Obama, Progressives and Afghanistan

by Robert Creamer

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.
Like many Progressives, I disagreed with President Obama's decision to increase the number of American troops deployed to Afghanistan. But Progressives must not lose sight of the fact, that though we may disagree with this particular decision, President Obama shares a progressive vision of American foreign policy - including Afghanistan -- that differs fundamentally from that of his Neo-Con predecessor.

At its core, President Obama's Tuesday night speech elaborated his plan to end the American military presence in Afghanistan. His chosen path may not end that presence as quickly as many Progressives would prefer, but he was very clear that America will not conduct an open-ended occupation of Afghanistan, and he set a firm deadline to begin American withdrawal.
Barack Obama understands that Western occupation of a Muslim country ultimately feeds extremism, rather than defeating it. And he understands - as he said in his speech - that our relationship with Afghanistan must ultimately be as a partner, not as a patron. Barack Obama opposes pre-emptive war and the unilateralism that earned George Bush the enmity of people everywhere.

Let us remember that if Barack Obama had been President eight years ago, he would have managed our engagement in Afghanistan completely differently from George Bush - and he would have never invaded Iraq.

While some Progressives may not fully appreciate the fundamental difference between Barack Obama's approach to the world and that of Bush and Cheney, there is no question that the Neo-Con crowd understands it clearly. Dick Cheney's attacks on the President are not simply partisan politics. His criticism of Obama's withdrawal deadline is emblematic of a fundamental disagreement in world view.

The President rejected the original McChrystal proposal for a gradual buildup of American forces over the next 18 months that was premised on a large American presence over a number of years. He also rejected a long-term nation-building mission in Afghanistan, focused heavily on the central government there. Instead he chose to bulk up American forces over the next six months, set an 18-month timeline to begin the disengagement of our military, and provide sharp incentives for the Afghan government to put its house in order - and develop their security forces - immediately.

I do not personally agree that increasing the American military footprint in Afghanistan will promote stability or help us contain al Qaeda. Like many Progressives, I am increasingly convinced that our military presence there fuels the conflict by generating nationalist opposition to Western presence -- and actually destabilizes the country.

But I consider the President's decision to increase short-term troop levels to be a tactical disagreement - not a disagreement concerning goals or strategic vision. The proof of the pudding will, of course, be in the eating. Personally, I believe that by the end of his first term, President Obama will have completely withdrawn American forces from Iraq and that most combat forces will be gone from Afghanistan as well.

And I can state with certainty that this President will not have launched some other military adventure or begun a new interventionist initiative because he does not believe that is the way to create a safe, prosperous and peaceful world.

We will have a very different world in 2012 with Barack Obama as President than we would have had under the leadership of George Bush or John McCain.

We must also remember that the Bush Administration's eight-year mismanagement of the struggle in Afghanistan - and diversion of resources to the War in Iraq -- left President Obama no truly good options there.
America had a brief window of opportunity after the fall of the Taliban to mobilize the world to provide the economic, political support that could make a real change in Afghanistan -and then to withdraw our military presence as soon as possible. Unfortunately that did not happen and now our nine-year military presence there has caused more and more ordinary Afghans to think of us as occupiers to be expelled, rather than as partners in building their country. This problem is particularly acute in rural Afghanistan, which has never really considered itself subject to central government control - and where the tradition of fighting foreign occupiers goes back millennia.

But let's not pretend that our military disengagement from Afghanistan will be simple. Quite apart from its impact on Pakistan, the tribal areas and al Qaeda, let's remember that the former Taliban government brutally suppressed much of the population - and in particular women. Today in Afghanistan one-fourth of the women still wear burqas with tiny screens that allow only a partial view of the world. If the Taliban were to return to power, all women would once again be required to wear the burqa - and none would receive education.

As we disengage militarily, we have an obligation to do the best we can to leave behind a government that can protect women from oppression, and provides hope for long-term economic development.

As an ardent opponent of the War in Iraq - and before that the Viet Nam War -- I certainly understand the passion of Progressives who oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan. But whatever the disappointment in the President's decision, it must not be allowed to overwhelm the enormous stake Progressives have in Barack Obama's success.

