Most presidents start wondering--or, more often, worrying--about their "legacy" well into their first term. Or, if they have a second term, they worry even more feverishly about what posterity will think of them. Obama need not wonder about his legacy, even this early. It is already fixed, and in one word: Afghanistan. He took on what he made America's longest war and what may turn out to be its most disastrous one. It is time for me to break a silence I have observed for over a year, against my better judgment. On June 30, 2009, I and eight other historians were invited to a dinner with President Obama and three of his staffers, to discuss what history could teach him about conducting the presidency. I was asked shortly after by several news media what went on there, and I replied that it was off the record. I have argued elsewhere that the imposition of secrecy to insure that the president gets "candid advice" is a cover for something else--making sure that what is said about the people's business does not reach the people. But I went along this time, since the president said that he wanted this dinner to be a continuing thing, and I thought that revealing its first contents would jeopardize the continuation of a project that might be a source of information for him. But there has been no follow up on the first dinner, and certainly no sign that he learned anything from it. The only thing achieved has been the silencing of the main point the dinner guests tried to make--that pursuit of war in Afghanistan would be for him what Vietnam was to Lyndon Johnson. At least four or five of the nine stressed this. Nothing else rose to this level of seriousnes
Most presidents start wondering--or, more often, worrying--about their "legacy" well into their first term. Or, if they have a second term, they worry even more feverishly about what posterity will think of them. Obama need not wonder about his legacy, even this early. It is already fixed, and in one word: Afghanistan. He took on what he made America's longest war and what may turn out to be its most disastrous one.
It is time for me to break a silence I have observed for over a year, against my better judgment. On June 30, 2009, I and eight other historians were invited to a dinner with President Obama and three of his staffers, to discuss what history could teach him about conducting the presidency. I was asked shortly after by several news media what went on there, and I replied that it was off the record. I have argued elsewhere that the imposition of secrecy to insure that the president gets "candid advice" is a cover for something else--making sure that what is said about the people's business does not reach the people. But I went along this time, since the president said that he wanted this dinner to be a continuing thing, and I thought that revealing its first contents would jeopardize the continuation of a project that might be a source of information for him.
But there has been no follow up on the first dinner, and certainly no sign that he learned anything from it. The only thing achieved has been the silencing of the main point the dinner guests tried to make--that pursuit of war in Afghanistan would be for him what Vietnam was to Lyndon Johnson. At least four or five of the nine stressed this. Nothing else rose to this level of seriousnes
The fact that it was an idiotic policy, was known to be an idiotic policy, even then is neither here nor there. Obama got his war on and he is Lyndon Johnston.
However, is it possible to be a peace President in a country where the military industrial complex has such deep pockets and can buy such overwhelming influence ? keep to the Fen Causeway
However, is it possible to be a peace President in a country where the military industrial complex has such deep pockets and can buy such overwhelming influence ?
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
There are those who point out that he is a dozen or more approval points above where Reagan was in a similar economic horror, and others who will point out that he always said that Afghanistan is a righteous war.
But here they are, putting billions of more into the madness without any chance of any other solution somewhere down the line than where they are now--calling it victory and saying let's take care of home. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
but you have to watch the whole show including the Ch4 adverts for Amoretto.
however, the shirely sherrod sequence is really funny keep to the Fen Causeway
As in, "Obama's legacy? Who gives a fuck?" By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
vietnam (which I presume was the previous worst fiasco) (or did you mean the civil War ?) and other conflicts may have gone wrong, but they didn't change the game in terms of how the world viewed the country. Afghanistan did, a bunch of hajis didn't just frustrate them like in Iraq, they're on the point of defeating them, of showing the world how to beat the big bad bully.
the US wasn't beaten in Vietnam, but they just couldn't win. The US faces defeat in Afghanistan. In fact if the Taliban really get wiggy with cutting the overland supply routes, it could be a defeat of 9th legion proportions keep to the Fen Causeway
a) he says "may turn out to be" rather than is
b) this could turn out to be the worst timed conflict in economic terms - the money that has been spent could be the tipping point in having a seriously negative effect on the US economy - and only the Civil War could compare with that...
Considering the Afghan experience of the British and Russians from the 1820's to the 1980's, nobody could have predicted... By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
... nobody could have predicted...
Is this the official/unofficial ET catch-phrase? Very useful in so many situations. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
don't have the asteroid picture, sorry keep to the Fen Causeway
the US wasn't beaten in Vietnam,
the usa was humiliated in vietnam, and had to beat an ignominious retreat, the vietcong prevailed.
afghanistan is similar, in that the talibanis are prevailing through attrition and stubborn reluctance to cede to superior firepower.
having not learned from vietnam, this time it will be more humiliating...
especially as it cannot be said that the war was lost by jane fonda this time, indeed americans seem mostly only moved to end the occupation for solely economic reasons, unsurprising due to the much closer to absolute control of that pesky media, which was still much less muzzled back in the 60's, though still prevalently right wing.
the big difference is the draft, and the fact that vietnam was not on the chinese dime. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
What Obama will be remembered for is, 1.) being the first black president, and 2.) socialized medicine. The importance of the current wars in the Middle East will fade into insignificance as time goes on.
Consider, for example, the French Indochina War, 1946-1954, over 500,000 dead. Completely overwhelmed in history by the American version of war in Vietnam.
these two things are not the same keep to the Fen Causeway
However, the principle that health coverage should be universal has been established even if the implementation can be found lacking. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
