It would appear after last night's speech that Pres Obama has accepted one of two Bushian/right-wing fantasies.
The president’s prolonged and leak-ridden policy review had fanned doubts here and abroad about Mr. Obama’s commitment. He showed no reluctance on Tuesday night. He said he decided to send more troops because he is “convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” which he called “the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda.”
“This is no idle danger,” Mr. Obama said, “no hypothetical threat.” He warned that new attacks were being plotted in the region, and raised the terrifying prospect of an unchecked Al Qaeda taking over a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
- Terrorist threats from Third World fanatics with limited means and even more limited intelligence actually represent a genuine threat to a country the size and richness of the USA.
- The WOT will continue as long as there's a WOT.
The latter, of course, is a function of the conservative realization that being a "war president" is more fun than being a "peace president." The former gets you re-elected (Bush) while making peace gets you the horselaugh (Clinton) and/or sent home (Carter). Of course it couldn't be that Obama is cynically maintaining what looks like an endless war rationale, applicable any place there may be people who don't particularly care for being Corporate cannon fodder or imperialist colonies and are actually trying to do something about it, let alone charter members of the Islamofascist Boogeyman Fanatics Club, in order to, you know, stay president despite the clawing and screaming insanity of the rival Conservative Teabagger Fanatics Club. No, it couldn't be that.
Because if it was that then what we're looking at is a perpetually ginned-up series of wars that exist only to a) get the current president re-elected, b) feed the giant maw of the military-industrial complex, c) protect the investments of the Corporate Investor Class, and/or d) feed the paranoia of the 13% (or less) of the population who are members of the CTFC at the expense of the other 87% who are sane.
Because a policy not intended to promote a,b,c, and/or d but rather the welfare of either the country making the war or the country on which the war is being made, a policy intended to save lives rather than waste them, that policy would not even remotely encourage a,b,c, and/or d.
This is, alas, another brilliant operations plan from the folks who brought you "We have to destroy the village in order to save it" and defended an attack from a few fanatics of one country by invading a completely different country because the latter had oil and the former did not. The tortuous logic of presidential re-election strategies may be more than mere mortals can fathom, especially when the majority party spends more time obeying the wishes of the distinct minority than the overwhelming majority that made it a majority party in the first place and follows policies that have failed every time they've been tried because that minority is fond of them and refuses to believe they'll fail again.
In America as in Israel and Iran, it seems the fanatic minority rules. So much for democracy.