If elected, Senator Barack Obama has the possibility of reengaging with a world that seeks an America which isn't defined by Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo – but by the democratic ideals to which we aspire. His election, allied with smart and humane policies, could help restore this country's global reputation – and turn a page on the reckless and destructive policies of mad men.

Obama has shown how capable he is of good judgment. His original opposition to the war and his still-firm commitment to an expeditious withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq – a war which long ago lost any strategic purpose – are both good measures of that judgment. (His position on keeping residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq is one The Nation disagrees with.)

So it is troubling that as he shows sound thinking on Iraq, Obama also continues to talk about escalating the US military presence in Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for Senator Obama, but for most Democrats in Washington, who argue mantra-like that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in Afghanistan.) Shouldn't serious thought be given to how Senator Obama's necessary agenda for healthcare and progressive economic reform might be sacrificed to yet another trillion-dollar war without end?

That's why I would urge Senator Obama to read three documents and think long and hard about the dangers to his agenda – both domestically and internationally – of extricating the US from one disastrous war and heading into another. I believe there are alternatives which need to be explored at this critical juncture before such a commitment is made, and some of those ideas are found in these documents.

A statement from the international relief and development organization Oxfam America urges both Senators Obama and McCain to expand the debate regarding Afghanistan beyond a discussion of troop levels, examining the importance of targeted development, sustainable aid, and the danger of increasing civilian casualties: "Alleviating poverty and protecting civilians from violence are essential components of a strategy to bring peace and stability to the country. Unless the next American president… builds on the existing commitments to help lift the Afghan people out of extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will be impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace…."

In a Financial Times article, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser and a supporter of Senator Obama, warns the US of the trap of another Soviet-style occupation in Afghan – and he should know, given that he's the guy who set it. "It is important for US policy in general and for Obama more specifically to recognize that simply putting more troops into Afghanistan is not the entire solution," he said. "We are running the risk of repeating the mistake the Soviet Union made . . . Our strategy is getting in deeper and deeper."

Finally, an editorial in the Guardian writes of, "… the temptation…. to throw more military forces at the problem in a replication of the Iraq ‘surge'…. For many, it is becoming clear that it cannot be won, framed in military terms." The editors go on to argue for targeted micro-financing used towards sustainable rural development.

There is no easy answer here, but certainly we need to think beyond the almost reflexive response of troop escalation in order to find sane and humane alternatives. When Senator Obama met with President Hamid Karzai, the talks focused on Al-Qaeda, no discussion of sustainable development, no discussion of poverty, or how record opium production is fueling the warlords. Military escalation will increase civilian casualties and further tarnish the nation's reputation internationally. It's time to do some tough thinking before we are bogged down in another occupation and we continue to bleed more lives and resources.

Comments (26)

1. Oddly enough, in some ways it feels similar today to be critical of Barack Obama's prevailingly weak stances amongst so-called progressive venues as it did to be critical of the U.S. government in the wake of 9/11 amongst the general public.

   As much as I like Obama personally, it does no good service to either himself, or our nation, to pretend that everything is going to be alright when he takes office.

   Now is the time to put pressure on Obama everytime he weakly acquiesces --seemingly every day now-- to the powers that be on matters of grave importance.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:07pm

2. It's about judgment, my friends....

   "And I believe that the success will be fairly easy" and "There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators." [John McCain 3/24/03]

   "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." [John McCain 4/23/03]

   "Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power." [John McCain 9/15/02]

   "But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." [John McCain 09/15/02]

   "He's a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart." ]John McCain on Ahmed Chalabi, 2002]

   "Absolutely. Absolutely." [John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" 03/12/03]

   I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks. [John McCain, MSNBC, 1/28/03]

   It's clear that the end is very much in sight. … It won't be long. It, it'll be a fairly short period of time. [John McCain, ABC, 4/9/03]

   We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]

   "Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?" [John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News' Neil Cavuto that "many argue the conflict isn't over," [John McCain, 06/11/03]

   "My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years." [John McCain, 02/25/08]

   Posted by MsSwin at 07/22/2008 @ 6:09pm

3. SWALLOWING THE RED PILL: Musings on The Nation's sadly mistaken Obama endorsement, Kevin Phillips' new must read book on our collapsing economy, and finally, a death defying gaze into the "phantasmagorical" AIPAC conference.

   It's been alarmingly evident over the last several weeks that Obama's hard right turn has left progressives with little alternative but to emphatically state their intention to vote for a Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney candidacy in protest.

   As anyone who happened to watch the most recent Moyers Journal interviews (7/11, online viewing recommended) with the interesting and engaging conservative commentators, Mickey Edwards and Ross Douthat --authors of the new books, "Reclaiming Conservatism" and "Grand New Party", respectively-- it was quite revealing how well Obama's message and manner, of late in particular, has dovetailed so snuggly with these guys views and temperament. I found both men to be highly intelligent, articulate and genial, but like Obama they share at least one overarching and fatal flaw. They embrace the blindly delusional view of "American exceptionalism."

