Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
June 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     nsa     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Reporter Who Brought Down the 'Runaway General' Dead at 33

The Terror Con

Nate Silver vs. Politico: It's on Again

The Making of a Global Security State

IRS Conspiracy Theory Debunked, Rand Paul Answers Cheney Criticism, and More

Most Comments
Most Emailed

 * NEW! * Greenland’s Great Melt Is Pinned On Climate Change
 * NEW! * The Making of a Global Security State



The Unwinding


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

War Kills Off Great Reform Movements

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 4, 2009
White House / Pete Souza

President Barack Obama meets with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, aboard Air Force One.

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

At a White House dinner with a group of historians at the beginning of the summer, Robert Dallek, a shrewd student of both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, offered a chilling comment to President Barack Obama.

“In my judgment,” he recalls saying, “war kills off great reform movements.”

The American record is pretty clear: World War I brought the Progressive Era to a close. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was waging World War II, he was candid in saying that “Dr. New Deal” had given way to “Dr. Win the War.” Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, and Vietnam brought Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society to an abrupt halt.

Dallek is not a pacifist and he does not pretend that his observation settles the question against war in every case. Of the four he mentioned, I think the Second World War and Korea were certainly necessary fights.

But Dallek’s point helps explain why Obama is right to have grave qualms about an extended commitment of many more American troops to Afghanistan. Obama was elected not to escalate a war but to end one. The change and hope he promised did not involve a vast new campaign to transform Afghanistan.

Advertisement

It’s easy to get enraged over the mess in Afghanistan and with the voices insisting that Obama has no choice but to repair it by going big and going long.

Too many of those who say that Obama is obligated to step up the pace in Afghanistan spent the Bush presidency neglecting that war because their main interest was in waging a new one in Iraq.

In his recent report to the president, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, noted repeatedly that the effort there had been “under-resourced.” It sure would have been nice if we had settled Afghanistan before beating the drums of war in Iraq.

It’s also enraging that those who insist on offsetting every penny spent to expand health coverage would never ask the Congressional Budget Office to score the costs of McChrystal’s strategy. For the uninsured, they propose fiscal prudence. For war, they offer profligacy.

Yet rage is a poor guide to policy. The truth is that Obama has only bad choices in Afghanistan.

Obama has said over and over that the war in Afghanistan, unlike the war in Iraq, is necessary. “We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies,” he declared last March. He cannot walk away from that.

But while his March speech was sweeping in certain ways, he defined a limited core objective. “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal,” he said, “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” These are the words that will give Obama room to reconsider his policy.

McChrystal argued that the full counterinsurgency strategy he proposes demands that we “elevate the importance of governance” in Afghanistan, and, to his credit, he is brutally frank about its current dismal state.

He writes of “the crisis of popular confidence that springs from the weakness of [Afghan government] institutions, the unpunished abuse of power by corrupt officials and power brokers, a widespread sense of political disenfranchisement, and a long-standing lack of economic opportunity.” That doesn’t even take into account the fraud involved in President Hamid Karzai’s re-election.

Is this a situation in which Obama should commit tens of thousands more troops for a lengthy war? Should it surprise us that some administration officials are asking why it is that al-Qaida has weakened even as the Taliban has grown stronger? These skeptics now question whether routing the Taliban is actually essential to Obama’s core goal of defeating al-Qaida.

There’s a jelling conventional wisdom that if Obama doesn’t go all in with McChrystal’s strategy, he is admitting defeat and backing away from his earlier pledges. Those who want him to commit now are impatient for a decision.

Obama should resist both their impatience and their criticism of his search for an alternative strategy. The last thing he should do is rush into a new set of obligations in Afghanistan that would come to define his presidency more than any victory he wins on health care.

Those most eager for a bigger war have little interest in Obama’s quest for domestic reform. As he ponders his options, theirs are not the voices he should worry about.

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.

© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ardee, October 11, 2009 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, October 10 at 9:55 pm

You will find it easy, I promise, and rewarding as well. Imagine an error free post..well spelling errors at least..wink.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 10, 2009 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, ardee, I’ll ask nancy about the Mozilla Firefox Brouser.  Frankly it sends a shiver of terror down my spine.  I’m not a high tech person.  Living in a world I never made.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, October 7, 2009 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

ardee, ardee, ardee- “...avoid the stupidities of a moron like fiddlercrab…”

After I busted on you for ratting me out to the webmarm, you said you were going to ignore my existence, yet, you felt the need to throw yet one more barb.

I think you have a crush on me you big lovable lug!

Report this

By Kath Cantarella, October 7, 2009 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Take the poor boys and girls out of the poor, war-torn areas and put them into free boarding schools in the stable areas, and give their mums and dads jobs that pay better than those jobs offered by the drug-dealing, slave-trading, religious paragons. Abracadabra: no more war. Can’t you do that without sending more troops? If you’re going to spend the money, then spend the money where it works.

