Obama’s War

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think I disagree. Obama ran on taking ownership and responsibility for this war. Despite the fact that Bushco totally botched this effort and wasted the goodwill of the coalition, this really can’t be called Bush’s war, because Obama didn’t come into the office looking to end Bush’s war – he came to office looking to take ownership and fix it.QT

Not too worshippy,Will it ever be his war. What are the guidlines. If he furthers the invasion, into Pakistan, and succeeds (which I don’t know how you could define that one, other then eliminating radical islam/people who hate America altoghether), he’s sort of having it both ways. He can say hey, Bush got us into this impossible war that couldn’t be won, not my fault. If he “succeeds” he gets all the credit. Well played, take no responsibility. Any soldier that is killed in Pakistan that was sent there by the Obama administration, you have to confess, was the responsibility of such.When his term is done, and we’re further in a hole, or back where we started with the economy, the war, green building etc., you’ll just say it wasn’t his fault it was Bush’s. You have to give this guy a little responsibility while under his watch in order for him to receive genuine credit for his actions.

Not just Obama’s, to be sure, but the Dems made their deal with the devil during the campaign with regard to Afghanistan. In their many shameless attempts to win over the “anti-war left” (read: anyone with half a brain), they had to include the requisite applause lines about Iraq. But they didn’t want the REAL AMERICANS to doubt their bloodlust, so they had to use the expression “took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan” every time they did. Well, our eye’s on the ball now. Goody.

To me the problem isn’t one of ownership, credit or blame, as much as it is the terminology. When you say, “Obama’s War” it’s more than simply taking ownership of an existing problem. It is almost a retrofitting of ownership. It denotes something that was his idea, something he pushed for, spearheaded. Yes, he absolutely must take ownership of the war the moment he starts making decisions that affect its execution. But we all know the use of that particular phrase is meant to create drama and place the responsibility of the war’s existence on the man who now owns it. If it wasn’t deliberate, they’d simply call it the War in Afghanistan.

I think what Bob was getting at (not to put words in his mouth) is that there is a push to completely erase the past 8 year clusterfuckup by Bush, and pin ALL of the downside on Obama. Neocons and movement conservatives are anxious to wipe their bloody hands on Obama’s shirt and claim they’re clean. They are that shameless. Bob’s objection is to that, I think.Obama knew what he was getting into, and I’m not worried about him being able to handle the pressure, responsibility, or blame. He’s already copped to more mistakes than W ever did.

@camel54: exactly. If I thought the msm was at all capable of nuance, then I would agree with QT. But since I don’t recall this ever being called Bush’s War, it is worrisome that some of that distinction (before Bush was making decisions, now Obama is) could get lost in history.

>>>I think what Bob was getting at (not to put words in his mouth) is that there is a push to completely erase the past 8 year clusterfuckup by Bush, and pin ALL of the downside on ObamaYou are correct, sir.

I hear everyone, but I just don’t agree. Obama campaigned on this war. I understand that we don’t want to just erase the Bush era, but the fact is – the only way for this to NOT be Obama’s war is if he hadn’t in fact stepped up to the plate and said “Give me this war. I’ll handle it.” We may not like the way the msm is playing it – but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation. This IS Obama’s war, because he wanted it – that is, he wanted the responsibility for it. And now he has it.I’m not afraid of calling it Obama’s war, because as one of the people who ISN’T on the hard left (nods to cory) and IS an Obamaphile – I believed him when he said he would fix the mess Bushco made of Afghanistan – and I want him to do so. I expect that this will be an arduous process, with lots of setbacks – but I trust my President to sober-mindedly manage this war to an acceptable endpoint, and to communicate effectively on our progress toward specific goals.QT

It is his…now.I agree that msnbc graphic is not “fair”, but it it is the least “not fair” thing about it. It’s just words/spin/noise. “Worshippy alert” He won’t take the bait on that by taking issue with it. He’s way too smart. One thing that I am impressed by Obama is his willingness to take ownership of these big issues. Exactly what is needed. Bush did very little on the econonmic crisis late last year, preferrring to punt it to Obama. He punted thinking to end Iraq and Afghan conflicts around 2005.

QT, I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think that because he asked for it and knew he would need to take responsibility for it that it means he should be credited with the whole conflict beginning to end, which is what that type of phrasing does.It is exactly as if he decided to fight racism and they started posting “Obama’s Racism!” everywhere.