   If one overarching fact is to be acknowledged in an ailing society it is the need for self-examination, and the admission of often harsh realities. Probably the single most damaging force today that blocks such critical actions is the stranglehold on society by the so-called mainstream media.

   John Pilger recalls the brilliant Nobel acceptance speech by Harold Pinter from 2006:

   In his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the playwright Harold Pinter made an epic speech. He asked why, and I quote him, "The systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought" in Stalinist Russia were well known in the West, while American state crimes were "merely superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognized as crimes at all." And yet across the world the extinction and suffering of countless human beings could be attributed to rampant American power. "But," said Pinter, "You wouldn't know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." Pinter's words were more than surreal. The BBC ignored the speech of Britain's most famous dramatist.

   Now, we fast forward to the current predicament.

   The devil next door is, quite clearly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are bleeding the U.S. Treasury, sapping the nation emotionally, and have decimated the currency of global American respect to an all-time low –not to mention the fast sinking dollar as oil prices spiral upwards, the deaths of countless innocent people, and the global crisis levels of displaced persons within and from Iraq.

   Of at least equal importance –-and probably much greater in my opinion-- is the devil that most of us don't know. This is the one that the sober conservative commentator, Kevin Phillips, documents in his latest book, "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism", Viking, April ‘08.

   Excerpt:

   As for the pitfalls of the domination of the United States by finance, both "Wealth and Democracy" and "American Theocracy" dwelled at length on the unnerving precedents of what that meant for the Dutch and British. Part of what "Bad Money" deals with that I have not touched on before is the financial sector's massive use of private debt and leverage during the 1990's and then again in the first decade of the twenty-first century to expand its size, global reach, and extraordinary profitability. This is less a market-based Adam Smith brand of triumph than a mercantilist joint venture with U.S. government authority, strategic direction, funding support, and periodic Federal Reserve or U.S. Treasury bailouts of overextended financial institutions....

   Farms and factories were expendable, but certain banks and other financial institutions could not be allowed to fail. The coordinating body, handed its government franchise in 1988, following the 1987 stock market crash, was the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, built around the secretary of the treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Its existence has never been secret, only the record of its discussions and the nature of its occasional interventions in the financial markets.

   And later in the book:

   The Working Group's purposes, as elaborated in a 1997 Washington Post article, were to enhance "the integrity, efficiency, orderliness and competitiveness of financial markets and [maintain] investor confidence." It set up something of a war room, maintained a global as well as a national list of key contacts, and carried out simulated emergency drills....

   Just how much power the Working Group was allowed to exercise was never publicly made clear. A year after its launch, Robert Heller, a retiring member of the Fed's Board, wrote in a widely discussed op-ed the Wall Street Journal that there was a better alternative in emergencies than rate reduction: "Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thus stabilizing the market as a whole." Besides being relatively inexpensive, the focus on futures market activity made sense. No conclusions were ever reached in writing, but Heller's recommendations may have been accepted backstairs....

   Apart from the one groundbreaking article in the Washington Post, the opinion-molding journals in the United States generally let the group's operations go without serious investigation or comment. The overseas English-speaking press, however, was more intrigued. The Telegraph in London ran several articles, in 1998 and 2006, eventually describing the Plunge Protection Team as a "shadowy body with powers to support stock index, currency and credit futures in a crash." The newspaper also quoted George Stephanopoulos, the former top aide to Bill Clinton, as saying that the PPT -–the preferred handle in the press-- had "an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem." In September 2001, the London Observer reported that the PPT was "ready to coordinate intervention by the Federal Reserve on an unprecedented scale. The Fed, supported by the banks, will buy equities from mutual funds and other institutional sellers if there is evidence of panic selling in the wake of last week's carnage."

   Phillips' further referenced the 1997 Post article in his book with the deliciously dry description, "eye opening." Indeed.

   The Working Group's ostensible purpose is to enhance the market's "integrity." One hardly needs The Onion to elaborate.

   Today we talk pretty regularly of "bubbles" of various sorts, but in reference to the above revelations by Kevin Phillips, we might more appropriately use the term "volcanoes". The U.S. Fed and Treasury, under the auspices of the "Working Group" and the "Plunge Protection Team" have been enabling big players in the market to seek greater and greater risk in the full knowledge that a bailout –wider and deeper in scope than the one's we hear about in the news-- is waiting if things get a little "too hot".

   Well, no one who is paying attention should be surprised if at some point in the near future things get a little hotter than anyone has seen in a long, long time as the fallout from a global financial meltdown begins hurtling back to Earth. I'm not predicting a cataclysm, but if you think it's not possible I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

   And that brings us to Barack "Brought to you by Wall Street" Obama.