Or is it just about maximising the profit of the military-industrial complex?

Report this

By Dave Schwab, October 7, 2009 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate approved the largest military budget bill in the history of our nation: $626 billion.

Next, the bill will be sent to a conference committee and then back to the House and Senate for final passage.

There remains a short window of opportunity to stop this wasteful military madness.

Tell your members of Congress to vote NO on the 2010 defense appropriations bill.

http://bit.ly/stopfundingwar

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, October 7, 2009 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

By Folktruther, October 6 at 12:57

“Thanks for the speling tip, blockspire.  Are you suggesting Mussolini as an alternative to US imperialism?”

Whatever are you talking about?  Apparently my comment went right over your head.  I’m sure you did get A’s in school, but you should have stayed past the second grade!

Report this

By Rodger Lemonde, October 7, 2009 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

War is bad, health is good, money is trouble.
House and Senate work for us, remind them of that.

Has anyone noticed the red underline of words while typing
their posts? right click and get spelling suggestions. It
takes no time at all.

Report this

By surfnow, October 7, 2009 at 1:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Most of the reform movements cited needn’t have been ended ,since America’s entrance into those wars, for the most part was unnecessary. Certainly America should not have intervened in WWI.  As far as Vietnam, that was a disaster that JFK was about to end ( Oliver Stone is right on here- that is a main reason he was taken out) The biggest falsehood is that WWII was needed to end the depression. The New Deal was working, and would have been even more effective but FDR,like most at the time, were still not completely sold on Keynesian deficit spending, and so cut back on job programs in ‘37 and ‘38 . Bottom line is that all of these wars were entered into for the profit of a few- the arms dealers.

Report this

By ardee, October 6, 2009 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther, October 6 at 6:07 pm

Download the Mozilla Firefox browser…its free and open source. It contains a spell checker…That’s why my posts are such models of erudition…..wink

Ouroborus, October 6 at 11:27 am

Ive been kidding FT about his spelling all along, in good fun. But there is a place for such if one wants his point of view considered fairly. An ordered mind is not such a bad thing…I think of the posts of a certain very smart poster here who fails to ever use paragraphs. I just cannot read his posts even though I know they will be worthy of my time…go figure.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

I never could spel, Ardee, I don’t know why.  My dad never cared what grades I got in school as long as they were A’s and he made exceptions of art, writing, shop and that kind of thing.  but he was always puzzled by my getting C’s in speling.  Me too.  Scheer has the same problem but he considers himself dislexic.  Maybe I am too spelling-wise.

The problem is compounded because Nancy got me a bargain computer from China that she substituted for my other good one.  You can’t do spelchecker and most other stuff on it.  nancy edits my real stuff so it doesn’t matter.  Maybe its a good thing.  Look how Martha expanded when someone told her how to do bold letters.  Like the proveertial Terrorist with nuclear weapons.  Who knows, maybe I’d go wild too.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, October 6, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Virginia777, October 6 at 12:02 pm #

Oh, now isn’t that special.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, October 6, 2009 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

You know, sometimes I think this website is for the
lost masses rather than informed people looking for
answers; based of course, on the quality of
interpersonal discourse and response evident in the
responses found within. I don’t much give a flying
f@#$k about spelling or grammar; only content and
respect.

Report this

By ardee, October 6, 2009 at 3:06 am Link to this comment

Hey,Foulktoother Youze should uze a spelcheker soas to avoid the stupidities of a moron like fiddlercrab….

Report this

By samosamo, October 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/05-12

This may or may not be the place to introduce this but it is most undeniably one of the most important things to be directed towards our country and most likely has the potential to really bring this country to its knees or just flat out laid out on the ground and the best hope is that it may take until 2018 for it to totally transpire; the other major economies dumping the dollar in place of stronger currencies, and as Chalmers Johnson has said, ‘that if the arabs decided to start trading oil in some other currency besides dollars, the american economy would collapse before wall street closed the same day’.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 5, 2009 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the speling tip, blockspire.  Are you suggesting Mussolini as an alternative to US imperialism?

Report this

By Kath Cantarella, October 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A US responsibility?

Under the Taliban, Afghanistan wasn’t much better off than it is now, it was always at war. Local Taliban and guerilla soldiers died, women and other non-combatants died. International police action against Bin Laden (and the Taliban supporters’ poppy fields: they are exporting heroin outside their borders and trafficking slaves across international boundaries which is in contravention of the Act of State doctrine) can’t be any less effective than this pointless murderous war.

Karzai’s government is not exactly an innocent pawn in the US’s gameplan. The truth is, he might find more local support if divorces himself from the West. And local support is the only thing that can really save him. 

