Posted by Anthony Gregory on 01/24/09 11:08 AM Last updated 01/24/09 11:09 AM   [Newer: America's Persistent Empire] [Older: New Libertarian Academic Journal Online ]

The new president fired missiles into Pakistan, killing at least fifteen people. The locals say three children were killed. Obama's White House, advertised as the most transparent in US history, has no comment. Less than a week into his presidency, and he's already ordering bombings. Thanks to Antiwar.com for the links.

The Democrats and Obama have long emphasized Afghanistan and Pakistan as the central front of the war on terror, appropriating Bush rhetoric and bellicosity with just a change in scenery. But just as none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, none were Afghani or Pakistani either.

Yes, there are terrorists in Pakistan, maybe even bin Laden. This is not retribution for 9/11, though, but rather the first major act in Obama's chapter of the indefinite, open-ended war on terror. He might have not done Iraq, but he would have waged an even more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if we take his word for it.

In any event, bombings that kill children, nation-building crusades, invasions and occupations are not the effective way to handle terrorism, as many holeful peaceniks understood as they voted for Obama, hoping for a change toward peace.

This is a great opportunity for President Obama to effect real change in foreign policy -- the best, most politically viable opportunity for a shift toward non-intervention since the end of the Cold War. But Obama is an interventionist, at home and abroad. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And big government at home and empire abroad are just that hammer. So more "collateral damage" can be expected, as this new administration feels itself out and figures out what it wants to do abroad -- in all the third-world nations that presidents are accustomed to viewing as their playgrounds for imperial experimentation.

Posted 01/24/09 11:22 AM Fire8085 Turlock, CA

Of course this is the non-sense that we can expect from the Obama administration. I have some friends of mine who have their heads on right, but they can't seem to get out of the stereotyping of the 2 parties. They thought Bush was god awful because of the spending and mainly war, but they can't see that Obama has had the same people who invested in Bush, backing him. Just have to show people the truth behind everything.

Posted 01/24/09 11:54 AM mattgeb84 lynn, MA

does any body else see the similarities to what Bin Laden did to the soviets and what he is now doing to us. When the soviets were fighting Bin Laden in afganistan he said something to the effect that his goal was to bankrupt the soviets, and he most certainly succeeded, now it looks like he is playing the same joke on us, we we fell for it hook line and sinker. the usa is completely BANKRUPT

Posted 01/24/09 12:07 PM triplec110h Glendale, CA

And so it begins... I feel very, very bad for those who thought that Obama would actually change anything in terms of foreign policy. Including my mother and some of my closest friends. One of my closest friends was gloating in my face when Obama won the presidential election, and he was teasing me thinking that Obama winning the election would anger me. I just responded by saying that over the next four years, Obama will anger his voters infinitely more.

Posted 01/24/09 12:19 PM FillBax Linwood, PA

Good eye mattgeb84, you are absolutely correct. No one can denying this because Bin Laden said it himself. Below is a link to a CNN article from 2004 which reference a tape sent to Al-Jazeera in which Bin Laden outlined his plan to bankrupt America the same as they did with the soviets. Follow the link below to the article. http://tinyurl.com/4lv4e

Posted 01/24/09 12:38 PM AngelaTC Fenton, MI

This is exactly what Obama said he was going to do. McCain even mocked him, saying (paraphrased) "...he's going to talk to our enemies and bomb our allies." The liberals will support this because it is related to the war on terror.

Posted 01/24/09 12:52 PM Blunt Sherbrooke, Canada

The worst thing is that here, in Quebec (where Obama is almost seen as the new Messiah), the people fell in love with him exactly because he said he was to end the war in Irak (okay, his progressive stances on abortion and global warming kinda helped, too). And guess what ? Everytime I confront any canadian Obama fan about Obama's stance on economy, Pakistan OR Afghanistan, they answer something as empty as "well, if you know better, why don't you go and tell him yourself" ? No, people, don't worry. Ignorance doesn't end at the north border.

Posted 01/24/09 1:24 PM Heather D Port Byron, IL

How many innocents have we murdered in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and how is that "collateral damage" any less of a crime than 9-11 was? There is a massive difference between vengeance and justice; it's time that American's figure out the distinction.

Posted 01/24/09 1:28 PM chickenfish Cronulla, Australia

This Obama guy is just another corrupt political hype. After not watching Ron Paul get fair news coverage while this phony did, one has to ask themselves, "is there anything legitimate about this guy?". People say all the time that Obama said this or promised that, but frankly I have never heard him say anything of any substance about anything. Considering that the last two Bush elections were rigged, why would this one be any different. What happened is what was supposed to happen, right on que, roll eyes to back of head, back to work.

