President Obama has taken a further plunge into the kind of war abyss that consumed his predecessors -- named Johnson, Nixon and Bush.
On Sunday, during his first presidential trip to Afghanistan, Obama stood before thousands of American troops to proclaim the sanctity of the war effort. He played the role deftly -- a Commander-in-chief, rallying the troops -- while wearing a bomber jacket.
There was something candidly macabre about the decision to wear that leather jacket, adorned with an American Eagle and the words "Air Force One." The man in the bomber jacket doesn't press the buttons that fire the missiles and drop the warheads, but he gives the orders that make it all possible.
One way or another, we're used to seeing presidents display such tacit accouterments of carnage.
And the president's words were also eerily familiar: with their cadence and confidence in the efficacy of mass violence, when provided by the Pentagon and meted out by a military so technologically supreme that dissociation can masquerade as ultimate erudition -- so powerful and so sophisticated that orders stay light years away from human consequences.
The war becomes its own rationale for continuing: to go on because it must go on.
A grisly counterpoint to Obama's brief Afghanistan visit is a day in 1966 when another president, in the midst of escalating another war, also took a long ride on Air Force One to laud and boost the troops.
In South Vietnam, at Cam Ranh Bay, President Johnson told the American soldiers: "Be sure to come home with that coonskin on the wall."
Then, too, thousands of soldiers responded to the president's exhortations by whooping it up. And then, too, the media coverage was upbeat.
In a cover story, Life quoted a corporal who called Johnson's visit the "best morale booster Cam Ranh's ever had."
The magazine piece, written by an eminent journalist of the era, Shana Alexander, went on: "Certainly the corporal was right and so was [White House press secretary Bill] Moyers when he later compared the day to a sermon, in that so much of the real meaning is not in what the preacher says but in what his listeners hear."
The article concluded that it had been a "wild and quite wonderful day."
Fast forward 44 years.
"There's going to be setbacks," President Obama told the troops at Bagram Air Base. "We face a determined enemy. But we also know this: The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something."
The applause line lingered as the next words directly addressed the clapping troops: "You don't quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that."
The president added: "And we'll be there for you when you come home. It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. We're moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams."
Those words provide a kind of freeze frame for basic convolution: The government will help veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries to pursue their dreams.
In the realm of careful abstraction, where actual people are rendered invisible, best not to acknowledge how much better it would be if those veterans could pursue their dreams without suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injuries in the first place.
But such human realities are for private suffering, not public discourse.
The next morning, the front page of The New York Times reported that the president's visit to Afghanistan "included a boisterous pep rally with American troops."
In other words, he was wearing something the military gave him to wear, the same as they did for all the other presidents before him when the established that tradition...and if he did not wear it for such an occasion, it would have been fodder for the conservative press to gripe about. Funny how those on our side (liberals) are makin hay of it now. Its like he can't win.
(nice F4 in your avatar by the way)
What exactly would Norman and his supporters suggest? That we leave Afghanistan and let the Taliban come back to establish a fundamentalist state that oppresses women and minorities, executes homosexuals, etc, etc? A regime that will continue to support Al-Qeida and reopen the terrorist training camps?
Did Norman write any article after 9/11 suggesting we turn the other cheek?
I don't recall that, but perhaps my memory fails me.
I am all in favor of criticism, but it would be great if it were accompanied by a proposal for an alternative solution. Otherwise, it's like the Tea Party/GOP opposition to the banks bailout and health care.
Maybe if he wore a tweed overcoat instead?
He believes that we can and should win this war; which is one of the few things I agree with him on. Given his position, shouldn’t he go over and rally the troops now and then? This isn’t even news, let alone a deeper political scandal.
I understand the REAL reason for this story is an excuse to publicize your book; but even then, it is weak at best.
The President could end it now and go into early retirement along with the Dem Majority but that would leave the GOP back in power and anxious to get out there and improve our war stats. They will have support because we all live in a country where a bulk of the people view foreign policy like a High School football game. If the coach aint winning, he's walking.
Sure, we could have had a wholesale withdrawal, but the failed state of Afghanistan most likely would have returned to the control of the Taliban and drug dealers and faced a future without hope. Sure, expanding the hunt for al Qaida terrorists hiding in Pakistan has cost the lives of innocents and our soldiers, but, without a determined offensive, nuclear-armed Pakistan faced falling into the hands of al Qaida. It is unrealistic to condemn Obama for choosing NOT to ignore these problems.
However, what you have not given him credit for is the significant CHANGE in policy, tactics,and objectives in these two countries, which, hopefully, will produce a faster resolution of these intractable situations, allowing our soldiers to come home sooner.
President Obama did the RIGHT thing in visiting our troops and showing them our support. Making an issue of what he wore is ridiculous and insults the informed, sincere effort he is making to resolve the problems left to him by the last administration!
Also remember, in 1966, as in the author's example: Who led the world in heroin production then? Is it just coincidence that wherever our war machine, and the CIA, goes, heroin production surges? Isn't it also strange that, if we didn't have our current drug laws, the exorbitant profits wouldn't be available to these drug cartels? That we could actually put them out of business in one day if that is what we wanted? Instead, it looks like the CIA uses drugs to raise funds for their black bag ops, doesn't it? Remember the crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980's? Remember who was importing the cocaine to pay for weapons that were being illegally shipped to right wing organizations in central america. End the War on Drugs, and a lot of the real "War" will end too.
At least he didn't start this silly, useless, and expensive war.
Think of all the money and lives that could have been saved if we didn't need to have these insane adventures.
Think of the health care that could have been paid for!
The US has not won a war in over 60 years. America has quit several times.
Activate the draft and America would quit this near-decade long endeavor in Afghanistan.
If anybody doesn't remember that Obama said that he was going to go full bore in Afghanistan during the campaign then you were NOT paying attention.
The people that attacked us on 9/11.....You remember them right?
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq occupation, while pursuing the people that attacked us.
actually they probably won't.... because they are all to busy running the country now..
:-]
How about you Tropkins?
What war did you serve in?
You have been to war haven't you?
You're not one of those Chickenhawks are you?
tropkins is also as well educated as Glenn Beck...Since he keeps using Beck's logic to craft ALL of his arguments.....