Russia’s long war in Afghanistan led directly to its bankruptcy. The US needs to look to its own problems before it can help anyone else effectively. Trying to stabilize the middle east, it is de-stabilizing itself.

I hope that if Obama shows his strength and defies the military, he will gain more support than he loses.

And I hope Afghanistan can go on to sort out its own problems. Maybe with Western investment (for a fraction of the cost of this war) in locally-run secular schools for the poor in the more stable areas, and in the borderlands of surrounding nations. The free Taliban Islamist schools are too often the only option for Afghani children. There’s no better way to proselytize an extreme ideology (and breed angry soldiers) than by setting up a school. Instead of slaughtering young Taliban soldiers, maybe focus entirely on breaking the breeding cycle of extreme ideologies.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

I would say it all depends on what you mean by “reform”.  For E. J. Dionne, “reform” seems to mean “increasing Welfare and similar social programs”.  In this sense, overt warfare (and police action) should be seen as an alternative to Welfare, as hard cop is an alternative to soft cop.  Of course, both cops and both versions of the state rely ultimately on force, so in a sense they’re both hard.  They are not really antagonists, but different faces of the same beast carrying out the same purposes.

There are other kinds of reform besides Welfare, though.  Abraham Lincoln, a railroad lawyer, like Alexander Hamilton wanted to strengthen and centralize the United States into a European-style unitary state; he was, in a way, the American Bismarck.  He also wished to do away with embarrassing and inefficient anachronism of slavery.  The Civil War enabled him to do both: it completely subordinated the states to Federal power, and it enabled Lincoln to abolish slavery without compensation to the owners or, for the most part, doing anything to prepare the former slaves for lives as free persons in a competitive capitalist environment, which could have been rather expensive.  Neither of these reforms could have been effected so radically and so cheaply (from the government’s point of view) had the South stayed in the Union and thus avoided the Civil War.

There are many other examples of war enabling the rich and powerful, and those who work for them, to assemble resources, eradicate resistance, suppress dissidence, and move forward rapidly to whatever brink they’re headed for.  When they need to take a breather, it’s time for a depression and a few Welfare programs.  One kind of “reform” succeeds another, and the established order lurches on to its next exciting crisis.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, October 5, 2009 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Blackspeare:

One thing you should know about Folktruther: He’s functionally illiterate, so you’ll have to give him a pass on butchering names and the language in general.

Report this

By coloradokarl, October 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

What is worse to me? the eight dead Fort Carson soldiers or the almost daily drive-by shootings by our local unemployed youth? The war is a drag on everyone except the Military Industrial Complex. Obama needs to stop this madness and spend some rescources on our own people. Fuck the rest of the World for a few years, let us fix our own house first!!!

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, October 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther…

The name is Blackspeare, like Shakespeare, not Blacksphere!  The USA has always been a republic and most of the history of the USA has been imperialistic; whether it be the westward migration (manifest destiny and all that) or adventures in the Far East.  So what else is new!  An interesting facet of history that I like to mention is that Mussolini in his hey day claimed that a nation had to go to war every 25 years to remain strong.  People thought him a war monger and deranged.  However, the USA goes to war about every 15 years both large and small——who’s crazy now?!

Report this

By Folktruther, October 5, 2009 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

Afghanistan is strategic to US imperialism, Blacksphere; it isn’t strategic at all to a US republic.

Report this

By sophrosyne, October 5, 2009 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Israel will not rest until America’s interests are totally subordinate to their interests.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, October 5, 2009 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

In regards to the Afghan War, BHO wants to appear astute in contemplating further action as per McChrystal.  But in the end he really has no choice but to provide additional troops and with an all-volunteer military any resistance will be minimal.  Remember Afghanistan is currently in a strategic part of the world.

Report this

By Orley Allen, October 5, 2009 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The record is crystal clear. Third world civilian casualties are the bread and butter
of the United State’s rapacious war machine. This monstrosity requires human
bullet and bomb receptacles and it will have them, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or
somewhere else. The nation-states our military is constantly “building” are the
graveyards we leave behind everywhere we go.

Report this

By Hithere, October 5, 2009 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan” MIGHT have been a realistic goal back in 2001, but not really so much anymore.  Overall, troop morale has decreased and so has public support.

It is interesting; but it seems that, in general, USA society pays no mind if the USA invades another nation, provided that the invasion does not drag on and on into a quagmire.  A good example was how quickly Panama was leveled to the ground in a relatively short period of time by the USA.  Generally speaking, USA society is adamantly against lengthy wars that last for years and years.  It also seems that al-Qaeda is the boogeyman du jour like communism was a few decades ago.

