The Nobel Prize for War 2009 goes to ...

[rich]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Otto <ottosell at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> The trick to sell this war to the people was to call it not a war but
> "nation building". If this is not the true purpose it's illegal. And
> if the deadline isn't meant seriously it would be bad but I think that
> Obama is serious about it. Does anybody really believe the guy is
> happy about leading those two wars?
_____
that out by 2011 pledge by Obama is sure elastic according to recent
news reports over the last few days.  In fact, Karzai said today, they
would need security help till 2024!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/world/asia/09gates.html?ref=world

despite all the rhetoric, it appears to continue to be an open-ended
war. Obama warned the Pakistanis he would approve more cross border
excursions if they didn't step up the fight against the "taliban" in
that country.

I think what is really distressing is we have still don't know who we
are fighting, we're just blasting folks away, dropping huge bombs on
individuals. My point about the German general's resignation, whatever
the internal politics, was the notable public outcry there and
prodding by the press.
In the US there have been so many of these misguided (or criminal)
incidents that its become very normal to shrug off. In actual fact,
the bellicose nature of US society in foreign policy since 9/11 has
not withered. There's hardly an outcry here, well one insurgent killed
but to get him we had to kill everyone around him. The US is paying
lip service to avoiding collateral damage, but the killing still goes
on.
The upshot is we haven't a clue what to do--and for Obama to escalate
now with all this cluelessness in the air seems pretty ridiculous.

rich


>