Obama escalates Afghan war, calls for 30,000 more troops

Scan page 1

VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009 WWW.SOCIALISTACTION.ORG U.S. / CANADA $1 Obama’s muted but substantial escalation of the war in Afghanistan shows exactly why the decisive section of American big business decided to turn the helm of their system over to him. The new flavor is “Bush lite.” That is, it is a continuation of the same policies that are characteristic of U.S. capitalism in decline but with an attempt to appear more flexible and collaborative with U.S. allies.

Obama’s Afghhanistan proposal displays some balancing between “progressives” and right-wingers in the U.S. The escalation will be less than the military commanders asked for and less than the right demands—but not much less.

And there is some window dressing about a timeline for the massive U.S. military intervention to end. But the time limit is vague, and it is not a great concession to admit that there has to be an end sometime to the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

Of course, the right wing is uneasy when there is even talk of an exit date. But a Florida Panhandle newspaper (the News Herald of Panama City, one of the most rightwing areas of the country), which opposed the setting of any time limit, noted in an editorial: “Wednesday, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified at a Senate hearing that the withdrawal target was, shall we say, flexible. Clinton said the administration is not ‘locked in’ to a 2011 exit, only that ‘there can be the beginning of a responsible transition’ by that date. Talk about soft-pedaling the situation. That’s like saying you’re prepared to start a (Photo above) On Nov. 20, Navy team at Dover Airforce Base carries coffin of Petty Officer 2nd Class Brian Patton, killed in Iraq.

(Right) Antiwar protest at the White House on Oct. 5.

Jose Luis Magana / AP 1,000-mile trek by taking one step forward.”

Indeed! However, Afghanistan has hardly any longterm economic or strategic value to the United States, unless it eventually becomes host to a pipeline linking the Central Asian oil fields to Pakistan. But it seems that the oil companies have accepted that as a pretty remote prospect. In any case, the U.S. interest in Central Asian oil seems to be more political than economic—designed to prevent China from gaining access and more economic independence. That makes the scheme very speculative.

Pakistan, minus the mirage of an oil pipeline, does not have much strategic value to the U.S. That is why the U.S. put its relations with the country on the back burner after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan. During the Cold War, Pakistan was a useful pawn against an India that was neutralist and friendly to the Soviet Union. That situation has long since ceased to exist.

The U.S. covert intervention in Afghanistan when it was ruled by a pro-Soviet regime, which created the Jihadist threat, was an episode in the now bygone Cold War. Obama had to assure Pakistan that the U.S. would (continued on page 4, in “Bissell workers fight for their jobs”)

Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty Images Lynne Stewart See page 3 Outside UC Regents meeting, Nov. 18. / Davian Dovarganes / AP

----- pull-quotes -----

INSIDE SOCIALIST ACTION: Climate change disaster — 2 Lynne Stewart is jailed — 3

Antiwar response to Obama — 5 Gov’t softpedals jobs crisis — 6 Kevin Cooper denied court date — 7 Canada’s Afghan torture scandal — 8