Posted 01/24/09 2:45 PM Reminder Los Angeles, CA

chickenfish: "frankly I have never heard him say anything of any substance about anything" It's nice to see others actually noticed this, too. It just shows you how stupid people are when they talk about how incredible Obama is, and how he can sort all of their problems. It's miraculous really, because this phoney never offered any real juice about anything... just a lot of 'we need change, because change is good, change is what the people deserve, and change is what I'll bring.' It was EMBARASSING listening to him talk. I also recall that idiot Will Smith saying: "You've got to hear this guy talk" like it was magical. The only thing that was magical about the way Obama talked is that millions never picked up on the fact he said absolutely nothing tangible at all, yet was still given more press and media coverage than everyone else. And eventually elected. Now that's magical. The fact is, people are just too damn lazy. They elect a president because the TV, newspapers, and their friends tell them 'this guy is great' and that's good enough for them. It's like the convenient TV Dinner of politics. 'Screw seeing what's in the cupboard and making something good and nutritious, I'm far too lazy, let's just put this heap of s___ in the microwave oven for 2 minutes and that'll do.' Some people might not like what I'm going to say, but I'm not P.C., I don't care, and I'm saying it anyway: Fact is, everyone just got too carried away with the whole first (young) black president thing... like it's something 'hip' and new, and the fact Obama didn't even say ANYTHING that any smart person could take away and say: 'Yeah, that makes sense' just makes this patently obvious. No one can argue this fact. I feel sorry for the smart black folk who know only too well this imposter Obama isn't the 'first black president' they really hoped for... 'cos he certainly didn't get where he is on merit (just like most other world leaders these days). Just a case of let's go with the confident sounding young black guy instead of the lousy white woman (That man-woman Hillary) or that lousy old war-loving white guy - nah, too familiar - McCain. No contest. But, it's true what they say... the people always get the leader they deserve. (It's just a crying shame the anti-sheep among us are the only ones who know we're getting screwed and have any ounce of sense about what time it really is. And, it's even more of a shame that this is how it's gonna be for the rest of our lives, because the majority of people are just too stupid and lazy to think for themselves... and when it comes down to it... the majority wins, every time.)

Posted 01/24/09 3:34 PM StatusQuoJoe Phoenix, AZ

@chickenfish and Reminder, I think he just has some good speech writers, well good as in they could work for prime time television (they know all the hot spots). The guy who wrote his inauguration speech wrote it at Starbucks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/barack-obama-inauguration-us-spe ech

Posted 01/24/09 3:49 PM md240205 Athens, OH

If you haven't done so already, I would recommend reading some books by John Taylor Gatto. He will truly open your eyes as to why so many people lack the ability to question what is told to them, mainly being the fact that the government controls schooling, aka "education", and so controls it's people's minds by dulling them to the point of losing critical thinking and relying on obedience to anonymous authority.

Posted 01/24/09 4:14 PM Reminder Los Angeles, CA

To StatusQuoJoe That's another thing I just don't understand. How can anyone truly take Obama or anyone in politics as a real person who really means what they say, when basically, the words were never even their own? It's a joke. I'd take a sincere but unpolished speech from a real person over some badly-written Hollywood bullschmitt any day. It's just a shame most wouldn't. Too concerned with flash, people are... flash and no substance... and I'm sick to death of it. Obama is nothing but a polished performer. He's no different to Britney Spears... at least... how she is when she's not on the drink and drugs or whatever makes her act nuts. To md240205: I'll have to check that out, thanks. It's crazy really. Think of the odds on how any of us free thinking people ever managed to break out of what abouts to the real-life 'Matrix' and look elsewhere for answers, given from the cradle to the grave we're bombarded with mind control.

Posted 01/24/09 4:18 PM Reminder Los Angeles, CA

Correction: break out of what AMOUNTS to the real-life 'Matrix'. "I'm not a retard. I'm not a retard. I'm not a retard."

Posted 01/24/09 4:20 PM patriotfilms North Bergen, NJ

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And big government at home and empire abroad are just that hammer." Brilliant!

Posted 01/24/09 5:28 PM chicafoom Sahuarita, AZ

Everything written in this post on the comments was brilliant, except that the facts stated seriously affect each of us. Reminder, your TV dinner analogy almost had me rolling on the floor. I guess you have to laugh when you've done enough crying for your country. Almost my husband's whole family has a love affair with Obama. On our family website, my husband's aunt said that the Obama inauguration was one of the best days of her life and that she'd been waiting for over 40 years for that day, that she felt like an Israelite wandering in the wilderness for 40 years and finally reached the promised land. It made me want to puke. Her daughter promptly responded that she felt his inaugural speech was "spiritual". We are in trouble when people look to their king, oh I mean, president as their messiah.

