Prometheus 6

This is one of the most important events of the election cycle, and I hope the media and Obama camp play it to the hilt. After all the criticism from both Bush and McCain, Bush himself agrees to a timetable of 3 years.

This plays to Obama's judgement.

Does this take Iraq off the table as a galvanizing issue, however?

Good question. I think the human economy, as opposed to the corporate economy, is the driving issue right now (I think casting it in terms of human vs corporate economy might be useful, though since they are connected it would have to be done carefully).

I'd suggest they be glad Bush has come to his senses, but confused as to WHY he came to his sense. I'd suggest it is more proof of the way his policies yield to politics. Given his definitions he actually shouldn't be doing this. So they should keep asking why...why now, what are the facts on the ground that changed since the last time Bush and McCain declared they ain't leaving until the facts on the ground change. Because clearly the change is that the situation as it stands is unsupportable.

This maneuver by Bush is what I was getting at when I told ptcruiser earlier that LBJ undermined the candidacies of RFK and Hubert Humphrey. To persist in Iraq would simply fracture the GOP. A substantial numbers of Republicans disagree with Iraq policy. The harm done by forcing it down their throats will not be compensated for by the meager benefits of open-ended commitment.

Although Bush has removed Iraq as an obstacle to party unity he has confirmed Barack Obama's sound judgment. From calling for reinvigoration of NATO (well before Russian intrigue) to increased emphasis on Afghanistan (also before recent setbacks) to dissolving the partnership with Musharraf (before his abdication) to unlicensed incursions into Pakistani territory for targeted destruction of Taliban redoubts (several weeks before actual operations), Obama has shown a masterful conduct of global relations. All the talk about his purported foreign policy inexperience and weakness is belied by facts and historical turn of events. He's won this thing hands down. It's not even close. What remains is how will affluent educated whites respond?

"...he has confirmed Barack Obama's sound judgment. From calling for reinvigoration of NATO (well before Russian intrigue) to increased emphasis on Afghanistan (also before recent setbacks) to dissolving the partnership with Musharraf (before his abdication) to unlicensed incursions into Pakistani territory for targeted destruction of Taliban redoubts (several weeks before actual operations), Obama has shown a masterful conduct of global relations."

I have to disagree with you here. Obama's positions on these and other related issues is as wrongheaded as the views of Bush and the rest of the neo-con warriors. Obama's views and prescriptions are just a continuation of the American exceptionalism ideals and policies in which we believe, as Americans, that we have the right to remake the world in our own image.

Obama's call for reinvigorating NATO is a classic example of this sort of fallacious thinking. The nations of Europe are not facing any external threat from within or outside the European community of nations. Their relationships with Russia are reasonably harmonious save for the U.S.'s insistence on placing nuclear-armed missiles on Russia's borders. Obama and his advisors are simply continuing the American line of conflating our so-called strategic and global interests with those of the Europeans as if their interests were the same as ours.

The notion of remaking Afghanistan into a modern day liberal democracy is preposterous. Afghanistan has never been a coherent nation state in the way that Americans believe . Obama's myopic vision for Afghanistan could not even be remotely attained without the U.S. invading and occupying that country. And we have no capacity to invade and occupy Afghanistan unless we reinstitute the military draft in this country. It has been noted by people much more knowledgeable than I that Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

Obama's pronouncements on these issues may soothe and reassure the Village and chattering classes but they are a recipe that, if followed, can only lead to further trouble for our nation on the domestic and international front. I am supporting his candidacy because McCain and the folks he represents are truly dangerous but Obama and his foreign policy advisors will find that the projection of American military power no longer conjures up fear and trembling.

I don't dispute the merits of what you say. But as far as the postwar consensus for use of American power goes, Obama is well within the mainstream. Now that logic itself is flawed but it isn't the wholesale upending that neocons have wrought. If Americans truly wanted a complete about face they would have elected Dennis Kucinich or bypassed the political process altogether and initiated revolution. As for Afghanistan precipitating collapse, the empire is already dead. Richard Nixon is reported by Rick Perlstein as saying in 1972 that America had at best one or two years left as an unrivaled hegemon. The US has been managing its collapse since the mid-Seventies.

"But as far as the postwar consensus for use of American power goes, Obama is well within the mainstream."

Yes, Obama is nestled well within the comfortable and increasingly dysfunctional orthodoxies espoused and clung to by the Village and the chattering classes. His position on these matters gives me little reason to hope for change. And gives me absolutely no reason to declare that he is displaying any mastery of global affairs. He is simply pandering to an audience that will not recognize that its time has come and gone. Arguing the correctness of his views on the basis that if Americans had wanted change they would have voted for Dennis Kucinich is illogical, disingenuous and beneath your usual standards.

