“Barack of Afpakia”

“Barack of Afpakia”

Today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in Afghanistan, he’ll have to fall back on the support of “Bush Republicans and neocons.” In its lead editorial, it says:

Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, “Why are we in Afghanistan?” The President’s friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to “Obama’s Vietnam.” Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support — to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.

The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in Afghanistan, he’ll have to fall back on the support of “Bush Republicans and neocons.” In its lead editorial, it says:

Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, “Why are we in Afghanistan?” The President’s friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to “Obama’s Vietnam.” Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support — to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.

The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:

The regents are on the ground and commanders are crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge in Afghanistan. Let’s hope he’s willing to see it through when his most stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.

In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions haven’t yet been set in stone about Obama’s Afghan policy. How many troops he adds, if any — whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want — isn’t decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem at Get Afghanistan Right.

Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs, Obama’s spokesman: “I would expect the presidential decision could come shortly.” Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama will make a decision within “days.” But why would the president decide to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote earlier, it’s a classic case of “Ready, Fire, Aim.”

There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: “New US troops in Afghanistan see combat.” MSNBC’s headline is: “3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge.” Strictly speaking, these troops aren’t the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC’s report notes:

The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack Obama’s call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x