Posted 01/24/09 5:39 PM ChaseRehn Pocatello, ID

And so it begins. :(

Posted 01/24/09 6:27 PM WILL WORK FOR PEACE Idaho falls, ID

"But just as none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, none were Afghani or Pakistani either." I think this is important. Our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with 9/11, in my opinion and if we ever find Bin Laden, so what? He's one man in a very decentralized loosely-knit organization. I remember hearing a historian talking about the roots of terrorism and how the occupation of a country typically works out. There are some basic steps: 1. A military force occupies a country or region. 2. Resistance fighters immediately develop among the locals. 3. Fighters come from other regions and form an alliance with the local fighters. The locals don't really like these guys, but they put up with them because they hate the occupying force even more. 4. When the occupying force eventually leaves, the natives grow tired of the demands of the foreign fighters and force them out. 5. The country returns to normal. How does terrorism start? Military occupation. How does terrorism end? End the occupation.

Posted 01/24/09 6:28 PM Major C Sharp garden grove, CA

So I am going to leave an open question to everyone here: How would YOU deal with Al Qaeda? They are taking refuge and rebuilding in tribal areas and Pakistan is hesitant (though not against)in mobilizing against them. Diplomacy? They are TERRORISTS, not a state. Let Pakistan do the job? They are faltering. I am going to quote an acquaintance of mine who served in the first Gulf War: "You cannot go "oh the kids" in this case because war doesn't discriminate... You HAVE to be cruel in war. You are trying to kill a lot of people that are also trying to kill you. It's literally - LITERALLY - a game of life or death." Stop saying that innocent lives should be the reason we should leave. As much as I am DISGUSTED by war, this is WAR, not some grade school dispute. Leave those kinds of sensationalism to the media, please. At least, we are repaying for collateral damage. The administration pledged to triple NON-MILITARY (with oversight to boot) foreign aid to Pakistan. And the Pakistanis are positive to that idea. Should we go to war with Saudi Arabia because Bin Laden is native there? No, you are going to attack the organization. That is why we went into Afghanistan; Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. During the Taliban rule, it was a rogue state that consistently ignored international law. Did you expect that would agree to extradition and trial like we ORIGINALLY demanded? Unlike the Second Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan was justified. I apologize if I sounded a bit harsh but this is my opinion. Please understand my position. I am not trying to be a war monger here.

Posted 01/24/09 6:43 PM Jon Champaign, Urbana, IL

holeful peaceniks?

Posted 01/24/09 6:49 PM WILL WORK FOR PEACE Idaho falls, ID

I don't think we can end terrorism by force. I think we can decrease the chances that Americans will be the targets of terrorism by bring the troops home from other countries. I think embargos should be lifted and American goods should flow freely to any country that wants to trade with us whether our governments agree ideologically or not. I think that anything gained by the use of force and coercion isn't sustainable except by force and coercion.

Posted 01/24/09 7:08 PM WILL WORK FOR PEACE Idaho falls, ID

Orwell Would Revel in 'Collateral Damage' http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0409-03.htm

Posted 01/24/09 7:20 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

Classical liberalism is what allows information to flow and the natural tendencies of humans to become better is part of the resulting prosperity. War and terrorism will become as scorned as the archaic practice of drilling holes in people's heads to cure headaches. The ego-driven interventionists stand in the way!

Posted 01/24/09 7:58 PM smashysmashy dover, NH

Right now the top story on CNN.com is "CNN Exclusive: Will.i.am's tribute to Obama" No word of this though...

Posted 01/24/09 8:47 PM ronpaulfan Fort Lauderdale, FL

Nobama is more of the same, there will be no change with this one.

Posted 01/24/09 9:42 PM StatusQuoJoe Phoenix, AZ

Hey Reminder, I don't want to keep stirring up the ant hill here but well its part of my sarcastic nature. Anymore the Presidency is really a dog and pony show (maybe it has been for a long time). What people see in one man/woman is the net result of 100's of people who are very good at public relations, media and appearance. It seems that they work a lot harder at maintaining appearances then they do on actually solving any problems, which in reality would be good since that is overall the job of congress. But now the public is so focused on the polished image of the Presidency that they expect him/her to be super human, thus we have our new super hero president who will save the planet while the real decisions and policy are made behind the scenes out of sight of both the public and congress who should really be making those decisions. Have I rambled on enough?