Report this

By Jean Gerard, October 5, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“... the weakness of (Afghan) government institutions, the unpunished abuse of power by corrupt officials and power brokers, a widespread sense of political disenfranchisement, and a long-standing lack of economic opportunity.”
  Just take a deep breath and consider what McChrystal’s words mean:  The U.S. is to kill more people in order to build a strong Afghan government, to punish abuse of power by corrupt officials and power brokers, to increase the number of Afghans who vote, and to increase Afghans’ economic opportunity. Somewhere in the back of my mind comes a different quotation:  “In Flanders Fields the poppies blow between the crosses row on row that mark our graves.” 
    God help us all, including the loneliest goat-herder in the shaggy,wind-blown mountains of a faraway country full of history but empty of the power to resist. Ignorance pushes us from behind and insanity drags us forward.

Report this

By Folktruther, October 5, 2009 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Another pretty good piece by Dionne.  It just shows you that even old hacks can transcend themselves.  It is especially fine that he points out the relation of war to domestic reform.  And this oncludes domestic dissent as well.  When Russia entered WW 2, the strikes by working were increasingly enormously and the war declaration stopped them flat.

War is the health of the State because it diverts energy and attention from attacking the power structure, to rallying around it.  A major function of the War on Terrorism is to prevent dissent and reform in the American population.

Report this

By dmark2055, October 5, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

I believe that in order to win the so ‘called war in Afghanistan’, it will take a myriad of things.          Most important as the first priority, figure out how to stop our troops from getting killed, if that means temporarily pulling out of certain areas then so be it. I will let the Generals and Politicians’ who have the data-hopefully decide to add or plan how to change the military direction, one that makes sense and is not tied to any political benefit of anyone on either side. The next most important thing is to create meaningful jobs for the masses. Take a look at what skills these people have, like perhaps making “Oriental wool rugs” if they have these skills create the factories, hire the people and train others to create these beautiful works of art and functionality. Look at what else they do well, and build factories and hire people to do these jobs and actually create export markets for them to help them earn money. Anyone earning a DECENT wage is less inclined to wage war! Try to clear up the tribal conflicts, maybe form a coordinated unit were each votes and has a say, empower the people and great things will begin to happen. Find out how to get rid of corruption! Hardest of all that I have stated so far, but it must be done, let the populous bring the corrupt people to our attention, if it warrants and it adds up that they are corrupt, jail them. Train the Afghan farmers to produce sustainable and even exportable crops if possible. Give them the machinery and technology necessary for them to produce more food per acre. *Our great failure in helping that country has been our lack of providing meaningful JOBS. Rid their country of corruption, get the populous trained in things that they can be trained to do with the few resources they actually have. Develop and help them export their products. Make garments there; may be one thing they are good at? Try to train the children, develop better teaching methods and in most cases, they don’t even have schools and allow girls to get an education as well! **I believe everything relates to jobs, jobs, jobs!
I don’t see that we have done any of these things except create war! Definitely go after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, hit them by covert means, get people to tell us who they are and where they are and then with a drone, take them out. Hit hard, hit many, create confusion and worry for the Taliban and with jobs we will create and foster better relations with the general Afghan population. We also have electronic equipment, so voting can be fair, but first they have to trust us and want this equipment and want to use it.  Why can’t the politicians figure this out, it isn’t difficult!  We spend so much money on weapons and bombs and get very little if anything back as a worthwhile payback.  The only ones receiving any type of payback are the Military Companies like Lockheed, Boeing and others!

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, October 5, 2009 at 3:09 am Link to this comment

ardee, October 5 at 5:55 am #

It would seem an all volunteer army has dovetailed into
the empires plans very well indeed.

Report this

By ardee, October 5, 2009 at 2:55 am Link to this comment

Especially in a time of great unemployment war is a dumping ground for the jobless. Cruel words perhaps but imagine all those troops home and looking for a job that doesn’t exist….what a fertile ground for revolutionary demands.

Obama may very well be as sincere as his speeches indicate, or as smarmy as his actions indicate, I do not know for certain never having met the man. I do see a government unresponsive to the real needs of its citizenry, one that pursues a strategy in the Middle East that seems doomed to failure.

Ironically, the real way to thwarting the power of the terrorist and extremist, jobs, peace and security in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is a less expensive alternative to war but, I guess, a less profitable one.

Report this

By ChaoticGood, October 4, 2009 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

The age old problem of “Guns or Butter” arises anew for each generation of Americans.  Guns always win because Wars are the darling of the rich, who almost never fight them.  The poor are the cannon fodder who are brainwashed into believing that they are dying for some great American ideal of freedom.  I wonder how many parents would allow their children to die for oil or a rich man’s bank account.  Not many, I predict.

So the great fabrication goes on and on.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.