to its will. Why not admit that the Pentagon always loses? Why not admit that its losses are crimes and must always be immoral and illegal in every instance? What does Maddow want us to do with a story of the dogs of war gradually going mad, if the story claims that those dogs provide a "service" and tend to "win"?
Well, the last few pages provide a to-do list. The items are good, if limited. They are almost entirely systemic changes within our government: wars must be paid for; no secret militaries; no more use of the military "to do things best left to our State Department, or the Peace Corps, or FEMA." That last one deserves praise, as many hold the misguided but well-intentioned view that the military should be transformed into a sort of Peace Corps. In one of Maddow's to-do items, the looming threat of a war on Iran appears to receive its only possible mention in the book, as Iran is included in a list of countries where war "is not always the best way to make threats go away." If Maddow stands by that position in 2013 and does not meet the fate that Phil Donahue met, her voice could make a major difference.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
4
3
