Guest blogger Michael Weiskopf goes after the NY Times for endorsing the Afghanistan buildup — a position I do not agree with, but one which a number of my friends and readers do, so I’m posting Michael’s comments:
Concerning The New York Times editorial endorsing the Afghanistan buildup and Peter Baker’s NY Timesarticle “How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan,” I respectfully I disagree.
Mr. Baker’s story evoked the famous Yogi Berra line “It’s Déjà’ vu all over again.” By virtue of the culture lens of the NY Times,, once again the paper is playing the role of cheerleader for an administration’s generals as they beat the drums of war. While reading I checked the byline several times to see if Judith Miller was the writer.
Public support for any military action is essential in a democracy. The “Intelligentsia” also must be brought along, at least in the initial stages. And once again, the NY Times seems to understand and dutifully fulfill its role.
Baker’s article profiling the “lonely and difficult decision that the new president must face,” is a portrait of the corridor of power and of the agonizing decision and supports the notion that there is no alternative but to go forward with an escalation of violence. The article makes a persuasive case for war. If a free and critical press were truly at work, one might expect a bit more critical thinking and reporting of a decision that was apparently reached without the presence or appearance in the room of a single Afghan official, a citizen of a village likely to experience the violence, any opposition leader nor the head of state of any neighboring country in the Middle East.
During his speech on Monday, President Obama stated that the enemies are extremists that have hijacked a kind and gentle religion and are now its militant enemies.
If that is the case, then where are the Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaiti’s, U.A.E., (the latter two could offer some financing if not much of a military contribution) and other peace-loving Sunnis, and Shiites, who are far more at risk than the western world? Why are they not participating in the struggle against militant Islam? The question is never even put on the table. Why are the economics of the financing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda not analyzed and reported on?
The poppy trade and the thugs that run it are part of a network of corruption that can easily be interrupted with military action against crops instead of people. It would seem likely that this strategy would do far more to destabilize and break up the militant groups than chasing them back and forth across the Pakistan border. Some of us would like to know if this option was ever considered as a strategy or tactic.
Finally, Pakistan has an army, it is already trained and, as we all know, Pakistan has more to lose with a Taliban controlled Afghanistan than any country, including the United States. If an escalation of war is the answer, why isn’t the Pakistan army the first line of offense in this surge, with U.S. soldiers securing their nuclear facilities?
Perhaps there are good answers to these questions, perhaps our government is acting in our best interests, but the arguments and reasoning put forth reflects the idea that fear, politics, and the military are running the day. The Military is not at fault, its job is to provide military solutions and to paint a worse-case scenario. It is the responsibility of a civilian controlled democracy to run the Military.
The opposite seems operative since 911. It is ironic that a president, who was elected by appealing to our best instincts, has bowed to fear and the illusion that we can somehow be protected against the threat of violence through increased force. There is virtually no difference in the rhetoric coming from this administration than that of his hapless and deceiving predecessor.
It is positively Orwellian that this president, after choosing to address this complex issue by caving in to his military advisors, would soon trot off to accept his Nobel Peace Prize.