I read an article yesterday by a prominent Progressive that said it was now time for him to scrape off the Obama bumper sticker. Wrong.

The Obama presidency presents an unprecedented historic window for progressive change. Our ability to succeed rests heavily on Barack Obama's success as President. Just as importantly, his success and ours depend on the mobilization of Progressives across America to organize for change. If we don't organize to win, the other side will successfully organize to stop us.
No one said change would be easy. Health care reform, re-regulating the financial sector, immigration reform, creating a clean energy economy -- all require the political defeat of powerful, entrenched political and economic interests. For anyone who thought Barack Obama could snap his fingers and make change, think again. Progressives are engaged in a protracted, multi-year political and economic struggle. But the big difference is that with Barack Obama as President and a Democratic Congress, we are on the offensive and no longer in a defensive crouch.
We might not agree with every decision. We might fundamentally disagree with some. But we cannot lose sight that we are part of an historic progressive movement for change whose success requires that Barack Obama be successful as well.

Robert Creamer's recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Added 12.07.2018
The cabinet members who resigned this week apparently feared that politics is taking May toward a “soft Brexit,” their worst of all possible worlds........“soft Brexit,” maintains the status quo, more or less, letting Europeans freely circulate into British labor markets and allowing European firms to operate easily in the UK. The problem with “soft Brexit” is that it raises questions about why the UK is leaving at all, since it will still have the same obligations to Europe as before, it just won’t have a voice when the remaining 27 members of the European Union meet to make decisions.
Added 12.07.2018
One study on the 2010 World Cup found that there was a 37.5% rise in admission rates across 15 accident and emergency departments on England match days........Examining reports of domestic abuse in Lancashire (a county of approximately 1.5m people in Northern England), across the 2002, 2006 and 2010 World Cup tournaments, we discovered a 26% increase in reports of domestic abuse when England won or drew, and a 38% increase when England lost. Reports were also more frequent on weekends, and reached their peak when England exited the tournament.
Added 10.07.2018
If, back in the 1980s and 1990s, the US government, rather than arguing for Chinese economic opening, had prohibited any US company from investing there, China’s rise would have been significantly delayed, though not permanently prevented. Because that did not happen, China’s rise is now self-sustaining. A huge and increasingly affluent domestic market will make exports less vital to growth.
Added 10.07.2018
Comparing today’s demagogues with Adolf Hitler is almost always unwise. Such alarmism tends to trivialize the actual horrors of the Nazi regime, and distracts attention from our own political problems. But if alarmism is counterproductive, the question remains: At what point are democracies truly in danger? What was unimaginable only a few years ago – a US president insulting democratic allies and praising dictators, or calling the free press “enemies of the people,” or locking up refugees and taking away their children – has become almost normal now. When will it be too late to sound the alarm?
Added 09.07.2018
In view of such actions, expectations for Trump’s behavior at the upcoming summit have gone from prickly to dangerous. The sense of foreboding has been heightened by the announcement that, just four days after the summit ends, Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Helsinki. The nightmare scenario is easy to imagine: Trump lays bare NATO’s fractures, including by questioning mutual defense, before selling his allies down the river by publicly embracing Putin. But this does not need to be the outcome.
Added 09.07.2018
After 2027 (or maybe even 2025, only 7 years from now), the number of EVs will rapidly accelerate, as virtually all new vehicles bought will be electric (an effect of rapidly falling battery and other component costs and of the fuel for electric cars being essentially free; you can power one off your rooftop solar array).
Added 03.07.2018
Most pundits interpret Trump’s outbursts as playing to his political base, or preening for the cameras, or blustering for the sake of striking future deals. We take a different view. In line with many of America’s renowned mental-health experts, we believe that Trump suffers from several psychological pathologies that render him a clear and present danger to the world.
Added 03.07.2018
In the United Kingdom, Brexit looms large, with everyone from government ministers to tabloid newspapers frothing daily about the deal that will be struck with the European Union and the effects that it will have. But the EU faces too many pressing challenges to be obsessing about Britain. The UK’s concern is understandable: evidence is mounting of the likely damage a departure from the single market and customs union will do to the UK economy. According to new research from the Centre for European Reform, the UK economy is already 2.1% smaller than it would have been had voters chosen to remain. The hit to public finances totals £440 million ($579 million) per week.