"The US has been managing its collapse since the mid-Seventies."

Yes, by continually projecting its military power. The events of September 11, 2001 should have demonstrated once and for all the foolishness of this strategy. Not only was the country attacked but its civilian and military leaders were clueless for hours about what to do. George Bush and his entourage were cruising over the country at 35,000 feet in abject terror for hours. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan did not solve or lessen our problems. It compounded them.

We are deeply engaged in confirming Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.

No one can ascend to the presidency and depart from the mores and constraints placed on the office. You single out 9/11 but I would say that 1976 following the purge of Nixon, American withdrawal from Vietnam, and unprecedented degree of engagement with USSR and China was an even more propitious moment for change. Jimmy Carter, the most thoughtful, deliberate and well-intentioned person to occupy the Oval Office was vigorously committed to new way of working in the world. And even he was quite limited in what he could do.

The hurdles needed to be overcome ensures that only the most ambitious and most willing to imbibe institutional logic, no matter how specious, actually rise. The most that can be expected and hoped for from the political process is what has actually been delivered. To think otherwise is delusional. The men and women who occupy elite politics go to the right schools where they are acculturated to the norms of the ruling class. Upon entry into the private and public sector, they advance by proving their effectiveness at serving corporate interests. Black or white, working class or Brahmin it matters not. No one unwilling to abide this gets to the top.

As for Einstein, I'll just recount this tale. I frequently saw this drunk named Joe in the ER. He would come in by ambulance after being found passed out in the street intoxicated. As soon as we'd hydrate, feed, and sober him up he'd be right back less than 24 hours later. He was a veteran with benefits and sometimes we'd get a social worker to arrange placement in detox - he had a private home so a shelter was ruled out. Until he died earlier this year, I would say that I personally took care of Joe well over a dozen times and expended over a million dollars on treating him the last four years (sometimes he'd be in septic shock, intubated, once he had a witnessed cardiac arrest while on the stretcher just by the nurses' station while waiting for a room to become available). If you take into account my immediate colleagues and the probability that he was treated at other hospital centers, this guy probably used up as much healthcare dollars as Michael Jordan made in a year of playing basketball. It can reasonably be argued that we were insane for doing this but it was part of our job description.

"No one unwilling to abide this gets to the top."

All I'm saying is that we don't have to co-sign for this stuff. That's all. We don't have argue that what Obama has said demonstrates any mastery of anything. When we know that it doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. He has just learned these lessons well. Ain't nothing new happening here. Nada.

"The men and women who occupy elite politics go to the right schools where they are acculturated to the norms of the ruling class."

I forgot to say that you have to consciously make an effort to accommodate oneself to these norms. You have to indicate your willingness to purchase a ticket to the dance and not complain about the music or your dance partner. I knew early on that it wasn't the right path for me. I attended these schools, copped my degrees and kept moving. I had some place else in mind to be somebody.

He has just learned these lessons well.

That is the essence of mastery. Who said it has to be new? It's just politics. (I don't have to be enthralled with Lil Wayne to acknowledge that he's mastered the rap game.) And, however undesirable, it is mastery of a sort, especially if you still intend to vote for him despite the copious shortcomings you've documented.

If you told me that I would spend nearly ten years of post graduate training just to master how to treat alcoholics and drug addicts I would have thought you were kidding. But that is indeed what happened. By a long process I learned to set aside what's 'right' and adhere to certain standards no matter how confusing. For example, the other day I got a report from the department chair about a patient who complained about my care. The lady had the vaguest abdominal pain going on for several weeks and had been seen and discharged from another ER the day before. I ordered labs and a CT scan which were normal and while in the ER gave her repeated doses of narcotics more potent than heroin. I discharged her and against my better judgment I gave a script for a short course of Percocet. She returned the next day and was seen by another doctor who admitted her to the hospital.

In this case mastery wasn't about applying strict clinical and objective criteria. It was just doing whatever it took to make her feel better and admitting her to the hospital even though it was unnecessary. The policy prescriptions offered by Obama have so far been the correct ones.

you have to consciously make an effort to accommodate oneself to these norms. You have to indicate your willingness to purchase a ticket to the dance and not complain about the music or your dance partner. I knew early on that it wasn't the right path for me. I attended these schools, copped my degrees and kept moving. I had some place else in mind to be somebody.

And that's why you are and never will be a candidate for President of the United States. But the conscientious objector is vital for progress. We need an inside and outside game. Barack made his choice and you made yours.

Submariner -

We're talking about mastery of a language that defends and support the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human beings. The policy prescriptions offered by Obama may fit your criteria for what is correct but they haven't done those who are dead or who may, perhaps, be killed a lot of good.

