We broke it we bought it from Iraq (which at the start enjoyed a consensus rooted in Clinton policies) to Afghanistan. The pragmatism does not lie in the formation of policy. Policy is nuts. The pragmatism lies in what you have to advocate to hold power (sic). Obama doesn't make the rules, he just plays the game.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at rawbw.com> wrote:
> ``I think what Chuck said can be summed up thusly, based on evidence to
> date:
>
> Obama is very smart but otherwise a very ordinary politician. His
> thinking is firmly within conventional boundaries, he relies on the
> established experts for guidance..'' Max Sawicky
>
> ----------
>
> I tried to stress the neoconservative line for several reasons. I don't
> think say the progressive caucus understands they are not dealing with a
> liberal or pragmatic president. They are dealing with a
> neoconservative.
>
> I think the neoconservative concept of executive branch power is central
> to understanding Obama's positions and the way he views government and
> his actions and policies. It explains his cabinet with Holder, Geithner,
> Gates, and more distantly Duncan. (Leaving Duncan aside for the
> moment...and there is the whole econ gang of Summers et al.)
>
> These agency heads have strongly resisted congressional attempts to
> review their activities. That isn't pragmatic politics. These guys are
> forcing acceptance of exec branch policies that are violation of the
> spirit and intent of the constitution, via congressional powers, exec
> branch limitations, judicial review, etc.
>
> My best hope is that the more liberal members of congress will find
> themselves in a hearing, and get more stone walling like they did from
> Geithner the other day. I think a test for this is getting Holder into a
> hearing room and demand the documentation in several different
> areas---demand an open hearing on what he found about with his CIA
> review, etc. whatever is pending. He will come up with some fancy
> arguments. The liberals will have to face the brute fact, they've been
> bullied just like they were with Gonzales. Gates is as another study and
> master at the neocon style of evasion.
>
> I got a notice somewhere that anti-war liberals in congress are trying
> to move up the timetable for congressional review of the Pentagon troop
> funding requests. It's a bit late. I suspect now that Obama made up his
> mind about this escalation months ago, and stalled for time, to make the
> timing as awkward as possible for any liberal resistance. And remember
> too, he already carried out his promise Afghanistan troop escalation
> back sometime in the spring, so this is in addition to that.
>
> Remember too, escalating troop levels in Afghanistan is not conventional
> wisdom, and is even less a pragmatic move. It smacks of neoconism, that
> uses phony evidence and neocon experts to back up the policy, and which
> studiously ignores the public pressure to do something else. These wars,
> from the neocon view are all a matter for the state to decide, not the
> people.
>
> BTW this neoconism is all through the upper tiers of the military.
> Remember Obama's top commander in Afghanistan is Stanley McChrystal. If
> anybody read Scahill's Blackwater, wow, far right neocon with the entire
> US arsenal at his finger tips. And this is the guy Obama uses for
> council to escalate the war?
>
> I admit for Obama there is a slight improvement to the blunt force
> trauma power moves the Bush administration used.
>
> Anyway, I don't want to get too strident with this neocon stuff. It's
> just that I got nowhere when I tried to follow the picture of Obama Max
> sketched out.
>
> CG
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>