We, that is, American troops are in Afghanistan because there is a pipeline being built there for the oil companies. There is also the benefit that our black ops folks from the CIA/DEA/military intelligence like the control of the opium business there. It generates lots of untraced money, and if the pipeline for that stuff is aimed at certain countries or communities it can destroy lives and all sorts of social movements.
Obama is a cipher, which in 2008 is better than the other two who have already shown their hands.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 1, 2008 07:50 AMThe man is a parrot...he'll parrot anyone who he thinks sounds good no matter what they happen to be saying.
Posted by at March 1, 2008 07:56 AMObama was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommitee that had jurisdiction over NATO and Afghanistan.
But he didn't hold any hearings. Maybe if he had, he'd have some idea what he was talking about?
[Cue the Oborg, chanting "But he was running for President!" Yes, and?]
Posted by lambert_strether at March 1, 2008 08:00 AMYou guys are so far off the mark on this one. The Europeans do need to do more in the world period. And I love Europe don't get me wrong.
Obama has also said numerous times that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan and not gone into Iraq in the first place.
This is what you've chosen to be outraged about? C'mon.
Hopefully after next week you can go after McCain instead of Obama.
Posted by midwestdem at March 1, 2008 08:30 AMI've pointed to some things which Obama said that troubled me as well. The truth is, no politician is always right. They have their own agendas, needs and beliefs. Just as I dislike much of what EVERY politician says, we have to look at the whole package.
Our job is not to worship and adulate, (they're only politicians after all!) it's to make sure whoever purports to represent our interests hears from US, frequently and loudly! It seems likely that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's our job to let him have it whenever we think he's wrong. I have more hope that he would listen than I'll EVER have with ANY Republican. 'nuff said.
no, mw dem. you're wrong. as you can see, i've written quite a bit on this, and obama is just flat wrong.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 08:43 AMIt is disappointing to read Turkana still believing that Obama knows what's right, that he cares about what's right and that Obama is not of the right. We had way too many instances were Obama clearly showed that he is a Rockefeller Republican: health care, social security, gay right (yes but), bomb Afghanistan, bipartisanship and many more.
What do we need in addition? A confession?
Posted by koshembos at March 1, 2008 08:53 AM"Here's a hint to Senator Obama: it's Bush's fault, not NATO's. NATO is in Afghanistan at our behest, and the ongoing problems in Afghanistan are solely attributable to Bush's having failed to win, there."
"Iraq distracted us from the real threat in Afghansitan." - Barack Obama
This sounds like McCain when he told us that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Posted by at March 1, 2008 08:55 AMMany NATO countries wanted to go into Afghanistan with us, but Bush/Cheney/Rummie wanted the glory all to themselves and relegated European powers to very small roles. Then, when things began to go cowpie, it was, hey, get your asses in there. That "you need to" formulation Bush is so fond of.
By that time, all the advantages we'd had in freeing the people from the Taliban were fading and we have, well, a clusterf**k of BushCo's making.
Posted by jawbone at March 1, 2008 08:57 AMLambert is right, Sen. Obama is the Chairman of a FR sub on Europe. That's his day job, the one he should have been paying attention to, getting experience. He has nothing to show for his Chairmansheep except building a resume.
Great to be in the majority isn't it, to get this type of leadersheep. He voted for the $300 billion sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, sided with GWB most all the time. There's "change" for you, another Democrat in this president's back pocket. He followed his mentor, your Joe Lieberman's advice early on. Even supporting him over that Lamont character. He voted for Condi Rice for Sec. State, didn't have the gumption of those thirteen other senators to vote 'no'.
This is your 'movement' guy...his 'deeds' don't measure up to his rhetoric. He'll say anything to get elected...how quaint...just another politician, nothing 'new'. And this NAFTA junk...I thought he said he'd get our esteem back around the world...great start, offending our two closest neighbors before he even gets the job. I guess this stuff just shows his vast experience he touts. Another amateur just like that Jimmy Carter guy. better after he left office than he was when that 'red' phone rang.
I thought "change" to you folks would represent competence...obviously that's over rated, just a bunch of gas. Shame we can't refine it and put it into our gas tanks. We could drive the price of gas down.
Posted by peter at March 1, 2008 08:58 AMdidn't obama just get this chairmanship position. hilary brought it up in the debate, and he replied that he was awarded it this year...
how many hearings has she held since her run at the presidency???