The decisions that you make as a physician are based on your scientific medical knowledge and your intuitive judgement. You do not consciously promote a course of treatment that will add to your patient's suffering or, worse, death. Proposing that we should attempt to make Afghanistan into a liberal democratic state is assigning an untold number of people to mayhem and certain death.

If you want to argue that Obama needs to mouth this nonsense in order to be seriously accepted as a candidate then you have no disagreement from me. Those of us who are not part of this ill-fated patriot game should consequently refrain from applauding for the seals when they balance the balls on their noses. It is the treat they are seeking not our approval. They will balance the balls whether we are in the stands or not.

But doctors routinely promote treatments that add to patient morbidity and mortality. We're just better at keeping this secret or creating moral justifications. (Does a person with advanced terminal cancer really need to be put on life support or an elderly, chronically ill, bed-ridden patient need dialysis? The other day my colleague delivered thirty-one shocks to a forty something year old lady in V-fib arrest. Book says to shock so she complied. Lady lived on life support for six days before dying.)

You're absolutely right. It is absurd. We celebrate World War II as a just war and those who lived it as the greatest generation, but, as James Carroll writes, FDR's call for unconditional surrender added millions of unnecessary deaths. Maybe I have the insensitivity endemic to my profession or I appreciate the drama taking place on center stage without regard for the lives of the extras.

"...I appreciate the drama taking place on center stage without regard for the lives of the extras."

I appreciate the drama too but in this case the extras are dying for real, not off stage.

Listen to Sonali Kolhatkar, host of Uprising on Pacifica radio station KPFK discuss the state of her country today. She is co-author of the book Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence and co-director of the Afghan Women’s Mission, a group that works in solidarity with Afghans to help improve health and educational facilities for Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

Her interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! can be heard or downloaded at this site:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/22/afghan_civilians_bear_the_brunt_of

Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history.
-Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs

Trust me, I don't endorse a surge in Afghanistan. And I have a keen appreciation for the perils involved. Like you and Michael Scheuer, I am not sanguine about the prospects for liberal democracy in the region. But nothing I my reading of American history can make me refuse to believe the inevitability of dramatic escalation in that country. Sadly, the viability of the NATO alliance has been linked to Afghanistan.

"...can make me refuse to believe the inevitability of dramatic escalation in that country."

Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

Everyone knows that what is said during the elction cycle should be taken with a grain of salt. We have been exposed to the lies of politicians that will say anything to get elected then go about what they intended to execute all along. The shameful part is the US population is so numb that they accept this playing to the center tactic to get elected.

In the case of what Obama says vs. what he thinks and will ultimately do is ultimately a unknown factor but given his demeanor and his track record I would say that the world will be a more peaceful place with him in office. A black mans negotiations have always been more accepted on the world stage than the Aryan aggressor.

Plus the majority of small decade long conflicts are based upon stealing resources for a corporate proxy. How much independence Obama will execute in his world view is yet to be seen, but I do know that the good ol boy network the GOP has let rape the US and the world will have to scale back their profits and ambitions.

"Everyone knows that what is said during the elction cycle should be taken with a grain of salt."

Are you including the people who we have threatened with military invasion or nuclear destruction? I don't think these folks are taking these kinds of nearly lunatic pronouncements with any grains of salt.

I'm speaking in regards to Obama and the generally centric positions he has moved toward as the general election closes. I don't care what McSame says because I know, endless war is the objective of the military industrial complex.

On the whole Obama has dealt with all international states ( including IRAN ) and situations with a even hand verbally without the cowboy bluster that the NEOCONS have as the only play in their play book. Obama's original position is diplomacy first, negotiations with out preconditions as opposed to the threaten, demand, refuse to talk, then unilaterally invade strategy of McSame. The Georgia incident proved that Obama was right in his assessment vs. the empty threat that was greeted with laughter since everyone in the world knows our draws are down in Iraq and couldn't do anything but bomb a third world undefended country. Russia laughed and told Bush to "get a new speech writer". and the US voter should recognize the conflict of interest of McSame's lobby connection to Georgia.

If Israel wasn't pushing lobby strings, IRAN would never have been an issue to the magnitude it was. In fact it was Israel that helped push us into Iraq coupled with the greed of the Neocons. The US tax payer and soldier were used like a dog to be sic'ed on every "rogue" state in the middle east that they felt threatened them or their dollars. The fact is, it was only after Hezbollah beat them down, backed by Iran that GWB in crew were so fever pitched to bomb and or invade.

Israel feels threatened by an Obama presidency because he would be closer to Jimmy Carter than GWB, their free hand for murder, genocide and apartheid will end and they will be held accountable for their inhumanity. In the mean time Obama has to get enough dumb ass crackas to vote him in without them falling hook line and sinker for the GOP "patriotism" game