The MSNBC swine are attempting to wipe our minds clear of the GOP’s 8 years of innumerable fuck-ups. What about that is not apparent at this point? They’ve been at this for awhile now. They do it in order to sensationalize grave political matters.I know, I know – the presence of Olbermann and Maddow, as well as the occasional GOPunk smackdown have some of your heads gassed, but not mine. That network is absolute intellectual poison, not just for the GOP-spawned gibberish that passes for objective inquiry, but for the repugnant supermarket tabloid-style reporting considerations.Regarding this “Obama’s War” bullshit. Like it or not, Afghanistan is and always was OUR war.

I think that QT is right, here. Unlike the economic hole, which kind of straddles administrations due to the nature of the market and delayed response, the war handling becomes Obama’s more quickly. He could have, for a simplified example, brought all the troops home in February. U.S. involvement in the war over.One reason that I supported Obama was I thought he campaigned on a pragmatic take on both wars. I want to see what he does before I pass final judgment, but based on his handling of things so far, I think he’ll do fine.

Bob, if that’s what you were implying (that there is a push to completely erase the past 8 year clusterfuckup by Bush, and pin ALL of the downside on Obama,) then yeah, I wouldn’t put that past the MSM.

Exactly… I was “debating” this same issue with a dittohead I know. By framing a question in that way, you have already ended the ability to honestly discuss Preesident Obama’s policy.

Bob’s take on it was what I was questioning as well. In my estimation, they’re using “Obama’s War” like they were using the “Obama Recession” not too long ago. Notice how they stopped that phrase when the market leveled out.

It became Obama’s when he took the job. Everything that happens after he assumed the Presidency is now on him.

You are correct, Tony. Everything that happens after is on him. But using the phrase “Obama’s War” implies that nothing happened before him.

OK, guys. Historically – the term “Blahblahpresident’s War” is nothing new. Nixon’s War was began as military creep in Vietnam that started with Eisenhower – three presidents before Nixon. For a time it was also called Johnson’s War. For some of the history buffs here, I think we’re dealing a little unfairly with the media, which in this case is following precedent (and that’s the real reason they are calling it this – Bob blogged about Fareed Zacarias’s article in Newsweek before – this is being called Obama’s War because of the fear that this will turn out to be very much like the Vietnam war).BUT! If we don’t like the practice of naming the wars this way because of the implications of exonerating Bushco – then let’s get to it. What’s a better way of describing this war that takes into account these necessary elements:1. Acknowledges that the war began on Bush’s watch and was totally botched during his term of office.2. Acknowledges the degree to which Obama accepted responsibility for the war.And yes – it needs to be memetic. Speaking of last night’s Drunken Soliloquy – Elvis was hinting at some knowledge of what a meme is… I pretty much HATE Richard Dawkins, but his theory of “memes” is really impressive, and I recommend everyone read up on it if you haven’t already. I don’t agree that it explains away religion, which was Dawkins’s intention, but it does have a useful place especially when thinking about using blogs for activism.QT

Obama’s War??? Ah screw ‘em all today.Greenwald had some space he obviously needed to fill today, so he did. We can worship whomever or whatever we damn well please in this country. If some people choose to blindly “admire” or “trust” or “worship” Obama–let them. After 8 long years of the Republicans blindly following Bush into an illegal war and down the road to financial ruin b/c he was “doing god’s work” (which really turned out to be Dick Cheney’s work) it’s hard not to “worship” Obama.And while I’m at it, what about The Pope? People “worship” him, like he’s something more than just a human being and he’s NOT. He doesn’t have any kind of direct link to the man upstairs. I’d trust Obama before I’d trust The Pope any day of the week.

Ady,Except in real estate transactions, and appointing administrators who don’t have tax problems, to name a few…

@QT: It’s not so much that it’s nothing new as it’s that I still think it’s silly (which…is my problem, I guess). I’m probably wishing on stars here, but why can’t we just call it “The War in Afghanistan” and expect/teach people to know all the history? It’s also interesting to me because as a child of the 80s, fairly knowlegeable about history (but by no means a buff), I’ve never called the Vietnam War anything but the Vietnam War. I wonder how that affects my view of it.

