Obama tops Bush in troop buildup

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Obama tops Bush in troop buildup
14 October 2009

The combined US troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have now
reached a higher level than existed at any time under the presidency
of George W. Bush. This surge past the record set by its predecessor
marks another grim milestone in the Obama administration’s escalation
of American militarism.

In addition to the 21,000 US soldiers and Marines that Obama ordered
deployed to Afghanistan as part of the escalation he unveiled last
March, another 13,000 “support” troops are being quietly sent to the
country with no official announcement, the Washington Post reported
Tuesday.

This stealth buildup is a replay of the methods used by the Bush
administration in its Iraq surge, when it announced the deployment of
an additional 20,000 combat troops while saying nothing about the
8,000 support troops sent with them.

In neither case was the failure to declare the full number an
oversight. Obama, like Bush before him, recognizes that the military
interventions he oversees are deeply unpopular with the majority of
the American people.

According to the troop numbers provided by the Post, there are now
65,000 US troops in Afghanistan, with another 124,000 still in Iraq,
for a total of 189,000 American military personnel waging two
colonial-style wars and occupations. At the height of the Bush
administration’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in
Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, for a total of 186,000.

There is every indication that the policies being pursued by the Obama
White House will send these numbers significantly higher.

Over the weekend, military officials revealed to the media that the
proposal for increased troop levels in Afghanistan submitted by the
American commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, included a high-end
figure of 80,000—in addition to the 68,000 that are to be deployed by
the end of this year.

The New York Times, echoing official sources, commented that this
highest request was “highly unlikely to be considered seriously by the
White House.” While this may well be true—for now—the leaking of the
number serves a definite political purpose, making Obama’s ultimate
agreement to a smaller surge—still involving tens of thousands of
additional troops in Afghanistan—seem like a reasonable compromise
between the White House and the Pentagon.

While visiting Britain this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
stressed the US commitment to continuing the Afghanistan war. “We are
not changing our strategy, our strategy remains to achieve the goal of
disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist
allies, and denying them safe haven and the capacity to strike us here
in London, or New York or anywhere else,” she said in a radio
interview. “One should never doubt our commitment or our leadership,
we intend to pursue the goal,” Clinton continued. “We will not rest
until we do defeat Al Qaeda.”

Clinton’s remarks make clear that the Obama administration, while
dropping the term “war on terrorism” coined by the Bush White House,
continues to embrace the methods underlying this terminology—in
particular, the attempt to terrorize the American people into
accepting US wars of conquest and aggression.

The claim that 68,000 US troops—with tens of thousands more likely to
follow—are in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and prevent another 9/11
is a transparent pretext. Top US security and military officials have
concurred that there are a grand total of approximately 100
individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda presently in Afghanistan, without
any means of carrying out an attack on another country. If and when
McChrystal’s request for additional troops is met, there will be 1,000
or more US soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan for every Al Qaeda member.

The target of the military escalation is not Al Qaeda, but rather the
people of Afghanistan. Washington is attempting to suppress growing
popular resistance to the occupation and is prepared to sacrifice the
lives of untold numbers of Afghans, as well as those of hundreds if
not thousands more US soldiers, to that end.

The defeat of “terrorism” is no more the strategic aim pursued by
Washington in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. US military might has
been unleashed in both countries to assert the hegemony of American
imperialism over Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, which are the two
largest sources of the world’s energy supplies.

The potential costs of this venture are immense. A report prepared by
the Pentagon last January describes the stated US goal of achieving a
stable client state in Afghanistan as an operation that “will last, at
a minimum, decades.” Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Gen.
Barry McCaffrey (ret.) was slightly more optimistic, saying that it
would take “10 years of $5 billion a month,” in addition to major
fighting.

In Iraq, meanwhile, there is no reason to believe that the stated
deadline for pulling US troops out by 2012 will be met. On the
contrary, the instability and continued resistance created by the
American occupation and the destruction of Iraqi society will be used
as a justification for continuing the occupation and asserting US
control over the country’s oil fields.

And the threat that the US interventions will provoke new and
potentially far bloodier conflicts is growing, as evidenced by the
mounting crisis in Pakistan and increasing tensions throughout the
Indian subcontinent flowing from the war in Afghanistan.

The debate that is now taking place in the Obama White House is over
committing generations of young Americans to endless wars and occupations.

Under conditions in which resources are being denied for desperately
needed jobs and basic social services, even more social wealth will be
diverted to build up the US military.

Expanding the ranks of the Army is necessary if any significant
escalation of the war in Afghanistan is to be sustained. The military
is stretched to the breaking point by the two occupations. Even if
Obama approves 40,000 more troops, nowhere near that number are
immediately available.

While the American political establishment is no doubt counting on a
double-digit unemployment rate driving jobless youth into the
military, there is growing objective pressure for the reintroduction
of conscription, with youth once again drafted to fight in colonial wars.

Millions of people voted for Barack Obama last November in the vain
hope that his election would reverse the escalation of militarism
initiated under Bush. Their votes, like the growing popular sentiment
against the Afghan war, have been disregarded as the Obama
administration continues this escalation in the interest of the
financial oligarchy that it serves.

Bill Van Auken

Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o14.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********