Though I truly appreciate Juan Cole responding to my criticism of his Salon piece, he missed what I was talking about by a mile. He extrapolated that my quips about hyperbole and the gift to Hannity as meaning we shouldn’t give aid and comfort to the enemy. That I’m all about “party line.” Swing and a miss. The argument I have with Juan’s post entitled “Obama’s Vietnam?” is that it’s ridiculous to offer Vietnam laced criticism of a presidency one week old and one bombing out. Thus my tone, which was lost on my colleague, and is obviously a failure of this writer. Cole’s overblown argument about Obama foreign policy already hitting the Vietnam threshold inspired it. (I’ve obviously got to work on communicating my tongue and cheek tactics, because they were missed on my Pakistan piece by some readers of Cole, not quite getting my take.)
It seems to me that “Obama’s Vietnam?”, even in question form and at this early date in Obama’s presidency, not only didn’t serve as a good point of argument, but was so hyperbolic as to almost be silly, that is if it weren’t written by Cole, who certainly is anything but. Put a question mark behind the hyperbole and it becomes a serious column of caution. Sorry, not buying it. No serious analyst can argue and win the debate at this date by saying anything in the Af-Pak region is heading towards “Obama’s Vietnam.” Citing the sad case of a funeral doesn’t make it so. Unless, of course, Juan is making the case that Obama is inheriting Reagan’s mess of the Af-Pak region, not unlike the messes handed down on Vietnam that started decades earlier, of which there is absolutely no evidence that is Cole’s case.
The danger of Obama becoming mired down in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very real, and is obvious to anyone who knows the history of imperial interventions in the former.
The statement above by Cole is something to which I can agree. The seriousness in no way makes the situation a potential “Obama’s Vietnam.” Read any estimate from Secretary Gates and you’ll find that the numbers of troops being added won’t be anywhere near to Iraq. When you think of airstrikes during Vietnam, a solitary drone strike is hardly the model. Coles’ military analogies don’t come close, because there is no comparison whatsoever.
How Cole gets from one drone strike to question it as a precursor to “Obama’s Vietnam” is certainly not the stuff of Hunter S. Thompson, but of the left side equivalent to an unhinged wingnut rant without foundation for the argument at hand. Juan offers a dire warning of epic proportions, because Vietnam put the Democrats in the wilderness for over a decade. Thus the tone of my entire piece, which is why Bob Woodward was included. As Woodward warned of a scandal to come, Cole warns of Obama’s Vietnam to come, without any evidence to date that this is even remotely possible. Both men warning of horrors to come for Obama, one week into his presidency.
I also realize that the line on fundamentalists gives the impression of a monolithic group, which they are not. But Cole’s argument in his post today about voting patterns is as lame as his first, frankly. What may happen, even though it never has, shouldn’t be added up as evidence to question a potential “Obama’s Vietnam.”
Additionally, I realize Juan isn’t a pacifist, but if you read my post what I stated was that “traditional media sources” are using posts like Cole’s to go after “the antiwar left,” which was put in parentheses for a reason.
As to the legalities of the strike, that’s an open debate still. You can begin research here and here, but it remains a topic of debate in an age of non-state enemies. Besides, permission might have been given, though no one would admit it openly.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I know righteous people on our side who think any security expansion in Afghanistan will doom Obama, with Pakistan capable of drawing us into a nation’s meltdown. But people against any military security expansion, however small, are using the analogy of Vietnam on this region in the hopes of scaring away support for any efforts, even though nothing’s been started. I’m against the fear mongering openly used by Cole in “Obama’s Vietnam?”, with other people on our side using scare tactics to frighten away support of the new president’s foreign policy before he makes his case.
Cole’s piece in Salon is all about the hair on fire hyperbole that one bombing from President Obama, barely one week in office, should have serious people actually questioning whether this will be “Obama’s Vietnam”; whether the new Democratic president might be headed for his own Af-Pak version of Vietnam. If that’s not analysis on the wings of hyperbole, nothing is.
Taylor do think there is a chance that you were willfully misunderstood?
Foreign Policy’s ‘Madame Secretary blog’ covered Hillary’s press conference.
can you give me a link LL, please.
Betsy…I’m embarrassed to admit this but I don’t know how to do links!!! Duh! If you google Foreign Policy magazine and Madame Secretary you should be able to find it. I picked it up here a few days ago and earmarked it.
All you do is copy (control C) the link, aka highlight it, then hit control V to copy it into a comment.
Here’s the link:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/27/america/Clinton.php
I believe that Juan Cole never expected anyone to take him to task on “Obama’s Vietnam?” In arguing for it today that seems pretty obvious. So, you may be right, though there’s nothing malicious about it, I’m sure, on Cole’s part.
Cole is perfectly capable of making his argument without hyperbolic headlines and text on Vietnam, no less than one week into Obama’s presidency. Being provocative backfired, at least with regards to my opposition to his post.
fyi… I’ve posted in Cole’s comment section and am waiting moderation.