   Pilger again:

   In the meantime, Iran is being softened up, with the liberal media playing almost the same role it played before the Iraq invasion. And as for the Democrats, look at how Barack Obama has become the voice of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the propaganda organs of the old liberal Washington establishment. Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, "We must not rule out military force against long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria." Listen to this from the liberal Obama: "At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that we stood and fought for the freedom sought by billions of people beyond their borders."

   That is the nub of the propaganda, the brainwashing if you like, that seeps into the lives of every American, and many of us who are not Americans. From right to left, secular to God-fearing, what so few people know is that in the last half century, United States administrations have overthrown fifty governments--many of them democracies. In the process, thirty countries have been attacked and bombed, with the loss of countless lives. Bush bashing is all very well--and is justified--but the moment we begin to accept the siren call of the Democrats' drivel about standing up and fighting for freedom sought by billions, the battle for history is lost, and we ourselves are silenced.

   This is the same Obama that The Nation chose to endorse, against its better instincts, last January. Let's be frank, that was a misguided decision to be generous. All the warning signs were clearly in evidence to any semi-alert observer, yet The Nation chose to ignore them in the incautious hope that Obama would somehow become the more-or-less progressive president that we projected on him.

   Katrina vanden Heuvel famously said on Stephanopoulos recently, "Barack Obama is not the Messiah". But the amount of trust that The Nation placed in him with its endorsement would suggest a commensurate level of blind faith that renders Katrina's "not the Messiah" comment empty at best, and (it pains me to say this) perhaps more accurately, crass.

   Although The Nation's endorsement was likely not instrumental in Obama's securing the Democratic nomination, as a matter of principle it should be noted that endorsements, when given, should go to candidates that clearly articulate a largely progressive platform. But here's the central point in regards to Obama's "new" trajectory.

   We progressives have represented Obama's core support group and have held the key to his most promising door to victory --that is, the path of conviction on such popular fronts as NAFTA reform, complete withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire, reengagement with rest of the planet on global warming and foreign policy, Constitutional restoration, and massive investment at home to reinvigorate our ailing manufacturing base and sagging infrastructure.

   Instead, Obama has calculatingly and callously chosen the same tired old tactics of three yards and a cloud of dust over bold leadership and slashing new tactics.

   It is progressives who offered Obama a brand new playbook of multiple offensive sets and multiple receivers to confuse and confound the defense. We saw in his oratorical ability the talent to run our sophisticated "west coast" offense, but he has failed to deliver even a single crisp pass since securing the nomination.

   That's not "change we can believe in", but business as usual. And that's not gonna cut it.

   Yes, Obama will very likely win the White House this Fall, but he's already set himself up for a fall in the process. And if he does somehow manage to lose the election, it's likely to be largely attributable to his lack of principled leadership.

   We've seen this movie before -–too many times.

   The time is fast ripening for action on the part of all of us who see clearly the imminent danger of an increasingly corporatized and commoditized society. I conclude --sadly-- that The Nation needs to get fully on board or get out of the way.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:14pm

4. AIPAC Conference- Exposed Part One:

   I have stated here before that I will occasionally post lengthy articles that are of high interest in a bit of protest against the lack of linking ability here at The Nation.

   A good one follows.

   I discovered the article when it appeared at Tom Feeley's invaluable Information Clearing House website. I strongly encourage readers to visit often and support Tom's work.

   Looking Into the Lobby

   The American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual conference is one of Washington's most important--and least reported--events.

   By Philip Weiss

   09/08/07 "American Conservative" -- - For three days in the capital in early June, suspense built over the question of how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference would greet Barack Obama. There was a lot of grousing about Obama in the hallways of the Washington Convention Center, and AIPAC officials repeatedly warned the faithful to be respectful. "We are not a debate society or a protest movement. … our goal is to have a friend in the White House," executive director Howard Kohr said in a strict tone. It wasn't hard to imagine things going poorly: Obama gets booed on national television. He feels insulted. Conservative Jewish donors and voters turn off to Obama. He becomes president without their support. AIPAC has no friend in the Oval Office.

   But of course, Obama complied. His speech became the annual example the conference provides of a powerful man truckling. Two years ago, it was Vice President Cheney's red-meat speech attacking the Palestinians. Last year, it was Pastor John Hagee's scary speech saying that giving the Arabs any part of Jerusalem was the same as giving it to the Taliban. Obama took a similar line. He suggested that he would use force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, made no mention of Palestinian human rights, and said that Jerusalem "must remain undivided," a statement so disastrous to the peace process that his staff rescinded it the next day. Big deal. The actual meeting had gone swimmingly.

   This was my first AIPAC conference, and the first surprise was how blatant the business of wielding influence is. The conference makes no bones about this function, the most savage expression of which is the Tuesday dinner at which AIPAC performs its "roll call," where the names of all the politicians who have come to the conference are read off from the stage by three barkers in near auctioneer fashion. The pols try to outdo one another in I-love-Israel encomia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surely won the day when she teared up while dangling the dogtags of three Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah and Hamas two years ago.