Posted by anthony at March 1, 2008 09:04 AMThat's a pretty tendentious reading of Obama's position on Afghanistan. It's (umm, let's be nice...) highly inaccurate to conflate Bush's position, which is basically "you guys (NATO allies) should go do Afghanistan", with Obama's, which is more like "America should be strengthening and rebuilding diplomatic and military alliances". A mugger and a surgeon both want to cut you with a knife, but it's hardly the same thing. Even the article you linked to hinted at this important distinction:
"It is also important for us to send a signal that we're going to be listening to them when it comes to policies that they find objectionable," he said, "Iraq being at the top of the list."
He has been more specific about these points in other places. For instance, in an address to the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs back in April, he said:
Moreover, until we change our approach in Iraq, it will be increasingly difficult to refocus our efforts on the challenges in the wider region - on the conflict in the Middle East, where Hamas and Hezbollah feel emboldened and Israel's prospects for a secure peace seem uncertain; on Iran, which has been strengthened by the war in Iraq; and on Afghanistan, where more American forces are needed to battle al Qaeda, track down Osama bin Laden, and stop that country from backsliding toward instability.Burdened by Iraq, our lackluster diplomatic efforts leave a huge void. Our interests are best served when people and governments from Jerusalem and Amman to Damascus and Tehran understand that America will stand with our friends, work hard to build a peaceful Middle East, and refuse to cede the future of the region to those who seek perpetual conflict and instability. Such effective diplomacy cannot be done on the cheap, nor can it be warped by an ongoing occupation of Iraq. Instead, it will require patient, sustained effort, and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. That is a commitment I intend to make.
...
In the wake of the Second World War, it was America that largely built a system of international institutions that carried us through the Cold War. Leaders like Harry Truman and George Marshall knew that instead of constraining our power, these institutions magnified it.
Today it's become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations. In fact, reform of these bodies is urgently needed if they are to keep pace with the fast-moving threats we face. Such real reform will not come, however, by dismissing the value of these institutions, or by bullying other countries to ratify changes we have drafted in isolation. Real reform will come because we convince others that they too have a stake in change - that such reforms will make their world, and not just ours, more secure.
Our alliances also require constant management and revision if they are to remain effective and relevant. For example, over the last 15 years, NATO has made tremendous strides in transforming from a Cold War security structure to a dynamic partnership for peace.
Today, NATO's challenge in Afghanistan has become a test case, in the words of Dick Lugar, of whether the alliance can "overcome the growing discrepancy between NATO's expanding missions and its lagging capabilities."
We must close this gap, rallying members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization, streamlining decision-making processes, and giving commanders in the field more flexibility.
If you read that he says FIRST, the US needs to step up to the plate in Afghanistan with more troops. Next, we need to STOP BULLYING OUR ALLIES. In this context, NATO's member nations will be more likely to see thier own interests in enhancing their committments, both in geoplitical terms, and (if Obama is as good at this stuff as he promises) in terms of their own internal politics.
If anybody's playing into Bush's propaganda here, it's Turkana.
Posted by at March 1, 2008 09:07 AMLast year Anthony, HC has no leadership position in the senate. You know the Senate that has an 11% approval rating. Shows how great a voice he has. Then there's this from Chicago on ABC news...
"With the corruption trial of one of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friends and supporters set to begin Monday in Chicago, Ill., reform watchdogs say it will reveal the "cesspool" of Illinois politics in which Obama came of age and has said little about in his campaign for president.
"We have a sick political culture," said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, "and that's the environment that Barack Obama came from."
Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."
There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign."
Who needs a lobbyist when you have Chicago Democrats. He's 'good' when answering the regular phone, the one from fellow Chicago Democrats.
Posted by peter at March 1, 2008 09:11 AMsorry, anonymous- patrick?- but obama said what he said. i know he knows better- and so wrote- but there's no excuse for his saying that, and it would be responsible of him to clarify what he meant.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 09:11 AMI think he's just throwing red meat to the crossover voters. It's another wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Posted by w1 at March 1, 2008 10:00 AMTurkana,
I am not that Anon. I have not posted anything in response to your post. Just poking in now to clarify.
I'll now come out of the closet and put my name back up from here on out, though my critique of this blog stands. (smile)
I will challenge you to write some things along this line in terms of Hillary's ridiculously hawkish record over the last 20 years. It does seem unfair that you hold back, but then when you do weigh in it is usually to hammer Obama.
