Photobucket

Obama Will Increase the Number of Troops in Afghanistan. Obama: The most War like President Ever?

by: Stu Piddy

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 14:38:28 PM EDT


Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy," "I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there - beyond what we already have." Barack Obama, Meet the Press: September 20th 2009

This comment is a ruse. It is intended to convey the attitude of Barack Obama as someone who is reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan. It is part of a play. Another part of the play are leaks that Stanley McChrystal is in some way the antagonist in the drama, calling for more troops. When we recieve government supplied information or "leaks" from unnamed government sources about the in house dynamics of our government, the infighting that is said to occur, we must be at least sketptical. Almost all information about the government comes from the government, through, not from "independent sources".  

Stu Piddy :: Obama Will Increase the Number of Troops in Afghanistan. Obama: The most War like President Ever?
I believe Obama will call for more troops in Afghanistan. I believe there will be a general increase in military activity, air bombing and dispersal of troops and especially of "invisible" private contractors thoughout the world and most immediately in Pakistan.

General McChrystal has allegedly asked for 40.000 according to "confidential" documents leaked to the press. Perhaps Obama will give him 20,000 since that is the amount of troops he is REALLY asking for or that they have agreed upon in advance.

In order to make this troop increase palatable, Obama must look reluctant to sending them. That will keep the "left" confused and unable to mount a response and the troop increase satisfies the right.

Obama always sides with whoever he perceives as being the strongest. The military is always seen as the stongest and he will always side with them. The military and it's advisors and interts will always be percieved by Obama as stronger than civilian interests. The Military and it's ubiquitious private contractors have the influence and wealth to promote themselves in order to gain more influence and wealth. Private contractors are actually able to lobby, to bribe and even to threaten in a way that the military is not equipped to do. Their interests are very similiar.

Obama may turn out to be the most militant of presidents. I believe he will be using the military everywhere. He is sending troops to Columbia who will fight, according to the Ambassador of Columbia, William Brownfield, in the jungles and cities of Columbia against FARC. The real reason for U.S. troops being sent to Columbia is to fight Venezuela or at least to bring about, or be prepared for that eventuality.

Recently Obama has decided not to install defensive missiles in Europe and this pleases the Russians. The reason for this action is to make way most probably for a military blockade of Iran and or bombing of Iran.

Additionally one might ask why are so many people suddenly being arrested for terrorism?

The reason is simple.

It's a set up.

The U.S. population is being prepared psychologically for a major troop increases by Obama in Afghanistan. This is the same pattern that Bush used. The idea is to create fear, uncertainty among the people. In a climate of fear, things like troop increases and general military action become acceptable

It's time to start recognizing the patterns. These patterns have occurred countless times in the Bush administration. Homeland security alert levels always preceded an increase in troops or some military or even domestic action or congressional vote.

America is being set up. The emotions of the American people are being played with. Americans are being made to feel fear. The controlling interests of this nation see the population as objects to be manipulated. This is occurring in governments all over the world. It's the political style or the ruling classes as they concentrate wealth and power to an almost exclusive level. The fear that people experience is in fact secretly relieved when Obama announces a major troop increase.

Whether someone is Liberal or Conservative they may be, most likely relieved to find the troops are going to Afghanistan to protect them. We become only dimly aware the relief and do not associate the introduction of fear with the relief of "troops being sent to "protect" America".

And so there is no protest.

Additionally we find "terrorists"  are being arrested with little evidence or through a dubious entrapment and charged with terrorism. This illustrates the idea of the previous administration that new attacks are imminent. There have however, been NO Attacks. The only people involved in any attacks are individuals supplied with money and weapons under the supervision of the government who then arrest these people under an entrapment scheme.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama the real War President (0.00 / 0)
Here's an interesting article that shows that the minister of propaganda during the Bush administration is still working....for Obama.

The similarities between Bush and Obama never end..there's a reason...Obama simply continues what Bush started and is even amplifying it.


His imperial policy is getting to be a real mess (0.00 / 0)
I feel he wants to be a properly imperialistic and warlike President, but he may just be incompetent enough imperialism-wise to screw it all up. And that might include excessive hemmming and hawing about boosting troops again in AfPak. Which would be great!