   The second big surprise was that apart from coverage of the headline speakers, the AIPAC conference is a media no man's land. It would be hard to imagine a more naked exhibition of political power: a convention of 7,000 mostly rich people, with more than half the Congress in attendance, as well as all the major presidential candidates, the prime minister of Israel, the minority leader, the majority leader, and the speaker of the House. Yet there is precious little journalism about the spectacle in full. The reason seems obvious: the press would have to write openly about a forbidden subject, Jewish influence. They would have to take on an unpleasant informative task that they have instead left to two international relations scholars in their 50s--Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of last year's book The Israel Lobby.

   The press is missing a phantasmagorical event. Imagine a basement meeting in the Warsaw Ghetto transplanted to the biggest hall in Vegas, and you have something of the feeling of the thing. The staging is faultless. Little documentaries called "Zionist Stories" play on the Jumbotron, complete with footage of Auschwitz, and then the subject of the documentary comes out on stage to thundering applause. There is breakout session after breakout session on Middle East policy and Jewish identity and anti-Semitism, with star turns by Natan Sharansky, Bill Kristol, and Leon Wieseltier. The press was excluded from "Advanced Lobbying Techniques," but still this is a feast of the political condition. And posh. The roll call is described by AIPAC as the largest seated dinner in Washington. The wine flows. I went about in a daze of awe and admiration.

   My awe was for men like Haim Saban, a toymaker and giant donor to the Democratic Party. After his Zionist story, Saban came out on stage wearing a platinum tie and white shirt and silver gray suit. He has wonderful presence and something of an Arab look--black-haired, wide forehead. He was surrounded by 200 college students, veterans of the Saban Leadership Seminars he sponsors at AIPAC.

   On Middle East policy, Saban is barely distinguishable from his Republican counterparts, who are there in equal force. The main hall of the conference was filled with lavishly-produced banners featuring AIPAC donors, not a few with trophy wives, alongside statements of their mission. There was Donald Diamond, an Arizona real estate developer whom the New York Times recently profiled on the front page after he raised $250,000 for John McCain. The Times said nothing in its piece about Diamond's Israel work. But that was all the banner was about. "The U.S.-Israel relationship is the single most important determinant of democracy in the world, and we must commit to securing it," Diamond wrote. "It is so obvious to us that the Jewish community is a family and that we have to take care of each other."

   I was writing that down when an AIPAC spokesman stopped to check my credentials. The audience for this stuff isn't the public, it's people in the hall--other rich Jews who might put AIPAC in their wills.

   At most conventions, people gather out of self-interest. Therein lies my admiration: the AIPAC'ers didn't come for selfish reasons. They are devoutly concerned with the lives of people they don't know, very far away. Yes, people with whom they feel tribal kinship. When Israelis came out on the dais to speak, they were almost invariably overwhelmed by the generosity, if not the Vegas schmaltz. "There is a tremendous amount of love in this place," Meir Nissensohn, an Israeli executive of IBM, said in wonder. "If it was a beaker, it would explode." Even a sharp critic like myself of what AIPAC is doing to American policy in the Middle East was frequently moved by the pure loving feeling that surrounds you at every moment.

   Among the devout there is only one real issue: What is the latest AIPAC line? This is the organization's function. After consulting closely with the Israeli political leadership (leaning toward the right wing), AIPAC regurgitates a simple version of Israeli policy to its followers, who in turn regurgitate that line to American politicians. AIPAC'ers do this with the conviction that Israel's life is on the line. "It is we that are the guardians of that relationship," AIPAC president David Victor said. James Tisch, the Lowes executive and leader in the Jewish community, warned the audience that it might be 1939 all over again were it not for them.

   AIPAC makes sure the Israeli line is America's line by cultivating politicians before they reach the national scene. Victor described this process when he warned the audience that 10 percent of Congress will be new next year because so many seats are open: "Do we know them? Do they know us? Have they been to Israel? Do they understand the issues we care so deeply about?" Finding Israel activists in the suburbs of Detroit is easy, Victor said. "But how about finding the one right person to reach out to candidates for communities like Muscle Shoals, Alabama, or Tacoma, Washington, or Council Bluffs, Iowa? Ladies and gentlemen, the success or failure of the pro-Israel community rests on three words, our personal relationships." And people accused Walt and Mearsheimer of fostering a conspiracy theory.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:23pm

5. AIPAC Conference-Exposed Part Two:

   AIPAC flashes its relationships the way kids trade baseball cards. Bill Kristol said that Hart Hasten, a Holocaust survivor and successful Indianapolis businessman, had been crucial to shaping Dan Quayle's view of Israel, having "spent a lot of time" with Quayle when he was still a congressman. (Quayle's office later told me, "The statement Bill Kristol made was not exactly accurate. Mr. Quayle said his broad knowledge of Israel came from many people and sources, not specifically from Mr. Hasten.") Dan Senor, an analyst on CNN and former AIPAC intern, boasted that AIPAC won over Spencer Abraham when he was the head of the state Republican Party, years before he became a Michigan senator. The party was $500,000 in debt, and an AIPAC leader helped him pay that off. And of course, the famous story was told of George W. Bush going up in Ariel Sharon's helicopter in 1998, two years before he ran for president, and saying of Israel's ten-mile waist, "We have driveways in Texas longer than that."

