Of Peace Prizes and War-fare, and Their Dubious Congruity

It is just the least bit incongruous, to me, anyway, that the most recent recipient of the international prize honoring the foremost peacemaker in the world would--just the other night, on the very eve of his sojourn to accept his prize, and further to enjoin the world to more comity on combating global climate change--not only NOT reduce the USer commitment to war in Afghanistan, but actually committed 30 THOUSAND more soldiers to be sent into a war that is neither necessary nor, in any rational sense, winnable.

But then it would seem equally incongruous that such a peace-maker would be worried about ‘winning’ any war, wouldn’t it?

At all events, the fatal mistake--the miscalculation--is that Karzai cannot rule a unified country, because the country will not unify with him in power. But, in order for Obama's "policy" to even look remotely plausible, he has to pretend that there is a reliable central government in Afghanistan. But Obama's "required" by the "logic" of the "discourse" he's conducting--Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of a world power--to regard Karzai as the legitimate ruler of an equally sovereign State, because his 'strategy' requires within a given--albeit "flexible"--time period, turning over authority, in the form of a 200,000-man army and a police force twice that size, to a Central Government in Kabul: Karzai's government, which was just fraudulently returned to power.

Which, one might legitimately suspect, even the 'lowly villagers' in Afghanistan probably know is a recipe for totalitarianism as bad as or worse than that which they experienced under the Taliban. Maybe a dictatorial kleptocracy IS worse than a putatively egalitarian theocracy. In any case, civil war is almost inevitable there, and Obama--instead of backing away from it--committed us to be, once again, on the wrong side of history.

Afghanistan is riven by ethnic rivalries and animosities. The Taliban is Pashto, who comprise about 40-45% of the population. Not only that, but the Taliban comprise the ruling theocratic hierarchy of the Pashto people, who are uncompromising adversaries of the Tajik/Usbek "northern alliance," and will never, ever accede to the puppet Karzai's nepotistic narco-kleptocracy. By attacking the Taliban, and allying with the US, Karzai is alienating his tribal base (such as it was/is), and he doesn't have many friends in the north, either...He's relying on US support to keep him alive until the army and the police are "trained."

So much for Obama's Afghanistan policy. Even his militarist supporters were today (Sunday) admitting no significant decline in the Murkin boot-print for between three and five MORE years, minimum.

Obama's domestic policies are equally suspect, if not wholly corrupt:

• His education policy, under Kommandant Arne Duncan, is pure, test-driven, militaristic corporatism and charter schools where the rules can be suspended.
• He's not even trying to rein in the Wall Street banksters, who have ALREADY begun to spin the next bubbles; he has not re-engineered any separation between commercial and investment banks; indeed, if anything, he's made them MORE intertwined.
• Don't even get me started on the gigantic, epochal, astonishingly vulgar and felonious corpoRat clusterfuck that is the "health-care-reform" effort. When the final vote comes, in January, after the SoTU (so the fucktards and the Pukes can smirk about it) it will not be ANY different than if it had been held a year earlier.
• He's not given any indication he'll try to block the NBC/Comcast merger, so he's not gonna use the FCC to block further media monopolism "consolidation."
• He's still pursuing Bushevik challenges to laws and regulations of dubious constitutionality to begin with into the Supreme Court.

And now, he's gonna put another 30K poor, dumb-fuck GIs in harm's way in Central Asia, entirely at the behest of the Military/Industrial complex.

Yeah, he says they're temporary. But the Obamanauts on Sunday tv were at pains to say the "promise" was "flexible."

So here's how it'll work out: He puts in another 30k, and "PROMISES" (cross his sincere, little heart) he's gonna withdraw 'em in 2011.., well actually, he doesn't even say "withdraw." He says "begin to withdraw." So 2011 rols around and to redeem the "promise" he withdraws a couple of companies or a battalion. Promise kept.

Slicker even than the Clenis, imho. Cuz he could withdraw even just a coupla companies and accomodate the "LETTER" of his promise.

In "speech act theory," you can lie by implicature, and this fucker's a past master of the art...

What will it take to disabuse the faithful of the fanciful notion that their Mocha Messiah is NOT just another supplicant kneeling at the zipper of the Oiligarchs/Owners for his chance to give FELLATORY satisfaction and receive the rewards for loyal service (see, e.g., the CLENIS' disporting himself extravagantly in the company of GHWB, and the Oligarchs).