tales of copper city

Frank Rich on Afghanistan: remember Vietnam

Frank Rich of the NYT believes that a military build-up can and must be resisted by President Obama.  Of course, if he does he will be bombarded with leaks to the press from the military and accused of "defeatism" by the neo-cons.  But Kennedy refused a military build-up in Vietnam and kept the U.S. in an advisory role. 

Then came LBJ and what Johnson came to call the most disastrous policy of his presidency:  full-scale war in Vietnam.  This decision ruined the Great Society and LBJ's presidency.

While I think the right-wing outcry would be furious, the public generally would likely respect Obama's deicsion to keep the troop levels low.

This may be the most important decision of the Obama administration.

Why Afghanistan may be inevitable

This article ("Entangled Giant") in the New York Review of Books, by Garry Wills is a brilliant and brief summary of why "national security" has become a prison for our presidents, and indeed, for all of us. 

The creation of the National Security Council, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and the Air Force shortly after WWII has led to disastrous consequences.  It has accelerated the Imperial Presidency, it has diminished the role of Congress in foreign affairs and defense, it has led to a militant patriotism, and on and on. 

This brief summary by Wills, one of our leading social critics, is the best explanation of why President Obama will find it near impossible to quickly extricate the U.S. from Afghanistan (even if he wanted to), or leave iraq, or diminish our myriad (perhaps a thousand!) military installations around the world.  

The national security establishment has become a power unto itself and it must be served, no matter who is in office. Nothing threatens our democracy more than this, not even right wing stupidities. The national security state thrives and flourishes on the discovery of ever new dangers and fears to justify its imperial reach.  Others have said similar things; few have said it so succinctly.

Frank Rich on Glenn Beck

Frank Rich's NYT Sunday column on Glenn Beck ("Even Glenn Beck is right twice a day.") is chilling---for two reasons.  Rich points out Representative Joe Wilson's (Rep., SC) anger and outburst during President Obama's speech were not only public; they were in the room.

Wilson, despite the vote against him, got away with a public and angry attack in the presence of the president, and this may just make the Secret Service's job really more difficult. (The media publicizing protesters wearing sidearms in sight of Obama hasn't helped either.)

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

What in the world are we doing in Afghanistan?   When will we have a president who has the courage to look the generals and the right wing in the eye and say, "No more. No more dying for lost causes. Get the men and women home, safe, and do it now."

Voting yes, then no, on reform

Ed Kilgore in The New Republic has a critical article on a procedural issue facing the Democrats:  voting to end the filibuster against health care reform.  As everyone now knows, the Dems are contemplating ramming health care reform through on a reconciliation measure, which is budgetary legislation that requires only a majority vote.  The problem with this procedure is that it puts the whole matter in the hands of the Senate parliamentarian and he may rule that the legislation doesn't meet the standards for budget reconciliation.  

That takes us back to the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster by the Republicans.

If Massachusetts appoints someone to fill the Kennedy vacancy quickly, the Democrats have the 60 votes.  But some Democrats may be intending to vote against reform and will also vote with the Republicans against killing the filibuster. This is totally unacceptable.