   The anxiety about Obama is that he is so new to the scene that few people have had a chance to get to him. The relationship guy is Lee Rosenberg of Chicago, who introduced Obama. "I can personally attest that Senator Obama is a genuine friend of Israel," he said. In 2006, Obama "fulfilled a pledge he made to the Chicago Jewish community" and visited Israel. And the topper: Obama "has gotten to know" Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister who is against ever dividing Jerusalem. Rosenberg looked pale, drained--as queasily forceful as a mob boss vouching for an unknown family's bona fides.

   The good news I can report is the new AIPAC line. In some ways the organization is belligerent: speakers emphasized the need to attack Iran before it gets nukes and to invade Gaza to take on Hamas. But peace is in the air, too, now that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government is working overtime to cut a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank and with the Syrians for the return of the Golan Heights. AIPAC reflected this policy. I heard a few conference-goers saying at microphones that the Bible gives Israel a right to the West Bank. But they received only a smattering of applause, and in one instance the moderator said the questioner was using inappropriate language.

   The soul of the conference for me was Tal Becker, the highly personable Israeli negotiator. "I see [Palestinian negotiator] Saeb Erekat a lot more than I see my wife and kids," he said, promising that if he and Palestinian moderates fail to reach an agreement, their goal is "to keep talking and keep talking and keep talking."

   Yet before you get out your handkerchief, reflect that AIPAC has for more than 30 years promoted the colonization process. In 1975, when President Ford wanted to reassess Mideast policy over Israeli intransigence, he was cut off at the knees by an AIPAC letter signed by 76 senators. Then in 1989, when James Baker went before AIPAC and told them to give up their idea of a Greater Israel including the West Bank, George H.W. Bush received a letter of anger signed by 94 senators. In both instances, AIPAC was hewing to the Israeli government line and nullifying American policymaking.

   No, AIPAC's change of heart cannot be ascribed to the good thinking of American Jews. They're not thinking at all. They have passed on their full powers of judgment to the Israeli government. In that sense, the Zionists in that hall might best be compared to Communists of the '30s and '40s, who also abandoned their judgment to a far off authority even as they argued this and that subclause codicil in intense councils. On my train ride back to New York, a little rich kid of about 14, traveling with his uncle in the seat behind me, called his parents to complain that Obama's views on Israel seemed "tailored" and "he's never really stood up for Israel." Indoctrination, pure and simple.

   The great sadness here is that American Jewry is the most educated, most affluent segment of the public. Yet on this issue there is little independent thinking. The obvious question is whether they don't have dual loyalty. As a Jew, I feel uncomfortable using the phrase, given its long history, but the facts are inarguable. Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic speaks of everything "we" should do to make peace with the Palestinians, then corrects himself to say what Israel should do. Speaker after speaker says that Israel is in our hearts. People who emigrate to Israel are applauded, and when the national anthems are played, one cantor sings the "Star Spangled Banner," but the "Hatikvah" has two cantors belting it out, with the audience roaring along. Maybe most revealing, I heard a right-wing Israeli politician sharply criticizing Olmert's policy in the West Bank. Think of the scandal it would cause if American politicians went abroad and criticized the president's foreign policy. It's no scandal here because AIPAC is a virtual extension of Israel.

   Of course, AIPAC and its roll call of politicians would say that American and Israeli interests are identical. I wonder how those politicians really feel. Their I-love-the-miracle-of-Israel rhetoric is so endless that it creates an undercurrent of doth protest too much--an impression that if there weren't so much money at stake, they would run from Israel with winged heels.

   AIPAC takes care to remind the pols of deeper reasons to help the Jews. The Holocaust imagery never stops. And there is a related theme: that Jews are the golden goose of Western society. The very last of the "Zionist Stories" AIPAC showed before Obama and Clinton spoke was of a scientist, IBM's Nissensohn. The piece emphasized Israel's contribution to high-tech industry from software to desalination, hinting at a traditional Jewish idea: for a society to flourish, it must treat Jews well. Haim Saban's story made the same point. Look what Egypt lost when it forced the Saban family to flee.

   The theme of the conference was "The U.S.-Israel Relationship: Built to Last." But that seems another case of protesting too much. AIPAC is beset on many sides.

   It surely noticed how much attention Palestinians got this spring for commemorations of the Nakba, their dispossession in 1948 and onwards. AIPAC fought back with its own dispossession narrative. About 700,000 Jews, including Haim Saban, were forced out of Arab societies following the formation of Israel. One of them was novelist Eli Amir, who grew up in privileged Baghdad and was forced into a refugee camp in 1950. Amir appeared live by satellite and berated AIPAC for not highlighting his story before this year.