Anyway, I am not the previous Anon poster.
peace,
Patrick
good to see you back out in the open, patrick.
as you may have noticed, i'm mostly avoiding criticizing either of the democrats, now. but having written so much about bush's attempts to blame europe for his own failures in afghanistan, this one really rubbed me the wrong way.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 10:05 AMThis plays right into Bush propaganda, and risks further antagonizing our NATO allies, by blaming them for Bush's failures!
Turkana, I guess I read it wrong.
It doesn't sound like he's absolving bu$h of anything.
Just sounds like to me he's asking for a continued strong European presence. Which we will need if we are to help strengthen our military, discontinue stop-loss programs and fully rest the thousands of deployed troops.
It surprised me that Spiegel Online didn't print his full speech... they kind of cherry picked it.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 1, 2008 10:16 AMlambert_strether wrote:
Obama was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommitee that had jurisdiction over NATO and Afghanistan.
But he didn't hold any hearings. Maybe if he had, he'd have some idea what he was talking about?
DITTO!
Posted by JoeCHI at March 1, 2008 10:22 AM7o6,
implying that europe needs to "pull its weight," and saying that may have to lift the constraints on their forces- as in, use them in more dangerous areas and missions- is wrong. i won't use the adjectives, but i've used them in reference to bush, gates, and condi.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 10:24 AMAnyway, I am not the previous Anon poster.
You do realize how easy that is to check, don't you? Busted!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 1, 2008 10:36 AMcoyote,
i checked. i hadn't before he responded. he's telling the truth.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 10:38 AMCan't blame me for being suspicious; he's done that sort of thing before. Kudos for finally owning up to your words, Patrick.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 1, 2008 10:58 AMEurope doesn't have the troops to send to Afghanistan, period.
Most of Europe's NATO-linked military forces were fine-tuned during the Cold War to fight and die in their front yards to slow down the Soviet Third Shock Army as it raced west towards the Atlantic ports. Their structure was purely defensive (in Germany's case imposed by the Allies post-war), with lots of reservists and almost no expeditionary force support (logistics, heavy transport, airlift etc.) within that structure that would permit them to fight effectively far outside their own borders.
In NATO only the US, Britain and France have world-spanning military capabilities, able to move masses of troops five thousand miles and keep them operational in combat for long periods. The US is bogged down in Iraq, Britain is just about at full stretch in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and is also committed in other places around the world like the Falklands, Cyprus, Belize, Germany etc.) The French, or cheese-eating surrender monkeys as the Republicans call them are associate members on NATO, not full members. Despite that they have some forces in Afghanistan but again they have other military commitments in places like Africa. You might notice that Gates hasn't put much pressure on the French to up their force levels in Afghanistan -- crawling to the French for help after the sorts of insult-hurling of the past few years is beyond this Administration.
Bob in Pacifica -- there is no Afghanistan pipeline. There will never be a pipline in Afghanistan. Unocal looked at the possibility of such a pipeline in the mid-90s when the country was quasi-stable under the Taliban and decided back then it wouldn't work. They place is a lot less stable now and will be for the forseeable future so building and operating such a pipeline is just not going to happen. The oil from the Caspian Sea area is being profitably pumped West and North instead, through much more stable countries.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at March 1, 2008 11:14 AM("anonymous" here again - For the record, that was my first comment on this blog. I didn't mean to get anybody in trouble.)
I concede the point that Obama is sometimes guilty of speaking within false, Republican-created frames (in my view, his worst offense in this regard is his verbiage on Social Security, but that's another story).
I do not, however, concede that Turkana wasn't applying an unreasonable standard in this case. "Obama echoes Bush propaganda" is just a bit much for me.
The Media (and Clinton campaign) narrative (that Obama lacks specificity) has forced him to be much more specific on many issues than HRC has been. Obama has stated his plans to add "at least two brigades" in Afghanistan as the Iraq drawdown proceeds, and there is all the stuff above about NATO. How does that compare to Senator Clinton?
"I will shift the focus back to where we began, lest we forget that it was from Afghanistan that plans against us took form, lest we forget that they are still at large," she said. "We haven't focused on what we needed to to be successful."Among her plans to shift the focus back to its original stance are plans to remind NATO of their obligations in this war and to reduce the length of overseas deployment from 15 months to one year.
Which says exactly nothing, yet still manages to take a hectoring and accusatory tone toward NATO.
As to the folks who think that holding a Senate Subcommittee hearing would have been a better use of Obama's time, well, you got me there. I guess that would have gotten things straightened out.
Please.
