====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Today in Endless War By Glenn Greenwald - Tuesday, Jun 21, 2011 07:22 ET As usual, there are multiple events from just the last 24 hours vividly highlighting the nature of America's ongoing -- and escalating -- posture of Endless War: *(1)* In December, 2009, President Obama spoke at West Point and, while announcing his decision to (yet again) deploy more troops to Afghanistan, he assured the nation<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6705332/Afghanistan-Barack-Obama-sets-date-of-July-2011-to-begin-withdrawal.html>in a much-heralded vow that "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." He repeated that claim in May, 2010, prompting headlines<http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-12/politics/us.afghanistan.karzai_1_president-karzai-afghan-governments-afghanistan?_s=PM:POLITICS>declaring that Obama has set July, 2011 as the target date for when "withdrawal" from Afghanistan will begin. Now we're less than two weeks away from that target, and *The New York Times* today makes clear<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/world/asia/21policy.html?_r=1&hp>what "withdrawal" actually means: President Obama plans to announce his decision on the scale and pace of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan in a speech on Wednesday evening . . . Mr. Obama is considering options that range from a Pentagon-backed proposal to *pull out only 5,000 troops* this year to an aggressive plan to withdraw within 12 months *all 30,000 troops* the United States deployed to Afghanistan as part of the surge in December 2009.. . . . Even after all 30,000 troops are withdrawn, *roughly 68,000 troops will remain in **Afghanistan**, twice the number as when Mr. Obama assumed office.* So even under the most "aggressive" withdrawal plan the President is considering -- one that he and media outlets will undoubtedly tout as a "withdrawal plan" (the headline on the *NYT* front page today: "Obama to Announce Plans for Afghan Pullout") -- there will still be "twice the number" of American troops in that country as there were when George Bush left office and Obama was inaugurated. That's what "withdrawal" means in American political parlance: *doubling* the number of troops fighting a foreign war over the course of four years. *(2) *So frivolous and lawless are Obama's excuses for waging war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Resolution that they have provoked incredibly harsh condemnations even from those who typically defend the President. In *The Washington Post* today, Eugene Robinson aggressively denounces<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-novel-definition-of-hostilities/2011/06/20/AGrFhVdH_story.html>Obama's arguments for waging war without Congress: Let’s be honest: President Obama's claim that U.S. military action in Libya doesn’t constitute "hostilities" is *nonsense, and Congress is right to call him on it.* Blasting dictator Moammar Gaddafi’s troops and installations from above with unmanned drone aircraft may or may not be the right thing to do, but it's clearly a hostile act. Likewise, providing intelligence, surveillance and logistical support that enable allied planes to attack Gaddafi's military -- and, increasingly, to target Gaddafi himself -- can only be considered hostile. These are acts of war. Yet Obama, with uncommon *disregard for both language and logic*, takes the position that what we are doing in Libya does not reach the "hostilities" threshold for triggering the War Powers Act, under which presidents must seek congressional approval for any military campaign lasting more than 90 days. House Speaker John Boehner said Obama's claim *doesn't meet the "straight-face test," and he's right*. . . . Most important, what are we doing there? Are we in Libya for altruistic or selfish reasons? Principles or oil? Assuming Gaddafi is eventually deposed or killed, then what? Do we just sail away? Or will we be stuck with yet another ruinously expensive exercise in nation building? There's also a moral question to consider. The advent of robotic drone aircraft makes it easier to wage war without suffering casualties. But without risk, can military action even be called war? Or is it really just slaughter? Afghan War advocate Andrew Exum similarly condemns<http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/06/its-war.html>Obama's attempt to justify violation of the WPR as "simply one of the stupidest things I've read in some time" and -- echoing Robinson -- proclaims that "it does not pass the laugh test." And in *The New York Times*<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html?ref=opinion>, Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman explains that, through their lawyer-cherry-picking, "the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years," and adds: >From a moral perspective, there is a significant difference between authorizing torture and continuing a bombing campaign that may save thousands of Libyans from slaughter by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. *But from a legal viewpoint, Mr. Obama is setting an even worse precedent.* Although Mr. Yoo's memos made a mockery of the applicable law, they at least had the approval of the Office of Legal Counsel. In contrast, Mr. Obama's decision to disregard that office's opinion and embrace the White House counsel's view is *undermining a key legal check on arbitrary presidential power.* And it's always worth recalling that this is being done by a President who made restoration of "the rule of law" a *centerpiece* of his campaign. full article – http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/21/endless_war/index.html ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
