Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer -- Obama, Progressives and Afghanistan
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:30:30 EST
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Obama,  Progressives and Afghanistan 

Like many Progressives, I disagreed with President Obama’s decision to  
increase the number of American troops deployed to Afghanistan.  But 
Progressives must not lose sight of  the fact, that though we may disagree with this 
particular decision, President  Obama shares a progressive vision of American 
foreign policy – including  Afghanistan -- that differs  fundamentally from 
that of his Neo-Con predecessor.  
At its core, President Obama’s Tuesday night speech elaborated his plan  to 
end the American military presence in Afghanistan. His  chosen path may not 
end that presence as quickly as many Progressives would  prefer, but he was 
very clear that America will not conduct an open-ended occupation  of 
Afghanistan, and he set a firm  deadline to begin American withdrawal. 
Barack Obama understands that Western occupation of a Muslim country  
ultimately feeds extremism, rather than defeating it. And he understands – as he  
said in his speech – that our relationship with Afghanistan must  
ultimately be as a partner, not as a patron. Barack Obama opposes pre-emptive  war 
and the unilateralism that earned George Bush the enmity of people  
everywhere.  
Let us remember that if Barack Obama had been President eight years ago,  
he would have managed our engagement in Afghanistan completely differently 
from George  Bush – and he would have never invaded Iraq. 
While some Progressives may not fully appreciate the fundamental  
difference between Barack Obama’s approach to the world and that of Bush and  Cheney, 
there is no question that the Neo-Con crowd understands it clearly.  Dick 
Cheney’s attacks on the President  are not simply partisan politics.  His 
criticism of Obama’s withdrawal deadline is emblematic of a  fundamental 
disagreement in world view. 
The President  rejected the original McChrystal proposal for a gradual 
buildup of American  forces over the next 18 months that was premised on a large 
American presence  over a number of years.  He also  rejected a long-term 
nation-building mission in Afghanistan,  focused heavily on the central 
government there. Instead he chose to bulk up  American forces over the next six 
months, set an 18-month timeline to begin the  disengagement of our 
military, and provide sharp incentives for the Afghan  government to put its house 
in order – and develop their security forces –  immediately. 
I do not  personally agree that increasing the American military footprint 
in  Afghanistan will promote stability or  help us contain al Qaeda.  Like 
many  Progressives, I am increasingly convinced that our military presence 
there fuels  the conflict by generating nationalist opposition to Western 
presence -- and  actually destabilizes the country. 
But I consider the President’s decision to increase short-term troop  
levels to be a tactical disagreement – not a disagreement concerning goals or  
strategic vision. The proof of the pudding will, of course, be in the  eating. 
 Personally, I believe that  by the end of his first term, President Obama 
will have completely withdrawn  American forces from Iraq and  that most 
combat forces will be gone from Afghanistan as  well.  
And I can state with certainty that this President will not have launched  
some other military adventure or begun a new interventionist initiative 
because he does not believe that is the way to create a safe, prosperous and 
peaceful  world.  
We will have a very different world in 2012 with Barack Obama as  President 
than we would have had under the leadership of George Bush or John  McCain. 
 
We must also  remember that the Bush Administration’s eight-year 
mismanagement of the struggle  in Afghanistan – and  diversion of resources to the War 
in Iraq -- left President Obama no truly  good options there.   
America had a  brief window of opportunity after the fall of the Taliban to 
mobilize the world  to provide the economic, political support that could 
make a real change in  Afghanistan –and then to withdraw our military 
presence as soon as  possible.  Unfortunately that did  not happen and now our 
nine-year military presence there has caused more and  more ordinary Afghans to 
think of us as occupiers to be expelled, rather than as  partners in 
building their country.  This problem is particularly acute in rural Afghanistan,  
which has never really considered itself subject to central government 
control –  and where the tradition of fighting foreign occupiers goes back 
millennia.  
But let’s not pretend that our military disengagement from  Afghanistan 
will be simple.  Quite apart from its impact on  Pakistan, the tribal areas and 
al  Qaeda, let’s remember that the former Taliban government brutally 
suppressed  much of the population – and in particular women.   Today in 
Afghanistan  one-fourth of the women still wear burqas with tiny screens that allow 
only a  partial view of the world.  If the  Taliban were to return to power, 
all women would once again be required to wear  the burqa – and none would 
receive education.  
As we disengage militarily, we have an obligation to do the best we can  to 
leave behind a government that can protect women from oppression, and  
provides hope for long-term economic development. 
As an ardent opponent of the War in Iraq – and before that the Viet Nam War 
-- I  certainly understand the passion of Progressives who oppose sending 
more troops  to Afghanistan.  But whatever the disappointment in the  
President’s decision, it must not be allowed to overwhelm the enormous stake  
Progressives have in Barack Obama’s success.   
I read an article yesterday by a prominent Progressive that said it was  
now time for him to scrape off the Obama bumper sticker.  Wrong. 
The Obama presidency  presents an unprecedented historic window for 
progressive change. Our ability to  succeed rests heavily on Barack Obama’s success 
as President. Just as  importantly, his success and ours depend on the 
mobilization of Progressives  across America to organize for change. If we  don’
t organize to win, the other side will successfully organize to stop  us.   
No one said change would be easy.  Health care reform, re-regulating the 
financial sector, immigration  reform, creating a clean energy economy -- all 
require the political defeat of  powerful, entrenched political and economic 
interests.  For anyone who thought Barack Obama  could snap his fingers and 
make change, think again.  Progressives are engaged in a  protracted, 
multi-year political and economic struggle.  But the big difference is that with  
Barack Obama as President and a Democratic Congress, we are on the 
offensive and  no longer in a defensive crouch.  
We might not agree  with every decision.  We might  fundamentally disagree 
with some.  But we cannot lose sight that we are part of an historic 
progressive  movement for change whose success requires that Barack Obama be 
successful as  well.  
Robert Creamer is a long-time  political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the recent book: “Stand Up  Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _amazon.com_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206567141&sr=8-1
) . 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.