[Robyo]

Is President Obama’s Surge A Trap?

By Cynthia McKinney

December 2, 2009

Last night, President Obama announced both his decision to add 30,000 U.S. troops to the mire in Afghanistan and his desire to see other countries and N.A.T.O. match his surge. Thanks to U.S. taxpayers, mercenaries will continue to be a part of the foreign presence in Afghanistan. The Republicans support the President’s move and are expected to reward President Obama with the bulk of their Congressional votes to pass his plan.

However, there is deep disquiet today within the ranks of the President’s own base in the Democratic Party, with independents, and with middle-of-the-roaders called “swing” voters. In unprecedented numbers, voters in the United States of all previous political persuasions went to the polls and invested their dreams and, most importantly, their votes in the “hope” and “change” promised by the Obama campaign. But in light of the President’s defense of Bush Administration war crimes and torture in U.S. courts, the transfer of trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the wealthy banking elite, continued spying on environmental and peace activists as well as support for the extension of the Patriot Act, and removal of Medicare-for-all (single payer) as a central feature of proposed health care reform, Obama voters are rethinking their support.

Already, according to a Daily Koss report written by Steve Singiser: “Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will ‘definitely not vote’ in 2010 than are Republicans.” By contrast, Republicans are happy today. Almost giddy with glee as far as I can see. Warmonger John McCain and most Republicans will make sure the President gets what he wants. And in 2012, they will abandon their support of this President and support the candidate that comes from their base.

War-weary voters in this country are committed to peace. They reject the notion, as put forward by Vice President Dick Cheney that “the American way of life” is something worth fighting for when that means that war becomes an energy policy.

Tragically, the major unstated U.S. interest in the region that the President has bought into is the unacceptability of a proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (I-P-I) pipeline at a time when our country is saber-rattling against and threatening Iran with more sanctions. Earlier this year, Iran and Pakistan decided to move forward with their pipeline even if India decides to drop out. Ironically, I-P-I is also known as the “peace pipeline.”

The alternative pipeline route, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (T-A-P-I), is supported by Washington because it denies an important economic benefit to Iran. Sadly, nowhere in the President’s remarks did he mention the pipeline on which construction is slated to begin in 2010.

U.S. policy is not only guided by pipeline politics. There is also the consideration of chessboard geo-positioning necessary to contain Russia, China, and ensure U.S. empire-for those inclined to traditional Cold Warrior “containment” thinking. Apparently, behind what some are calling a “shadow war in Muslim lands,” are targeted assassination teams that have wreaked tri-border havoc in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Fortunately, this time around, I’m convinced that U.S. voters will vote for peace. President Obama has now ensured this outcome. Imagine, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have just been made very happy by the President’s choice while that same choice leaves swing voters, independents, and some Democrats who enthusiastically supported Obama’s campaign looking for somewhere else to go.

[PookztA]

Is President Obama’s Surge A Trap?

By Cynthia McKinney

December 2, 2009

Last night, President Obama announced both his decision to add 30,000 U.S. troops to the mire in Afghanistan and his desire to see other countries and N.A.T.O. match his surge. Thanks to U.S. taxpayers, mercenaries will continue to be a part of the foreign presence in Afghanistan. The Republicans support the President’s move and are expected to reward President Obama with the bulk of their Congressional votes to pass his plan.

However, there is deep disquiet today within the ranks of the President’s own base in the Democratic Party, with independents, and with middle-of-the-roaders called “swing” voters. In unprecedented numbers, voters in the United States of all previous political persuasions went to the polls and invested their dreams and, most importantly, their votes in the “hope” and “change” promised by the Obama campaign. But in light of the President’s defense of Bush Administration war crimes and torture in U.S. courts, the transfer of trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the wealthy banking elite, continued spying on environmental and peace activists as well as support for the extension of the Patriot Act, and removal of Medicare-for-all (single payer) as a central feature of proposed health care reform, Obama voters are rethinking their support.

Already, according to a Daily Koss report written by Steve Singiser: “Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will ‘definitely not vote’ in 2010 than are Republicans.” By contrast, Republicans are happy today. Almost giddy with glee as far as I can see. Warmonger John McCain and most Republicans will make sure the President gets what he wants. And in 2012, they will abandon their support of this President and support the candidate that comes from their base.

War-weary voters in this country are committed to peace. They reject the notion, as put forward by Vice President Dick Cheney that “the American way of life” is something worth fighting for when that means that war becomes an energy policy.