   Another problem for AIPAC is the growing alienation of younger Jews from Israel's hardline policies, especially as those Jews do well here and assimilate. "I worry a lot more about the American Jewish community than I do about Israel--about which I have grave doubts," Wieseltier said.

   AIPAC is happy to work with non-Jewish Americans. At one dinner, I sat at the same table with Mark and Carrie Burns, Christian evangelical radio hosts from Illinois. Carrie said that many Christians she knows will vote on Jerusalem being in the hands of the Jews as a litmus issue. Thus AIPAC may hope to replace dwindling elite influence with populist numbers. I wouldn't hold my breath. Carrie said that at a synagogue she addressed, the first question came from a high-school girl who said, "But isn't Israel an apartheid state?"

   The Jews are quietly leaving the room. Saban described his horror at visiting his son's college, Wesleyan, and seeing a table on peace in the Middle East at which Israel was demonized. Some of the kids at that table were surely Jews.

   Especially now that an alternative lobby, J Street, has formed on its left, AIPAC seems to be making gestures in a more peaceable direction. One was the testimony from Sderot, the Israeli city bordering Gaza that American politicians must learn to pronounce or face political doom. (I think it's Stay-ROTE.) It was inevitable that someone from the region would take the stage, and it's impossible to imagine a more appealing spokesperson than Chen Abrahams, a pretty, soft-spoken kibbutz-dweller of about 40. The audience was utterly quiet as she described the terrible price her community has paid for the siege of Gaza. Nothing like the price the Palestinians have paid, I'd note. Still, if this was schmaltz, it was real schmaltz. At the end of her taped appearance, Abrahams said, "My biggest hope is for peace. I believe in talking to them, I don't believe in wiping them out." I was stunned.

   Then Abrahams came out on stage to a standing ovation, and it struck me that it might be possible to take all the loving energy in this place now directed at helping other Jews and redirect it to great effect. If the AIPAC legions were somehow convinced that Jews will only be safe in the Middle East if the Arabs among them were also safe--without checkpoints, without a siege, with the dignity and freedom that Jews have had in the West--all these arrayed powers might then be directed to a larger idea of family and produce a miracle at last.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:24pm

6. KVH,

   We should not be amplifying distorted views of Obama's position in Afghanistan by ONLY focusing on troop increases. The rest of Obama's statement regarding humanitarian and economic assistance in Afghanistan and a new social mission for our troops there seems to have been missed entirely by the mainstream press AND Netroots.

   It is important that Obama stress the "wrong war" concept of the Republicans by finally bringing bin Laden to justice. This will cement in the voter's mind that Democrats are not soft on defense or terrorism, but are not "dumb" on these security issues either.

   We will use military force when necessary, but we will not lead with war or be over-anxious to engage in it just to satisfy the Military-Industrial-Complex or oil and gas concerns that think it is OK to invade other countries to boost their profits.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/22/2008 @ 7:20pm

7. Iraq was an idiotic move. Afghanistan on the other hand IS the war we should have been fighting. We should find Osama and make him pay for the 4000 Americans he helped to kill.

   "Me also thinks that given that the Iraq War is looking to be a US/Republican win....Magic wants to claim a War victory of his own....in Afghanistan.....after all, to have an on-going war he didn't start, and to finish it with a win that Bush 43 may not, and likely will not, accomplish, has got to be super tempting.....for the first Black POTUS! Perhaps, wishful thinking on my part that we'll exit Afghanistan with another win....Magic may turn tail....just as his liberal genes may dictate......LOL!"

   THIS is political desperation. He can't acknowledge Obama's foresight in thinking that staying in Afghanistan is a good idea. Again, unable to acknowledge anything is good if it is carried out by a Democrat EVEN if it is the same thing a Republican is suggesting.

   Afghanistan should be finished. We should still be searching for Bin Laden. Not playing in the sand box of Iraq. I have no problem with increased troop levels in Afghanistan because it is where we should have been putting our resources in the first place.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:36pm

8. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:25pm

   The Soviets weren't prepared for the type of battle they were going to fight. They got a glimpes of the new method of fighting without actually understanding it. Afghanistan has so much terrain that is friendlier to the person who knows it well. It's not open fields, it's mountains and caves. It's and ugly place to fight.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 11:52pm

9. "Tribal law, with the custom of hospitality, and the vendetta in many forms are rules of life, and even the settled Afghan is very much a soldier. They are able to endure great privation and are sober and stern, and may often become cruel. They have long been free of law and have looked upon taxation as interference to be resisted by force, but now the "modernization" of Afghanistan is said to be proceeding apace."

   The Encyclopedia Britannica 1936 Edition

   Hmm, must have suffered a setback along the way.