J: I never called it anything else, either – but the “Blahblahpresident’s War” carries a lot of meaning. That’s why folks here are pushing against it, and it’s also why I’m not.It became “Johnson’s War” because he promised to get us out of it, and instead escalated it, and it became Nixon’s War for the same reason this one became Obama’s War – Nixon took ownership of the war and redirected the strategy. In each case – memetically (as opposed to actually) the words carry all of that information in a nutshell. Now that we are so many years away from the Vietnam War, it’s a historical piece that can be talked about as such, but living history has a different perspective. The war belongs to SOMEBODY – because SOMEBODY is responsible for it. Right now, that’s Obama. Iraq doesn’t become Obama’s war because it was already winding down by the time he got in office, and he’s only managing the winding down process. Afghanistan for now is his. He’s redirecting the strategy and setting the terms of success in this war.QT

Bob42-My point is, that in this country I can worship Obama if I so choose…I don’t, but if I wanted to, I’m free to do just that no matter what anybody says or writes or tells me about him.(Don’t forget to throw Palin on the “tax problems” heap too).

Where did Palin come from, I thought you were talking about Obama and the Pope…Well, you can Worship him here in America, just make sure you don’t do it in Public Schools, oh wait, thats God, my fault. Go ahead, he’s a politician…

How to win Afghanistan. Buy the opium from the farmers and destroy it. Opium is Afghanistan’s cash crop. The US and Afghanistan govt.s refuse to allow the farmers to trade it. This opens the door for the taliban or other anti-government forces to do business. It also funds the very forces we are fighting. And, it causes resentment from local farmers towards us. Also by buying up the opium we would save money further down the line on such things as interdiction, and addiction.

Bob24,I think Ady’s point was that Palin falls into that “worshipped” category… there are many members of the right-wing “base” that think Palin’s the greatest thing since Jeebus.

The War in Vietnam was always called the Vietnam War.Nixon’s War was the illegal, secret bombing and invasion of Cambodia. It was Nixon’s doing. Wholly owned and operated by the Dick.

I should also point out that I am opposed to applying Obama’s name to any of our ongoing overseas fiascoes.If the Afghanistan and Iraq wars need a name I would suggest the “The Persian Gulf wars of U.S. Imperial Aggression.”The Iraq war would be best named as the Cheney, Perle, and Rove wetdream.Obama is now responsible for getting us out without a complete disintegration and loss of our meager gains. This does not make it Obama’s War.

SRG: If Obama’s goals were “getting us out without a complete disintegration and loss of our meager gains.” I’d agree. But those aren’t his goals, and that’s not what he campaigned on.QT

The War in Vietnam was always called the Vietnam War.thank you, git. I was thinking “I lived thru it and I still have some clear memories of that time. I don’t remember it ever being called anything but the Vietnam War”.

Wow… weird. And I DIDN’T live through it, but absolutely have heard it referenced as such, and while it is true that Cambodia is the war most frequently called “Nixon’s War” – I’ve found references to Vietnam under that designation as well….Hmmm.Anyway, my point, though dented, still stands. Johnson’s war is no more accurate than Nixon’s war, by the standards being held up here.QT

QT makes some good points.But,in the end, I’ll stay with “The War in Afganistan” as the overall best phrase. The baton was passed to Obama; he’s in charge now, we all know this. I personally, don’t have a problem with calling it “Obama’s War” if the only reason to not use that term is the fear being associated with any negative outcomes. In this sense, Obama does own it right now 100%. The problem with the term “Obama’s War” is that, to my ear anyway, it implies ownership back to the very start, which is not accurate.

no,no bob.youve got it all wrong.it said “OBAMA’S WAR?”y’see,the question mark means its still debatable.as in “MSNBC LOSES MORE AND MORE CREDIBLITY BY THE DAY?”

Another lot of kool-aid drinkers. u people are good finger pointers. obama, if he had any smarts, would consider the american people, not the “globe”, look in your own back yard,

kool aid drinkers!!!wow…conservative humor.what a fucking hoot.what sort of awesome funny will oreilly think of next!!??!!

Yes, It is OBAMA’S WAR. He is now the president. Just if you buy a house with a bad roof. It is now your bad roof. You can’t blame it on the previous owner. Obama needs to fix his roof, but instead he took out a home equity loan to replace the furniture with some really ugly crap. All the new furniture will get ruined because of the roof and he will continue to buy new furniture. You need to take a reality check it took Bush 8 years to “double” the deficit. Obama is doubling the defiticit and he hasn’t even been president for a year yet.

I see that Joshua is an uncritical believer in everything the right wing misinformation brigade tells him.Joshua -Have you ever had a thought that was not authorized by Karl Rove? No? I didn’t think so.