Tragically, the major unstated U.S. interest in the region that the President has bought into is the unacceptability of a proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (I-P-I) pipeline at a time when our country is saber-rattling against and threatening Iran with more sanctions. Earlier this year, Iran and Pakistan decided to move forward with their pipeline even if India decides to drop out. Ironically, I-P-I is also known as the “peace pipeline.”

The alternative pipeline route, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (T-A-P-I), is supported by Washington because it denies an important economic benefit to Iran. Sadly, nowhere in the President’s remarks did he mention the pipeline on which construction is slated to begin in 2010.

U.S. policy is not only guided by pipeline politics. There is also the consideration of chessboard geo-positioning necessary to contain Russia, China, and ensure U.S. empire-for those inclined to traditional Cold Warrior “containment” thinking. Apparently, behind what some are calling a “shadow war in Muslim lands,” are targeted assassination teams that have wreaked tri-border havoc in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Fortunately, this time around, I’m convinced that U.S. voters will vote for peace. President Obama has now ensured this outcome. Imagine, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have just been made very happy by the President’s choice while that same choice leaves swing voters, independents, and some Democrats who enthusiastically supported Obama’s campaign looking for somewhere else to go.

sweet article, but i have two question about it.

1. What do you think she meant by the word 'trap' in the title “Is President Obama's Troop Surge a TRAP?” Who is Obama trapping with the surge, and for what purpose?

2. What does she mean by the very last paragraph, which states, “Fortunately, this time around, I’m convinced that U.S. voters will vote for peace. President Obama has now ensured this outcome. Imagine, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have just been made very happy by the President’s choice while that same choice leaves swing voters, independents, and some Democrats who enthusiastically supported Obama’s campaign looking for somewhere else to go.”  – How has Obama ensured that voters will vote for peace the next time around? If anything, doesn't this mean that the country will swing back to republican since many people will still vote and most of them will vote republican based on her interpretation of these events?

Thanks for helping me understand this Robyo, great article (the bulk of it which I understood) and great post!

[PookztA]

ok wait, upon re-reading this extremely well-written article, i think i can answer my own questions. please correct me if i am wrong Robyo or someone…

1. the Trap is that Obama used this move to get the votes of republicans in congress so that he can pass the healthcare bill for his country.

2. now people realize that not all democratic presidents are peaceful presidents, so now we are forced to actually look further into the candidates to make sure that we vote for a candidate that will bring about Peace, regardless of what party he or she belongs to.

so to recap, Obama is doing a good thing for his own country by passing this healthcare bill, and at the same time, his move for more war will ensure that the next president we elect is truly a peaceful one.

does that sound right?

this article is badass, i have to say it again, that whole info about the pipeline and how pipeline economics play a major role in our foreign policies is so cool, i bet lots of people never knew that or thought about that. i also think it is cool how it talks about the 'cold war mentality' in which many US foreign policy makers are all about the US Empire and are trying to maintain strategic control of areas of the Middle East. sweet article Robyo, thanks for posting this. in my opinion, the title of this thread is RIGHT ON. Cynthia rocks! 😀

[Robyo]

I think the “trap” may be rhetorical. Or it refers to America stuck in war in Afghanistan and the middle east indefinitely. Even if we could win, we won't be leaving. With all the pipelines they're putting in and the many bases they've constructed, western influence will be there a long time.

“What does she mean by the very last paragraph, which states, “Fortunately, this time around, I’m convinced that U.S. voters will vote for peace. President Obama has now ensured this outcome. Imagine, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have just been made very happy by the President’s choice while that same choice leaves swing voters, independents, and some Democrats who enthusiastically supported Obama’s campaign looking for somewhere else to go.”  – How has Obama ensured that voters will vote for peace the next time around? If anything, doesn't this mean that the country will swing back to republican since many people will still vote and most of them will vote republican based on her interpretation of these events?”

She may be talking about the viability of third-party candidates in the next election. Obama continues to follow Bush policy on most issues, so voting for either of the two dominant parties makes small difference. Cynthia McKinney ran for president on the green ticket last time. Ron Paul may run on the republican ticket. Would his own party support him? Probably not. So maybe it's time for an independent President, again.

“..now people realize that not all democratic presidents are peaceful presidents, so now we are forced to actually look further into the candidates to make sure that we vote for a candidate that will bring about Peace, regardless of what party he or she belongs to.”

Democrats are not always peaceful. Please consider the majority of war in the 20th century was under their watch.

[PookztA]

ahh i c. thanks Robyo

[Author]

Posts