Posted 01/24/09 10:46 PM Ryan Sheets Louisville, KY

It's interesting that Democrats get the reputation of being "peace candidates". They're no more peaceful than Republicans. In fact, it seems that they are more likely to needlessly put their noses in another country's business. At least Republicans try to justify their wars... Democrats just do it and pretend it didn't happen.

Posted 01/25/09 01:50 AM Ryan Sheets Louisville, KY

It's interesting that Democrats get the reputation of being "peace candidates". They're no more peaceful than Republicans. In fact, it seems that they are more likely to needlessly put their noses in another country's business. At least Republicans try to justify their wars... Democrats just do it and pretend it didn't happen.

Posted 01/25/09 05:28 AM Garrett Jeffersonville, OH

At Major C There is no way to win this war anymore. Just read up on what teh British did in the 1800's. They went in killed who they need to and took their leave in less then a year. Thats about the only way to win a war in Afganistan. We have lost because we decided to nation-build.

Posted 01/25/09 07:19 AM Statmeister Anaheim, CA

"President Hamid Karzai condemned a U.S. operation he said killed 16 Afghan civilians, while hundreds of villagers denounced the American military during an angry demonstration Sunday. Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans during U.S. military operations 'is strengthening the terrorists.'" (See the whole article here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan) So now Karzai, who is supposed to be our friend, is mad because of our aggressive actions in his country. And the US govt will try to appease (bribe) him with more money that we don't have. Meanwhile, our borders with Mexico are wide open, allowing terrorists to come across. The terrorists in the Middle East are not our problems. It's the one's who are in our country, plotting their next attack.

Posted 01/25/09 07:33 AM mlang52 Robinson, IL

Reminder, You may not be PC but at least you are tactful! When they come for my guns, is when it is already too late! Major C sharp Yes, killing children sounds harsh. But, you do have some legitimate points. I would hope that everyone's opinion is welcome here. My opinion was not welcome at my state's Republican convention, because I was a Ron Paul supporter! Lets hope that we have, all, learned that suppressing opinions is not the American way! But, more like the way of the old USSR!! Statusquojoe, Your analysis is right on! And finally, And I agree that he has not made any substantive concessions in his speeches. His words always seem to skirt any real answers. (polititalk?) I think the best comment is triplecs response to his gloating Obamanationite acquaintance! If he continues to act like a real politician, it will be the opposition that has the last laugh. I hope he doesn't continue down this same disasterous road, too long!

Posted 01/25/09 08:03 AM chuckmc Ironton, MO

How do do-nothing governors from second-tier states like Georgia and Arkansas , with little experience on the world stage, get elected President? How does a one term senator from Illinois, also with no foreign experience, get elected president? The media does it. They are told beofrehand what stories they will run, and what news they will ignore. Thus Obama is the "darling", and his criminal ties, his devotion to the Federal Reserve, his foreign spending (He committed $50 Billion to African foreign aid while in the senate), all get swept under the rug. McCain couldn't get a break with the media. And we all know what they did to Ron Paul. We've only had two presidents since Ike who were not onboard with the Federal Reserve...both paid dearly- Nixon and Reagan. Reagan in his first term actually was considering returning to a federal dollar backed by gold. Four assassination attempts later (did you know that? Suppressed by the media...) with the last one almost succeeding (Hinkley- good friend of the Bush family....did you know that? Suppressed by the media.)Reagan changed his tune. NO assassination attempts after he decided to stay with the Federal Reserve. So what do you expect from Obama? He's going to carry on the work of Carter, King Bush the First, Clinton, and Emperor Bush the 2nd. Nothing's going to change except for the continuing stealth of resources from the middle class, and the looting of America's economy to benifit the very few. All Wars- all of them- are fought to make the rich, richer. Google this- the funding of the Hessians in the Revolutionary war. The funding of the British in the war of 1812. The funding of the civil war (and why we owe a Russian Czar a huge debt of thanks). The funding of hitler. It goes on and on...

Posted 01/25/09 08:33 AM VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA

FillBax and mattgeb84 : Not that I agree with the money were spending on this war, but I've heard estimates ranging from $0.5 trillion up to $3 trillion(From the Washington Post). Even if the latter was not erroneous, where the heck did the other $8 trillion of deficits go!?!? Even if we didn't have this war on terror, I think our government would find other ways of spending our money.

Posted 01/25/09 10:52 AM voxpopuli sanford, FL

everyone go to AOL.COM and vote down obama's approval! everyone is wayyyy too optimistic!

