The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 

     

     

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Tuesday
      Oct162012

      Romney Should Listen to Grover Norquist… About Afghanistan

      Airmen aboard a C17 Globemaster III perform a resupply mission via airdrop to an undisclosed location in Afghanistan. (Photo: US Air Force)If Mitt Romney wants to complete his journey to the moderate middle tonight, he should reject the militarist neo-conservatives in favor of Grover Norquist’s advice to simply get out of Afghanistan.

      If he does not do so, it will be because his national security advisers are quarreling among themselves and Romney is afraid to follow the footsteps of his father, who was driven out of a presidential campaign after saying – quite honestly – that he’d been “brainwashed” by the generals on Vietnam.

      Norquist, who is known as a libertarian fundamentalist for opposing taxes and cutting spending, is trying to build Republican support for ending the trillion-dollar Afghanistan War as rapidly as possible.

      Think of it. Romney could say tonight that he is deeply troubled by reports of corruption and cronyism in Afghanistan, by the New York Times editorial Sunday calling for withdrawal, and by his businessman’s sense that you never should throw good money after bad. Refusing to inherit “Obama’s War,” Romney could pledge to end the war in 2013. He would leave President Obama flat-footed.

      But Romney will worm his way through the contradictions of his advisers, pledging to respect the 2014 deadline (for what?) and follow the advice of the Pentagon commanders, who are openly worried about 2014. Romney in effect will outsource military decision-making to the military and CIA. He will claim that the recent attack in Benghazi is evidence of an Al Qaeda resurgence, and might even blame Obama for the shooting of the 14-year old Pakistani girl last week.

      While remaining vague about Afghanistan, Romney will try to take the national security polling advantage away from Obama by claiming that US foreign policy is in a shambles – which in many ways it is – while avoiding any disturbing alternatives, like war with Iran.

      Tonight’s debate is primarily about foreign policy, and it may be Obama’s last stand if he does not turn the tables on Romney.

      He is likely to stumble over Benghazi, where the New York Times says the assault clearly came local Islamic militants in more or less spontaneous retaliation for the insane video made by right-wing American xenophobes. (New York Times, October 16, 2012) Romney, perhaps with help from moderator Candy Crowley, will claim that the attack was proof that Al Qaeda is back. And Romney will condemn Obama for saying that the Libyan operation was an example of “leading from behind,” which Obama did not say, but facts no longer matter in this campaign.

      All things are relative, but Obama has been a maverick again and again within the insulated circles of the national security establishment. As a presidential candidate, he campaigned against the Clinton Democratic Party on a pledge to end the Iraq War; the generals, the Republicans and Hillary Clinton were opposed. As president, Obama carried out essentially a full withdrawal despite military and Republican objections. In Afghanistan, he has ended the surge of 33,000 troops, inflicted damage on Al Qaeda and is winding down the US combat mission by 2014 -- his military and the Republicans are opposed. Net savings over five years of having ended both wars would approach one trillion dollars in direct tax costs.

      Similarly, on the Arab Spring, Obama was virtually alone in supporting the overthrow of the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. “What I want is for the kids in the square to win and that Google guy to be president. What I think is we’re going to be in for a long, protracted transition,” Obama said, according to David Sanger’s history, Confront and Conceal. (p. 297)

      The list could go on. But Obama’s achievements, opposed by Republicans, have been stained terminally in the eyes of his liberal-left base by his drone wars and limitations on civil liberties. The center he covets is unstable and murky.

      Besides defending his record, Obama’s best approach tonight is to attack Romney’s even greater militarism, as symbolized by Romney’s extra two-trillion dollar defense increase “that the military doesn’t even want,” then offer an agenda for the next four years to mobilize new hope among voters, for example, by proposing reductions of nuclear weapons arsenals, and a new White House-led effort to stop global warming.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (1)

      I don't think O mentioned nuclear weapons or global warming, and there was Plenty of opportunity for the latter. I thought it was a great format though. At least he was way more on top of things. But you are so right about war, secret intelligence stuff, and our civil liberties. It's a shame, but I still have HOPE. I just keep doing what he told us to do. YES WE CAN. WE CAN Make many of the things he PROMISED still happen, but we need more activism and more Mass. Are people just numbed out? too caught either in just trying to survive, too comfortable? and if they're too comfortable, they definitely need discomfort to wake them from their 'false bubbles' . Honestly, and I mean this, and maybe I'm just too much of a romantic, but I still believe, that if enough people get on board with real, crucial issues and alternatives, and get Active, he would be glad, even if it's against what he wants, or has already done. In the end, I believe that. And also, since it will be his 2nd (God willing) term, he will maybe take more chances, like he's felt he couldn't I think this first time around. thanks! Lola P.S. I also noticed more what a great master of the 'deal', = master manipulator, that Rmoney is! Well, of course, he's a master capitalist.

      October 17, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterL Terrell

      PostPost a New Comment

      Enter your information below to add a new comment.
      Author Email (optional):
      Author URL (optional):
      Post:
       
      All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.