Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (2 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Steele got it Right about Afghanistan, But for the Wrong Reason

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message earl ofari hutchinson     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 7/4/10

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele ticked off President Obama, most Democrats, nearly all Republicans, and much of the military brass. Steele's sacrilege was to tell a partial truth about the war. It has become Obama's war, if not by choice as Steele says, at least by default. Steele's aim was to heap blame on Obama for waging a drifting, listing, and lethal, costly, and at times confused war without end. It was yet another naked Steele partisan political attack on Obama. At first glance, it seemed strange though for Steele to sound like an antiwar dove. And GOP war hawks let him know that when they screamed for his resignation. But Steele gambled that he could float the attack line since polls show that a majority of Americans consistently either oppose the war or are befuddled by it. Steele, no surprise, backpedalled fast after the heat of howls of protest, and screamed for more troops to win the war. But Steele's point about Obama and the war is valid.

On two occasions as a presidential candidate, and once before he became a presidential candidate Obama said or strongly suggested that escalation of the Afghan war would be in the cards if he was elected. In his anti-Iraq war speech at Chicago's Federal Plaza on October 2, 2002, Obama went on the attack. He blasted the war, called it a drain on American resources, and a foreign policy nightmare. He repeatedly called it a dumb war. The "dumb war" characterization implied that there are wars that are worth waging. He made it clear that he was not a reflexive opponent of all wars. The US was simply fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place. He demanded that Bush fight an all out, no holds barred war against terrorism. Though he did not mention Afghanistan directly, in the speech it didn't take much to connect the terrorism dots to Afghanistan.

Six months after he announced his presidential candidacy, in a speech in August 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Obama left no doubt that Afghanistan would be his number one target for attack if he was elected.

He made an impassioned promise to wage what he dubbed the war that had to be won. He spelled out in minute detail his plan of attack. It was virtually identical to the plan he laid out in his West Point speech. He vowed to drastically increase troop strength, ramp up spending on an array of military related programs such as mobile special forces, pacification teams, intelligence operations, and to beef up military aid to Pakistan. He vowed to take the war to the Taliban in Northwest Pakistan. Eleven months after his Wilson Center speech, Obama was still only the "presumptive" Democratic presidential candidate. Yet, in a CBS Face the Nation interview, he promised to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. These are the exact same words that he used to sell escalation in interviews in the build-up to his West Point speech.

In the time he's been in the Oval office, Obama has hardened on the military option, and repeatedly pledged that he'll redeploy troops as fast as he can from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama has never cited Pentagon pressure as his reason for upping the military ante in Afghanistan, even during the flap with ousted general Stanley McChrystal. The Pentagon has certainly hammered hard for troop escalation. But the massive troop increase and billions more in spending on it is clearly his call. A call he made and firmly decided on long before he ever got to the White House.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political analyst. He has authored ten books; his articles are published in newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his books have been published in other (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas

Tea Party Now a Huge GOP Liability

Think of the Two Decade Embarrassment of Thomas We Would Have Been Spared If We had known about Thomas's Porn Alleged Ob

The Awful Transformation of Bernie Sanders

Clarence Thomas Can Breathe a Sigh of Relief with Weiner Downfall

Did Race Explain Penn State's Blind Eye to Sex Scandal?