Posted 01/25/09 11:31 AM usapatriot Milton, VT

To Major C Sharp, "How would YOU deal with Al Qaeda?" Let's start with the question of why Al Qaeda would want to harm the United States or its citizens. One of the most absurd statements from President Bush was: "They hate our freedom." Does anyone truly believe that a group of people based in the mountainous regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan were suddenly and inexplicably overcome with a blind hatred for the U.S. because of our "freedom"? The hatred that the United States has aroused, particularly in the Muslim world, but also in Central America, Asia and even parts of Europe, is a direct result of interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Attempting to understand the motives behind terrorism in no way justifies the actions, but it's an important, and overlooked aspect of the problem. I'd deal with Al Qaeda by announcing to the world that the United States is going to make a fundamental shift in its foreign policy. I would withdraw U.S. military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Okinawa, Germany, Italy, and most of the other 100+ nations where we keep permanent military bases. I would immediately dismantle any secret, or not so secret prisons where we hold prisoners beyond the rule of law. I'd discontinue policies of torture, and extraordinary rendition. I'd discontinue our blind and unquestioning devotion to Israel and force a negotiated settlement of their conflict with the Palestinians based on the internationally recognized 1967 border (which would probably mean talking to Hamas and Hezbollah). I would end economic sanctions on Iran and North Korea, open diplomatic channels, and deal with their "nuclear issues" based on the terms of the NNPT. I would also secure the Southern border of the United States. If Al Qaeda, or whomever STILL decided to launch an attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, I'd deal with it as a law enforcement matter, not a military one. I might reconsider the employment situation of the people at the FBI who decided to ignore a report from one of their agents about a group of Muslim men interested in learning how to fly planes, but not land them.

Posted 01/25/09 9:03 PM Statute of Liberty Chicago, IL

Although Obama ran on the platform of exiting Iraq, he is not a "peace" president. His rhetoric is icy and he has concretely promised to destroy everyone who stands in the way of not only America, but world peace in general. I fear that the social capital he has established with the masses will allow him to continue a destructive foreign policy with little notice or disapproval.

Posted 01/25/09 9:26 PM Major C Sharp garden grove, CA

You miss the fundamental point, usapatriot. Of course, we could and should change our foreign policy but that is not what I was asking about. I was asking about how should we EXTRACT Al Qaeda? Do you think we should excuse them for 9/11 (and among other terrorist activities)? No, we are going to try and arrest them and put them on trial. You know, we DID try to do it as a law enforcement matter but the Taliban in Afghanistan refused to give them up. You can change foreign policy all you want but that does not answer the question on how to apprehend Al Qaeda.

Posted 01/25/09 9:45 PM WILL WORK FOR PEACE Idaho falls, ID

The way I understand it, Al Qaeda is pretty loosely-knit. I think it's a mistake to think we have to go chasing an undefined group of people who can appear and disappear and change their form at any time. It's going to wear us out before it wears them out! And everytime we kill innocent people hunting for ghosts, more join Al Queda's ranks. It's like Israel going in and blasting away in Gaza. Do you think they won anything permanent? Or do you think they just reenforced the hatred that drives people to desperate acts? This idea that we have to DO SOMETHING even if it's wrong ... well, it's wrong.

Posted 01/25/09 10:46 PM PatrickO Vancouver, WA

This is the reason why I did a write in. I knew I wasn't going to win, but I was hoping I would see a something different. We all know that when it comes to foreign policy both Republicans and Democrats take the same view overall. Granted one may just bomb from a distance while the other will send in ground troops. What really made me mad was he couldn't even wait a week. To begin pissing off people around the world. To just agree to fast track the bombings is not a very hopeful sign of "real change." I still think we can be a force in the world without having to kill people. I know it's a crazy concept.

Posted 01/26/09 02:57 AM luciusETRUR Lewisville, TX

I think the main problem is K-12 education. John Stossel did an excellent show on on the education system in America. Ironically, Europe has a more capitalistic education system while ours is on the brink of completely socialist in nature. It's of no surprise, Europeans are more knowledgeable, make higher test scores, however this does not mean they are smarter. America, prior to government intervention into the education system, was considered one of the most brilliant nations in the world. It was because of this brilliance that we won World War 2, we created TCP/IP and the Atomic Bomb. However, today, you try and talk about substance, try and talk about philosophy or even your own country's history, they care not. They want nothing to do with it. It's truly sad when I ask people who is considered the father of the Constitution and I'm given answers like Samuel Adams or George Washington.