Posted by Tom at March 1, 2008 12:35 PMthere's no comparison between the statements. you're right that clinton's says precisely nothing, but that's a helluva lot better than saying european nato's not pulling its weight, and suggesting that they're at fault for not doing more of the "dirty work" and that they might have to lift some of the constraints on their troops. if you read my linked posts, you'll see that it's precisely that tone and language that is angering nato, and may actually push them to do less, not more. living up to their obligations isn't in the same league as trying to change the ground rules for why they're in afghanistan, and what they're supposed to be doing there. obama is, indeed, echoing gates and rice.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 01:02 PMI think that Clinton's "remind NATO of their obligations" is equivalent to saying "not pulling their weight", but anyway...
It may be useful to remember that, for instance, Angela Merkel is actually in favor of expanding Germany's military involvement to the south part of Afghanistan. Her Christian Democrats can't make such a move because the German public overwhelmingly sees Afghanistan as just another square in the Bush Imperialist game.
What Obama and Clinton both want to do is recast the NATO mission in Afghanistan as much more of a shared commitment to security in the region. Obviously, the Bush administration can't make that case, but a demonstration of sanity in Iraq by a new Democratic administration would go a long way toward turning that around.
This kind of language may actually be helping the ruling conservatives in Germany, at least, to build their case to the electorate in 2009. Okay, okay, that may be a bit of a stretch, but I don't think the consequences are as dire as you say.
The political reality on the ground in the US, though, is that they are campaigning in Texas and Ohio, while Bush is loudly (if vainly) lobbying Europe for help in Afghanistan. Do you expect them to say "No, no, we don't want anybody else to fight in Afghanistan. We'll be sending in more American troops, and that will be fine."? Again, they're campaigning in Texas and Ohio.
Oh, by the way, Obama is all about changing the ground rules, but in a good way. Clinton, less so.
Posted by Tom at March 1, 2008 01:56 PMwhat i'd like to hear from democrats campaigning in democratic primaries, in ohio and texas, would include something like this:
we greatly appreciate the help europe has given us in trying to get justice for the september 11 attacks, and for helping us try to help afghanistan. unfortunately, the bush administration didn't do the job in afghanistan, and is now trying to blame our allies for its own failures. as president, i will work to restore america's standing in the world, and to regain the trust of our allies. i will work with them to create a strategy that will actually do the job bush failed to do, where we all live up to our obligations, and where we don't take for granted the good will of our friends.
Posted by Turkana at March 1, 2008 02:04 PMFair enough.
Posted by Tom at March 1, 2008 02:05 PMgee, pants pissing peter, why are we STILL talking about Afghanistan? didn't Dear Leader win that war? ohhhhhh, right, Bush fucked up by going into Iraq and leaving al Qaeda & Taliban to regroup
Posted by gay veteran at March 1, 2008 02:29 PMHey, I was telling about Obama's not holding meetings weeks ago, now here and Talk Left has caught on.
Posted by peter at March 1, 2008 03:31 PMHey, I was telling about Obama's not holding meetings weeks ago, now here and Talk Left has caught on.
Once again peter we wouldn't have to be talking about Afghanistan 6.5 years later if bu$h would have accomplished the mission... right?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 1, 2008 06:07 PMSays a lot about you, iamcoyote. Always attacking, attacking, attacking. You can't even apologize when you are DEAD wrong. You seem like a very unhappy person...
Posted by Patrick at March 1, 2008 09:46 PMYou seem like a very unhappy person...
Of course I'm happy, now that you're doing what I told you to do a long time ago. But why should I apologize to a troll?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 2, 2008 05:46 AMYes, iamcoyote, we should all simply do what you order us to do! If people weren't so stupid and would just follow your orders everything would be peachy in the world. Nice. Again, your comments reveal much about you...
Posted by Patrick at March 2, 2008 06:38 AMwe should all simply do what you order us to do!
Now you're getting it. Finally. Don't you feel better already?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 2, 2008 06:54 AMAs to the folks who think that holding a Senate Subcommittee hearing would have been a better use of Obama's time, well, you got me there. I guess that would have gotten things straightened out.
Please.
Call me crazy, but I think meeting with our allies and holding a meeting would have been a productive use of time. It should have been a priority for an ambitious rookie senator who lands on such a heavy weight committee. Perhaps Obama's real opposition to the Iraq war was returning favors for his Iraqi war criminal pals who financed his campaign and who keep making money looting the oil pipelines.