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/23/2008 @ 12:52am

10. Funny, HAPPY arguing that we CAN'T win in Afghanistan?!?!??!

    Or is he just so desperate to grasp at SOME straw to throw at Obama...that he'll actually contradict McCAIN AND BUSH!?!?!?!?!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/23/2008 @ 09:23am

11. You lefties have a problem thinking all we need is sustainable development and other fluffy stuff...it is rather difficult having sustainable development when Taliban/Al-Qaeda bullets fly and bombs going off. It takes brutal force to fight these animals. If you don't, they will win and take over again and there sure will not be sustainable development if that happens. Perhaps you actually do not care and in fact you only care about your political agenda. The fact is, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda groups only want to push the entire world back to the 7th century under Islam. If they suceed, you guys would be among the first to have your heads separated from your body.

    Posted by pyeatte at 07/23/2008 @ 2:38pm

12. If they suceed, you guys would be among the first to have your heads separated from your body. Posted by pyeatte at 07/23/2008 @ 2:38pm

    Uhhh. A small terrorist faction using rocket launchers and AK-47s bought on the black market is not going to take over the world. You would have to be an idiot to believe this is possible.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/23/2008 @ 3:01pm

13. Posted by pyeatte at 07/23/2008 @ 2:38pm

    BOO!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:23pm

14. "If elected, Senator Barack Obama has the possibility of reengaging with a world that seeks an America which isn't defined by Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo ...

    No one takes this view of America except idiots,lefty loons,and those who can't stand anything American.

    •••••• nonsense. get your head out of your ham sandwich.

    BTW, we will never leave Iraq..soldiers may not walk the street there armed as the place gets control of its own streets, but we will never leave.

    •••••• kinda like viet nam, ¿right? Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 10:47pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 11:03pm

15. "If elected, Senator Barack Obama has the possibility of reengaging with a world that seeks an America which isn't defined by Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo ...

    No one takes this view of America except idiots,lefty loons,and those who can't stand anything American. BTW, we will never leave Iraq..soldiers may not walk the street there armed as the place gets control of its own streets, but we will never leave.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 10:47pm

    well,

    looks like those leftyloony, americahatin' brits are at it again:

    Britain can no longer believe what Americans tell us about torture, an MPs' report to be published today claims. . . .

    IN A DAMNING CRITICISM OF US INTEGRITY, THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE SAID MINISTERS SHOULD NO LONGER TAKE AT FACE VALUE STATEMENTS FROM SENIOR POLITICIANS, INCLUDING GEORGE BUSH, THAT AMERICA DOES NOT RESORT TO TORTURE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIA ADMITTING IT USED "WATERBOARDING". THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE WAS UNRESERVEDLY CONDEMNED BY FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND, WHO SAID IT AMOUNTED TO TORTURE.

    A change in approach would have implications for extradition of prisoners to the US, especially in terror or security cases, as the UK has signed the UN convention which bars sending individuals to nations where they are at risk of being tortured. . . .

    Today's committee report said there were "serious implications" of the striking inconsistencies between British ministers continuing to believe the Bush administration when it denies using torture. "THE UK CAN NO LONGER RELY ON US ASSURANCES THAT IT DOES NOT USE TORTURE, AND WE RECOMMEND THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RELY ON SUCH ASSURANCES IN THE FUTURE," said the committee. "We also recommend that the government should immediately carry out an exhaustive analysis of current US interrogation techniques on the basis of such information as is publicly available or which can be supplied by the US."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 11:17pm

16. "She points out just how different this very backward country is compared to Iraq......most Afghanis are illiterate, for one.....and the much more insurgent-friendly terrain with very few paved roads.

    There is some similarity w/KvH's warning.....anyone with serious interest in this War, especially the Libs who claim NOT to be pacifists.....should read up. The Soviets lost there for some damn good reasons....yeah, I know, Charlie Wilson was ONE big one.

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:25pm

    I don't think I'm "twisting" too many words, HAPPY, to say you're painting a picture there of an "unwinnable war"...

    the question becomes WHY?

    Simple...because you're trying to BOTH build CYA cover for Bush blowing Afghanistan....and you want to try to shift the blame to the coming Obama Administration, since he is willing to try to stabilize the country in a way that Dubya IGNORED after Iraq got going.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:26am

17. Mark my words Frosty...we ain't leaving Iraq.Not like the left wants... and yes, many on the left do view America with disdain...the worlds hard left always have and always will, since they are mostly rejected everywhere. Did you check mout that web site I sent you on oil? Also, did you see 90 billion bbls in Arctic..guess who is going drilling "Up North"... Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/24/2008 @ 10:57am |

    Many on the right hate America for the same reasons. I love this idea that liek right love America and the left hate it. Many on the right hate America.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 12:18pm