It just occurred to me that Obama has been president slightly over 7 days and according to various pundits and radio hosts he is already a failure, a fraud, an affirmative action president, and a traitor. And now he has his own Vietnam. Quite a week!
The scary part is how many nuts there are in the media and blogosphere. The thing I try to remember is that oftern the main reason you hear about them is because they say something outrageous.
But now we have some blogger who says that Rush Limbaugh should replace Bill kristol at the NYT. Limbaugh has been exposed as the total racist he is. He looks at an African American, and whether it is the president or an NFL quarterback, Limbaugh doesn’t see the person, he sees the color of their skin.
Intersting how ofter Limbaugh refers to “bending over, touching his ankles, and taking it”. I think the Daily Show had four quotes from him that referred to this. The man is obsessed.
Exactly. “His own Vietnam” is an absurd place to start a debate seven days into Obama’s presidency.
As for Rush, obsessed with staying relevant is his inspiration. He’s desperate.
Thanks Taylor! I will practice.
Limbaugh is the most pathetic represenitive of humanity on the air today. He is a posterboy for early 21st century rightwing delusion,on drugs,isolated,pitiful.
The mystery to me is why he gets any attention from anybody.
The mystery to me is why he gets any attention from anybody.
Lake Lady
I used to think the right would jettison him when he started to go off the deep end. But in the end it’s like Ann Coulter. No matter what they say the wingnuts start screaming about freedom of speech and First Amendment rights, as if the gov’t was trying to shut them up.
Everyone has a right to say their piece, no one forces a private entity to pay them to do it.
I know there is no chance I would ever buy a Bose product since they advertise on limbaugh’s radio show. IMO he is a bigot, and I don’t knowingly patronize businesses that support bigots.
As for Rush, obsessed with staying relevant is his inspiration. He’s desperate.
TaylorMarsh | Homepage | 01.27.2009 – 2:47 pm | #
Bingo! IMO he’s digging his own grave… I even heard him defending the million $ office renovation and the 50 million $ jet this morning… on the basis that the government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what private business can or can’t do. Even Rush had the sense to realize though that he was in the “1 percent” that felt that way.
I think that Juan Cole is fundamentally opposed to the air raiding of villages and the killing of innocent women and children. He feels that destroying the lives of the innocent is wrong regardless of political affiliation. Most democrats were ostensibly opposed to the Bush doctrine(s), but now that Obama – a democrat – is wielding the power, democrats turn a blind eye and allow Obama to do the very same things that they had a problem with Bush doing. Now all the sudden it is OK for our military to start more wars and bomb whomever we like. It makes me wonder, were the democrats really, truly, fundamentally against war, death, and destruction? Or was it just politically expedient for them to oppose the Bush administration? I’m beginning to think that the majority of democrats could care less about ending the fruitless wars our government starts. Most democrats jusst didn’t like Bush on a personal level. They’ll be a cheerleader for Obama’s many wars because Obama comes across as cool guy. I applaud Mr. Cole for standing on his principles.
Air raiding of villages?
It was a drone strike.
Cheerleading Obama policies? Not around here.
And I have respect for Juan Cole, but calling Obama’s action on Pakistan worthy of questioning whether it’s a step into “Obama’s Vietnam?” is getting way ahead of reality. There is no comparison whatsoever that applies at this point in time. Facts matter.
“The mystery to me is why he gets any attention from anybody.
Lake Lady”
He gets the attention because there is a unfortunatly a streak of racism that runs through the basic character of America.
Blacks have been held in low regards since our founding, before actually.
Evidence our treatment and interaction/attempted extermination of the Native Polulation
Raghead, Dune N—-R etc. etc. etc.
Hopefully that cancer has gone into remission with the election of President Obama.
But the repugnantklaners are just waiting for Pres. Obama to make a mistake, ANY mistake to subliminally and overtly reassert their racist appeals to our more base instincts.
For the good of the country and world I hope he succeeds beyond our wildest dreams.
I wasn’t an Obama supporter during the General Ellection. However the election is now over and Obama IS the President and so far he has exceeded any expectations anyone sane had any hopes for. May he continue and we and the world reap the rewards from his success.
And as an aside, how about our mission in Afghanistan be discribed as KILLING Bin Laden and KILLING Taliban fighters. For the moment that is enough.
I personally think it’s a big mistake. Afghanastan will be a disaster for the US.
But…..heck, I’m not savvy about war stuff.
It just appears to me that’s it’s even more unwinnable than Iraq.
To me? It makes Bush look smart.
Lake Lady. Move your curser to the link and click right twice.
“To me? It makes Bush look smart.
AnninCA | 01.28.2009 – 11:57 am | # “
Funny, your post to me just makes you look like someone who didn’t have a problem at all when BUSH invaded a country that never did a thing to us. COMPLETELY based on willfully told untruths and propaganda while allowing the REAL parties responsible for 9/11 to have a good old time in Afghanistan.
So in reality To me your post makes you look either hipocritical or stupid. Which is it?
Unless I’m missing something in what you’ve posted?
If so, please tell me where to go in the archieves to read your posts protesting Bush and Iraq and I’ll apologize.