The anti-war movement responds to President Obama’s speech
Statement from the ANSWER Coalition
The U.S. cannot “win” the war in Afghanistan. It was losing the war when Barack Obama took office. In March 2009, President Obama ordered another 30,000 troops. Rather than reverse the outcome, the U.S. and NATO effort lost even more ground. Now President Obama has ordered another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Attempting to deflect growing opposition to the announcement of his dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama is simultaneously claiming that U.S. troops will start to be withdrawn in July 2011.
The Generals and Admirals, and now the White House, are unwilling to accept responsibility for a military setback. The President knows they cannot win and yet is unwilling to leave. Since no leader is willing to take responsibility, they are instead sending thousands more to their deaths.
Bush and Cheney ordered the invasion thinking it would be easy going. They thought Iraq would be easy, too. They were going to wipe out the governments in Iran, Syria and North Korea. This colonial-type fantasy, nourished by “great nation” arrogance and the acquiescence of a caste of corrupt politicians in Congress, set the stage for the current catastrophe of a war without end.
After eight years of war, more than 140 armed insurgent groups of Afghans now exist as a response to the invasion and they control large parts of the country. The people in Afghanistan perceive the occupation as a colonial-type takeover of their country. September 11 was a pretext, but there were no Afghans or Iraqis who hijacked the planes. The people of Afghanistan, like the people in Vietnam, will never accept foreign military occupation in their country.
In the 1968 election Nixon ran on a platform of a “secret peace plan” for Vietnam. In reality, Nixon’s “peace plan” meant more bombing of Vietnam, expansion of the war into Cambodia, and “Vietnamization” – the building up of the South Vietnamese puppet army under the direction of U.S. “advisors.” The puppet army was supposed to do the fighting and dying in the place of U.S. troops in an increasingly unpopular war.
The new plan for Afghanistan calls for more bombing and drone attacks, and “Afghanization” – the building up of a puppet Afghan army trained and led by U.S. commanders. This follows President Obama’s escalation of massive bombing of the people of Pakistan.
Bush Policy – Obama Policy
On Jan. 20, the day that Barack Obama took the oath of office, a government helicopter carrying George W. Bush lifted off and made the ceremonial flight away from the nation’s capital, signaling the end of one era and the start of a new administration.
It was a remarkable event to witness. As the Bush helicopter passed over the inaugural throng, millions of people on the ground started cheering spontaneously. The official pomp of the transfer of power was overwhelmed by the euphoria of those who hated Bush and his policies.
But was there a transfer of power? The personalities change, but the institutions of militarism, war and empire remain intact.
Since Obama took over as president, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has nearly doubled, and that’s before the new deployment of 30,000 more soldiers.
Today, less than a year since Bush departed, there are actually more combined U.S. military forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan than at any time during Bush’s tenure. Between official military forces, private mercenaries and other contractors, by the middle of 2010 there will be nearly a half-million U.S. personnel in the two countries.
At a time of deep economic crisis, with tens of millions out of work and losing their homes, the cost of the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq is already running at over $225 billion per year or $1.2 billion every two days. Escalating the war will escalate that cost.
The war is not about “the security of the people of the United States being at stake.” If it was, there could be no talk about exit strategies and announced plans for withdrawal.
Starting today, there will be a growing escalation of anti-war protests in the United States. Tonight and tomorrow there are demonstrations across the country.
On Saturday, March 20, 2010, tens of thousands will march in Washington, D.C., with coinciding mass actions in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Real change comes from below. It comes from the millions who are suffering from unemployment, foreclosure, evictions and poverty. It comes from the young people who are being driven from college because of soaring tuition. The children of working-class families are the ones who do the bleeding and the killing, and they are told they do it for “national security.”
This is not our war. This is a war for empire, one that has gone very badly for the occupying force. How many more will die for the U.S. to avoid the appearance of defeat?
The ANSWER Coalition, in partnership with scores of organizations and echoing the sentiment of millions of people who want the wars to end, will be in the streets today, tomorrow and in the months to come. That is now clearly the only prescription to end the violence and occupation of the American Empire.
Click here to become an endorser of the March 20th National March on Washington, D.C.
.png)
click
here
download a petition here
What’s remarkable about this statement is that it entirely omits mention of the Taliban. The “140 armed insurgent groups” spoken of are part of the Taliban – the woman-hating, xenophobic, hosts of Al-Qaeda who are responsible for the continued killing of their fellow Afghans by suicide bombers and other methods of attack. Before the U.S. invasion women were confined to their homes, girls were forbidden to go to school, and gay men were hanged in the soccer stadium in Kabul. While my support for the continued U.S. presence is Afghanistan is ambivalent, my opposition to the Taliban and their fellow travelers is unequivocal. I think it is incumbent upon any anti-war movement worth the name to think long and hard about what will happen if the U.S. withdraws and leaves Afghanistan entirely to the Taliban. Do we really want to leave the women and girls of Afghanistan to their tender mercies? I understand that the U.S. did not invade Afghanistan for feminist reasons, but inadvertently we have become supporters of more (certainly not all) rights for women and girls.