It's already history. In mid-August 2010, the U.S. commander in
Afghanistan launched a huge media campaign to prevent any substantial
withdrawal of military forces the next summer.
The morning after
Gen. David Petraeus appeared in a Sunday interview on NBC's "Meet the
Press" to promote the war effort, the New York Times front-paged news of
its own interview with him -- reporting that the general "suggested
that he would resist any large-scale or rapid withdrawal of American
forces."
In fact, the general signaled that he might oppose
any reduction of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan a year from now.
During the NBC interview, the Times noted, "Petraeus even appeared to
leave open the possibility that he would recommend against any
withdrawal of American forces next summer."
On Monday, the
Washington Post also published the twisty line of the suddenly
interview-hungry Petraeus, reporting that "he remains supportive of
President Obama's decision to begin withdrawing troops next July, but he
said it is far too soon to determine the size of the drawdown." The
newspaper observed that "the general's presence in Kabul, as opposed to
the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, could make him a far
more forceful voice for attenuating the drawdown if he chooses to make
that case."
"Attenuating the drawdown" means keeping the war machinery at full throttle.
Let's be clear about what's happening here. The top U.S. military
commander in Afghanistan, with the evident approval of the White House,
has launched a fierce media blitz to cripple the policy option of any
significant military withdrawal a year from now. Riding high in what is
supposed to be a civilian-run military, Petraeus is engaging in
strategic media operations to manipulate what should be a democratic
process on matters of war and peace.
Who bears ultimate responsibility for this manipulative, anti-democratic behavior? The commander in chief.
Ominously, the Petraeus media offensive got underway just days after
presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs picked a fight with the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party -- a wing that has been strengthening its
opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
More than four decades
after President Johnson used the term "nervous Nellies" to disparage the
growing number of Democrats who voiced dissent about the war in
Vietnam, the Obama White House is now disparaging progressive dissenters
with terms like "the professional left."
Every week,
President Obama is sacrificing billions of dollars and uncounted lives
in the service of what Martin Luther King Jr. called -- at a time of
another horrific war effort -- "the madness of militarism." Then, as
now, a Democrat in the White House augmented the momentum of the
Pentagon's war train, boosting it with eagerness to appear tough and
avoid Republican charges of weakness.
While history is not exactly repeating, it is rhyming. Like a dirge.
Now, as in the era of Dr. King's final years, war is escalating
while the lures of silence or equivocation are widely viewed as prudent.
Rationales for muting dissent keep pitching for complicity.
The immediate problem is one of political acquiescence. Right now, it's
time to speak up against the efforts by a top general to stampede this
country into more war. No matter who is willing to go along with the
madness of militarism, we must not.