18. While Iraq was and is the wrong war, It was also poorly supported, poorly fought, and, even with the "surge" there were too few troops to secure the country. Before the war started, General Shinseki said we would need several hundred thousand troops to secure the country. We would have needed the draft to properly conduct the war. The reason the violence has lessened is because Al- Qaida was seen as a more serious threat than the occupation by Sunni and Shia communities, and they turned on them. Everything was done wrong in this war! From privatizing support elements, to poor equipment, and planning. The money wasted on security companies, missile defense systems, and corporate welfare is mind boggling. Because of 9/11, I support the war in Afghanistan, but I have no illusions. It will be long, hard, horrible, and failure will be certain if we don't get the Industrial side of the Military/Industrial complex under control. GOVERNMENT DOES IT CHEAPER! The fewer troops we have deployed in Afghanistan, the more we will be dependent on FIREPOWER to compensate for the lack of numbers. This increases the possibility of collateral damage. Either do it right or don't do it at all. Learn from the Iraqi experience! Al-Qaida will not go away!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/24/2008 @ 1:42pm

19. Buying off warlords & tribal chiefs will only go so far. The Taliban, along with "nationalistic" elements will resist any occupation. We have a chance to monitor potential terrorist training camps & other highly organized efforts to disperse these people around the globe. But our long term presence & the seek & destroy missions & the inevitable collateral damage will unify & expand the opposition. The Durand Line & FATA are the most likely place to find Bin Laden & lieutenants. These areas are peopled by the Pashtun & Baluch; fierce tribesmen who yield to no one.Historically such "free zones" have existed within municipalities as well as provinces, oftentimes tolerated by "ruling" parties. Keeps the dangerous contained, but hey this is the electronic age...

    Posted by Sorelish at 07/24/2008 @ 4:08pm

20. Bush claimed Afghanistan a Victory in War on Terror back in 2004.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/28/151653/290/570/465226

    Afghanistan is a deathtrap and could turn into another VIETNAM

    Posted by danos714 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:05am

21. No, the left has to rethink its reflexive opposition to the use of military force against all opponents of the so called West, though it is clear after the attack on the Indian embassy that the Taliban-al Qaeda alliance plans on escalating tensions in Kashmir and using weapons of mass destruction against India (even before the US or Israel). This alliance will want to goad India into a nuclear first strike. The sanctuaries on the Pakistani side of the border have to be eradicated as terror plots of increasing sophistication will be planned and organized from there. It was imperialism that made Bush leave Afghanistan before the Taliban were vanquished. He wanted to occupy Iraq as an end in itself, and as a staging ground for regime change in Iran and Syria. But for the sake of our security as citizens, we should demand that the Taliban be split from their Pasthun base through reconstruction aid and then militarily defeated. Vandenheuvel is living in hippy land.

    Posted by hartal at 07/25/2008 @ 04:23am

22. Me also thinks that given that the Iraq War is looking to be a US/Republican win....Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 5:31pm

    Happy, First of all, neither the republicans nor the democrats on the hill have fought in Iraq so non of them can claim Iraq as "their" victory.

    Secondly, what have we won in Iraq? We have spent a trillions dollars on the war there, run the Army into the ground, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and many an innocent civilian which in turn creates enemies to the United States.

    So, aside from a victory for Shell Oil, British Petroleum, and Exxon Oil, what did we win? We haven't won a thing. We are not the worlds police force. All we have managed to do is piss the rest of the world off at us, allow AQ to get stronger and regroup in Pakistan and possibly Saudi Arabia, and bankrupt our own nation with the Iraq debacle. Meanwhile, our infrastructure is crumbling, the housing market is tanking, the banks are having to be bailed out by the tax payers and you think we've won something?!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/25/2008 @ 10:36am

23. I am in total agreement with Katrina V. Barack Obama is making a mistake if he goes wily nily into Afghanistan. He must use the diplomatic route that he has so often talked about. He must address root causes of the hatred toward the US and he must be willing to help rebuild this country that we have helped destroy

    CBundy

    Posted by cbundy at 07/25/2008 @ 7:02pm

24. It's time to put away the fantasies of empire that inspired boys of the past like Gunga Din. There will be no soul stirring notes from distant Highland Pipers & the sight of dashing Bengal Lancers arriving to save the day. Dusty trails may still have to be marched & our nation protected, but it's time we in the West rethought our place in the world.

    Posted by Sorelish at 07/25/2008 @ 9:16pm

25. Dear God Katrina take the message to his campaign. You need a louder megaphone, a bigger pulpit. Our dear senator risks becoming a sycophant to the powerful in their gated communities selling their souls for some illusion of security without regards for the common good of humanity in general. His demonizing of Iran and his Afghanistan stand is, I agree, really frightening. China and Russia have held joint military exercises, China has major oil contracts with Iran. There isn't anything better for the Russians than for us to sink another trillion or two of American sweat equity in Afghanistan. The spooks that I know tell me that it doesn't cost that much to capture a world famous terrorist. Osama bin who?

    and bring Robert Scheer with you

    Posted by julien38 at 07/26/2008 @ 2:38pm

26. I agree with you Katrina, but at the end of the day we are Americans. We can't solve problems (especially complicated ones) without the military. We should just declare a new war on poverty, and a new war on drugs, in Afghanistan and send in the Marines. That should work.

    Posted by swarming21 at 07/28/2008 @ 1:55pm