Thursday, March 11, 2010

Stop Pretending it’s Not a War

What is happening in Afghanistan is called war yet people discuss it as if it is something else especially those defending the war. We invaded Afghanistan with our military and are now occupying some areas and we are killing Afghans which is a pretty good description of war. We aren’t protecting Afghans we are bombing them. Almost every day in the news you hear or read of Afghan deaths resulting from the U.S. and NATO bombs. It’s war so let’s stop pretending that it isn’t. This is where all the drivel about nation building, democracy, and humanitarian efforts stem from not a heartfelt desire to raise the brown heathens to lofty white western standards. And if it all sounds like a lot of self conflicting rubbish that’s because it is.

As near as I can tell in the history of the world no nation ever invaded another nation because the invader believed that the invadee needed help yet today America is different. We aren’t the same as those old style imperialists. We’re new and modern and well, we’re different, don’t you get it? What’s the matter with you? That body lying in the dust isn’t a body, its a bilateral collateral collusion of negative force feed data. See? Never, ever, call anything what it actually is as that would be crass. And thus the illusion of normalcy is maintained and spun at an even and uniform rate.


Yesterday the House overwhelmingly, as in overwhelming,voted to continue the Afghan War by voting down Dennis Kucinich’s resolution to end the Afghan War. People want bipartisanship to get things done? Well here you go. Our bipartisan warmongers have just delivered you more endless war, the fruit of bipartisanship. But then of course people like Kucinich and Ron Paul are just fringe lunatics. Anyone who questions the collective world view held by most politicians are ridiculed while main stream political hacks like Obama are glorified beyond anything reasonable and with little or no real justification other than his charisma and even that is half imagined.

If Dennis Kucinich could introduce and fight for a resolution to end the Afghan War why couldn’t Obama? Obama could but he didn’t and won’t because Obama believes in the imperial road. But look at how the House voted. The vote was 356 to 65 which is a resounding reaffirmation of congressional allegiance to war. A completely bipartisan effort. There simply is almost no opposition to the Afghan War in this House of Representatives. Not on the republican side and not on the democratic side. Meet the War Party as some like to call them. An appropriate name. And let’s stop pretending that it isn’t a war yet I doubt we can do even that.

5 Comments:

At March 11, 2010 6:49 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Maybe we're reduced to debating whether the democratic is broken or "merely busted." I'll bet you'll find some people to debate that.

Rob, I realize that the Tonkin Gulf resolution was overwhelmingly supported by both parties in '64, but using the same timeline, even if you adjust it to starting in 2003 when people began to "notice" that we were going to go to war again would mean that it's like it's at least 1971 today, but support and opposition to the war effort(s) both seem pretty malleable, if the polls are to be believed.

Earlier today Chris Floyd linked to the same Antiwar.com article as you did, and observed that the major US news portals were likely to bury it, which of course they did.

One of many bitter ironies is the fact that the Afghan war debate was buried in part by news of the collapse of the school system in Kansas City, another example of (Obama's) democrats failing to do what they're traditionally supposed to do.

 
At March 11, 2010 8:07 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Jonathan, I agree that public support is malleable especially in regards to perception of winning and losing though my point is there is little opposition to the war in congress as the vote clearly showed. The part of my post regarding people pretending we aren’t really at war is a reaction to a conversation I had with a friend the other day where I was struck by the fact that my friend wasn’t really admitting that we were waging war but rather participating in a “humanitarian” effort and that we had to get al Qaida. It was just like Ron Paul said in his five minute speech, people still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that the attack originated from Afghanistan, a tribute to our news media I suppose.

 
At March 12, 2010 3:39 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

Members of my own family and several good friends will not even discuss the possibility that O. is as corrupt as other politicians, especially when it comes to supporting the war machine. My brother is SURE O.'s ultimate aim is to "help" people in the middle east, just as soon as he--well, slaughters enough of them, I guess. My friend and fellow member of our peace group, thinks O. is surrounded by people who are leading him astray. That's why I'm convinced O.'s ascendency was the worst happening for the peace movement; it was so easy to hate Buch and is so difficult not to love Obama.

 
At March 12, 2010 3:43 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

Sorry, I accidentally pressed "publish" instead of "edit" and I don't know how to take it back once it's posted. I was about to change my comment, as I think I was off-topic, but you get the drift.

 
At March 12, 2010 9:26 AM, Blogger rob payne said...

Mimi,
Not at all, your comment is very relevant and I agree that the election of Obama was bad for the peace movement such as it is. It gets us back to that old saw “would you react the same if Bush did it.”

 

Post a Comment

<< Home