*This Is Not Your Father’s War- But It May Be Your Children’s- Obama’s Afghan War

Click On Title For Link To Associated Press Story On Obama's Afghan War Budget.

This Is Not Your Father’s War- But It May Be Your Children’s- Obama’s Afghan War- Vote No With Both Hands On The War Budget!

President withholds torture photos as national security measure. President revives military tribunals. Congress gets ready to pass President’s supplementary Afghan/Iraq war budgets. Correct me if I am wrong but is this May 15, 2008 or May 15, 2009. These are headlines formerly associated with the Cheney/Bush Administration. For those who are ready to shed a few dogmatic illusions the contours of the Age of Obama are starting to come into focus. And it isn’t pretty. The streets are not for dreaming now. Read on.


Commentary

Sometime soon, perhaps as this commentary is being written on Friday May 15, 2007, the Democrat Party-controlled Congress will have passed the latest supplemental war budget appropriations asked for by the Obama Administration (actually more that they asked for, nice right?). I have already noted previously in a commentary earlier this year, as this issue surfaced, that such supplementary war budgets were a hallmark of the …Bush Administration. But we will let that little issue pass because the “big deal” here is how little opposition (and press coverage) there has been now that the “good guys” are in charge. The epitome of such servile non-opposition (Ouch! Sorry for this awkward expression.) is exemplified by the lack on efforts to oppose this war budget by the so-called “anti-war’ Progressive Democratic Caucus. The “highlight” of Democratic opposition centers on a bill by left-liberal Massachusetts Democratic Congressman James McGovern to “require” the Pentagon to come up with an “exit” strategy for Afghanistan by the end of this year. So much for the vaunted parliamentary opposition. Hence the title of the headline of this commentary.

Such innocuous and, frankly, baffling legislation does not even come close to rising to the occasions in the past where the likes of Congressman McGovern at least voted against the war budget. If Congressman McGovern represents the most extreme left expression within the Democratic Party on war issues, and I believe that he does, one hardly needs a crystal ball to realize that the already almost eight year American presence in Afghanistan has just gotten a lot longer. Add to that the recent decisions to have “Shoot first, and let god sort the rest out” General McChrystal replace the old-line armchair General McKiernan and you now know why at the very beginning of this Obama Administration I stated that he has staked his place in history on the outcome of that war. For those who despair that their children will be fighting in Afghanistan I do have a simple solution. Fight around this slogan- Obama- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops From Afghanistan (and Iraq). Do it for the kids.


********

House Passes War Funds As 51 Democrats Dissent

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 15, 2009


The House passed a bill yesterday that would provide more than $96 billion in funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Sept. 30, as President Obama had requested, but a bloc of 51 Democrats opposed it.

Democratic opponents are accusing Obama of the same charge they leveled against his predecessor: escalating a war without a clear exit strategy.

The bill passed 368 to 60, with 200 Democrats and all but nine Republicans supporting it.

Democratic opponents did not attack Obama by name, but some likened his increase of 21,000 troops and billions of dollars to win the war in Afghanistan to President George W. Bush's efforts in Iraq.

"When George Bush was president, I was on this floor saying we need an exit strategy," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The same applies with Afghanistan. I'm tired of wars with no deadlines, no exits and no ends."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who also voted against the bill, said that "this bill simply amplifies and extends failed policies."

The vote came the same day that another part of Obama's security agenda -- closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- drew criticism from his party. The Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that includes $50 million to close the prison, as Obama promised during the campaign.

But the measure bans Obama from using the money to bring any of the 241 detainees to the United States, a move that administration officials have suggested might be necessary to get other countries to accept prisoners. The measure also requires the administration present Congress with a detailed plan on closing the prison before the money can be used.

Senate Democratic leaders criticized Obama for not having presented such a plan, as Republicans continue to highlight the issue and accuse the administration of putting Americans at risk with its proposal to bring potential terrorists to the United States.

Obama defended his strategy for Afghanistan in a meeting late last month with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of more than 70 liberal members, many of whom opposed the funding bill. But most House Democrats indicated they want to give Obama's strategy a chance to succeed.

"The questions that were not being asked are now being asked," said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who voted for the supplemental funding.

House Democratic leaders refused to back an effort by McGovern and other antiwar legislators that would require Obama to provide Congress a detailed exit strategy for Afghanistan by the end of the year.

Some Democratic senators, particularly Russell Feingold (Wis.), have also criticized Obama's proposal, but the funding is expected to be approved there, possibly as soon as next week. Republicans have said they might oppose increased funding for the International Monetary Fund, a request that has been inserted in the Senate version.

Some liberal activist groups, such as MoveOn.org, which sharply criticized Bush's efforts to increase troops in Iraq two years ago, have said little about Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan.

The failed effort to amend the House bill illustrated the ineffectiveness of some of the House's most liberal members. While the caucus of conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs has effectively blocked some of Obama's proposals, such as a ban on assault weapons, liberal Democrats have struggled with two of their biggest priorities: establishing a commission to investigate allegations of violations by the Bush administration; and greater reductions of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

McGovern said he remains concerned about Obama's policy in Afghanistan but is not sure exactly what he and others could do.

"I like Barack Obama; I thank God he's president; I think he will be a great president," McGovern said. "But sometimes great presidents make mistakes."