30,000 more

Obama:


He painted a picture in which the Taliban and al Qaeda are equally evil allies and the Afghan government is good: "Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government."

"We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future."

He is a rhetorical genius: "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat."

He is a rhetorical genius #2: "But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

These last two points are where I felt him emotionally grab me: 1) He would withdrawal everyone if he could. 2) This is actually part of a larger plan of withdrawal. Wow. If this were the only thing I watched, I could see myself being sucked into this logic. It takes a firm and critical mental resistance to not be persuaded by this man!

There are two approaches to analyzing his speech: 1) where we assume everything he says is true, and then critique his logic. 2) where anything he says could be a lie. Unfortunately in this 1984 world, the second point is all to relevant. As president of the U.S.A. he gets to speak on prime time to the world, and he never has to cite is sources. (Can you tell I have final papers coming up?) His voice becomes the omniscient voice of God, and once he defines the truth, it becomes increasingly hard to critique his logic. But how true is this "reality" that he presents?

Here are some other realities offered (but how can we even tell they're "true"?):

Al Queda is barely in Afghanistan! (It's more in Pakistan.)
Al Queda has grievances (Palestine, Kashmir) that need to be engaged; they are not up to just up to random killing.
Al Queda does not pose a serious and grave threat (that U.S. intelligence can't deal with, raising a host of other issues.)

Tribal/village/rural populations are primary concerned about THEMSELVES; if a U.S. occupation poses a serious threat to their existence, then, yes, they'll find allies where they can, including al Queda. This does not mean they care at all about bombing America.

The Taliban, while of course problematic in many ways, actually has widespread popular support, especially among Pashtuns, and especially compared to U.S. occupiers. To bring stability to the region, the U.S. should ally with local governance systems, which often includes "The Taliban," and not Karzai and his government of "warlords." This means politically and financially, not militarily. (But of course, this is beyond Washington's logic.)

The so called Afghan police/security forces are actually "Taliban recruiters," according to Nir Rosen, and/or viewed as "foreign" occupiers because they are often from another part of Afghanistan, according to Ritter. AKA: It's complicated.

As Malalai Joya so clearly says, Afghans are sovereign. Yes they have PLENTY of issues, but those struggles can only be addressed by Afghans themselves.

THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION. Military commanders, such as McCrystal who called for more troops, are trained in military campaigns of attack, defeat, and defend, NOT in larger political strategies. If their capacity is only the violent take out of "the enemy," Obama should not be listening to them in choosing a larger political strategy.

More troops simply means sending thousands of young Americans (some of whom are being forced to deploy beyond the commitment they "voluntarily" agreed to their contract; some of whom are suffering from PTSD from past deployments in Iraq or Afghanistan; most of whom were recruited after high school by aggressive recruiters promising all types of educational and economic benefits) into a hostile environment. It's HOSTILE, as Scott Ritter says, because the American kids are ARMED and they are total FOREIGNERS---not understanding the culture, languages, regions, tribal differences, economy, anything! Military culture is one based around misogyny, homophobia, and dehumanization of "the other/the enemy." It is based on killing and following orders. HOW can this lead to anything constructive?

What the hell does it mean for these U.S. soldiers to be training Afghans to police, secure, and control their own people? Seriously? How do they even communicate?

The cleanliness of the "surge in order to withdraw" argument is a perfect rhetorical move, but in complete disavowal of what it means to be engaged in warfare. Bringing over 30,000 new people, armed and in the uniform of the occupier, into a complex and complicated country is not going to be simple, clean, and straightforward. It is tantamount to re-declaring war. It will only get MORE COMPLICATED for Obama. As the "resistance" (umbrella word for so many things) increases, commanders will believe they need more troops, the infrastructure that is left will continue to be destroyed, and people on all sides will die and/or become permanently maimed and damaged, physically and mentally.

The executive arm of the U.S. government is NOT omnipotent. On domestic issues, it has nothing close to complete control, though is has a very large influence. On issues abroad, specifically Afghanistan, it has NOTHING close to complete control, and shouldn't pretend that it does. What is does have complete control over is the U.S. military. Obama is at the top of a chain of command that is trained to follow orders. This is a military trained for armed combat, destroying the enemy and paranoid self-preservation. They have no place in Afghanistan. The best he can do is order them home.

As for the soldiers, they can refuse to go.

Sources:
Scott Ritter, former Marine and UN weapons inspector
Nir Rosen, independent journalist and fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security
Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, retired colonel, Vietnam War veteran
Malalai Joya, Afghan politician and a former elected member of the Parliament from Farah province