Let's not forget his main foreign policy team is neophyte Hillary, that dimwit Vice President, his neophyte self, and a bunch of confused, naive and very inexperienced Clinton-era relative youngsters like Susan (?) Price. It ain't like the 'good old days' of aggressive militarism when you had very experienced pure-evil lizards like Rumsfeld and Cheney running everything.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


I don't think so (0.00 / 0)
The entire Bush Pentagon is still present. He hasn't done anything different from Bush. He's even said the real battle is in Afghanistan. How about that troop withdrawal in Iraq....?

Hilliary wants the troop increase as does Gates...according to the press ...and Biden wants special ops no troop increase...according to the press.

Politically he's covered if it's a troop increase...if he doesn't increase the troops he'll be attacked by the military, industry and people in his own party...he's going to side with the military....he doesn't do anything unless it's going to be seen as putting him in a postive light.

That's his pattern.  


[ Parent ]
I agree, but I think he'll increase the troops less than the Pentagon wants (0.00 / 0)
If he goes along with its super-aggressive -- YOU MUST DO THIS -- push for more troops that makes him look like a whimp. The Pentagon is playing him wrong. We'll see.

Anyway, to stomp down effectively on the Afghan patriots, Obama'll need way more than 100K troops, which is what the Pentagon sez it wants right now.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
What I'm saying is that the US military could lose over there. (0.00 / 0)
See this article, it looks like the blame game might be starting already:

http://www.counterpunch.org/po...

Obama's main thing to think about is how to avoid being blamed at the wrong time (just before an election). He should start now to wind down and scale back, mebbe compromise with the more reasonable of the Taliban and get some kind of coalition govt going in Afghanistan. But I don't think he'll do that. Likely he'll try to do a half-assed version of what the generals want, and that won't work either.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
Afghanistan is not "winnable" (0.00 / 0)
Could lose?

They have no chance of winning anything anywhere.

Where have they ever won? Grenada?

Iraq....Iran was the winner...and that's just, as I see it, a situation waiting to explode or simmer forever with the Sunnis..


[ Parent ]
Pentagon vs Obama? Not really (0.00 / 0)
I have the feeling he really backs the Pentagon and this contest between him and the Pentagon really has only an element of truth to it.

More likely they have already agreed to send more troops, but he needs to make it look like he's reluctant for political consumption.


[ Parent ]
You may be right, but (0.00 / 0)
the countervailing factor would be the lack of support for this President from areas of the country that tend to be most supportive of the military. If areas that have willingly "supplied" soldiers to these conflicts stop enlisting new recruits due to antipathy to the Commander in Chief, what would happen to all these plans?

I doubt the military has any problems recruituing (4.00 / 1)
If they do all Obama has to do is create over 50% unemployment in the 16-24 year olds... oh he already did that?

"Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it", Helen Keller, communist.

[ Parent ]
Ah! So people's economic circumstances (0.00 / 0)
may indeed affect the choice to join the military? Is that what you are saying here?

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
and their choice to join the mob

"Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it", Helen Keller, communist.

[ Parent ]
Obama: the Most Warlike President in History (0.00 / 0)
Wednesday's White House session was believed to have been the most high-powered gathering so far.

It was to have included Vice President Joe Biden; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command; McChrystal; Admiral Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence; CIA Director Leon Panetta; Karl Eikenberry, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan; Anne Patterson, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan; and national security adviser Gen. James Jones.

This says it all....I believe just .ONE PERSON Joe Biden in the entire group is for not sending troops.

How can Obama refuse the PENTAGON?

These strong men with their weapons or Joe Biden with his hair implants...

Obama is set to be the most warlike president ever.


Damn that's one long list of killers (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


Cliques ci-dessous
Mondoweiss
NarcoNews
uruknet
Underwater Deli
Lenin
Arabist
Francis L Holland
Angry Arab
Left I
electronic intifada
Weekly Vice
WildWildLeft
Wal-Mart
Gallery Of The Absurd
FreeFuckZone
EuroTrib
reel newz
jewssansfrontieres
AntiWar
Cephaloblog
CounterPunch
Asia Times
World Socialist
Socialist Worker
Chris Jordan
Fafblog
In Gaza

Nothing here is endorsed by the admin, not even her own bullshit. And you'll be lucky if she's even watching yours.
Powered by: SoapBlox