Added 26.06.2018
Nowadays, Britain’s words and actions on the world stage are so at odds with its values that one must wonder what has happened to the country. Since the June 2016 Brexit referendum, British foreign policy seems to have all but collapsed – and even to have disowned its past and its governing ideas. Worse, this has coincided with the emergence of US President Donald Trump’s erratic administration, which is pursuing goals that are completely detached from those of Britain – and of Europe generally. 
Added 26.06.2018
With each passing day, it becomes increasingly evident that US President Donald Trump’s administration cares less about economics and more about the aggressive exercise of political power. This is obviously a source of enormous frustration for those of us who practice the art and science of economics. But by now, the verdict is self-evident: Trump and his team continue to flaunt virtually every principle of conventional economics.
Added 26.06.2018
The sights and sounds of Central American children being ripped from their parents by US Border Patrol officers have, by now, spread across the globe. The experience has been traumatizing to its victims and deeply painful to watch. It has also done incalculable damage to the very idea of America. This is June when we are supposed to be celebrating "Immigrant Heritage Month". Each year, I have taken this opportunity to recall my family's immigrant story - the opportunity and freedom they sought, the hardships they endured, and the remarkable progress they made in just one generation. 
Added 24.06.2018
State terrorism comes in many forms, but one of its most cruel and revolting expressions is when it is aimed at children. Even though U.S. President Donald Trump backed down in the face of a scathing political and public outcry and ended his administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents, make no mistake: His actions were and remain a form of terrorism.
Added 22.06.2018
It is now clear that the twenty-first century is ushering in a new world order. As uncertainty and instability associated with that process spread around the globe, the West has responded with either timidity or nostalgia for older forms of nationalism that failed in the past and certainly will not work now. Even to the most inveterate optimist, the G7 summit in Quebec earlier this month was proof that the geopolitical West is breaking up and losing its global significance, and that the great destroyer of that American-created and American-led order is none other than the US president. To be sure, Donald Trump is more a symptom than a cause of the West’s disintegration. But he is accelerating the process dramatically.
Added 20.06.2018
Sessions quoted a line written by the apostle Paul to a small community of Christians living in Rome around 55AD to defend the Department of Justice’s approach. He said: "I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." Sessions used the Bible because one of the most vocal opponents of the crackdown on asylum cases has been the Catholic Church. It’s no surprise that Sessions appealed to Romans chapter 13 verse 1 in response: not only did he hope to undermine Catholic authority by using the Bible against them, he cited a statement so broad that one might use it to defend anything a government does, good or bad. Picture below St Paul writing his epistles, by Valentin de Boulogne, via Wikimedia Commons.
Added 19.06.2018

I find it exceptionally irritating when I hear liberals worry about whether Israel will be able to remain a "Jewish and Democratic State" if it retains control of occupied Palestinian lands.

Added 18.06.2018
Daniel Wagner: "My prediction Korean War will be formally ended, the peninsula will be denuclearised, and a lasting peace will be the result."
Added 14.06.2018
Extract: PiS [ the ruling Law and Justice party] has established the most significant addition to the Polish social safety net since 1989: the Family 500+ program. Launched in 2016, Family 500+ embodies the nationalism, traditional family values, and social consciousness that the PiS seeks to promote. The program pays families 500 złoty ($144) per month to provide care for a second or subsequent child...........The program has been enormously popular. Some 2.4 million families took advantage of it in the first two years. The benefit, equivalent to 40% of the minimum wage, has almost wiped out extreme poverty for children in Poland, reducing it by an estimated 70-80%........... Liberal pro-European politicians and policymakers are not convinced. They complain that such a generous family benefit will weaken work incentives and blow up the government budget. But initial evidence suggests that Family 500+ has actually increased economic activity. It has also reversed the post-communist decline in fertility, increased wages (particularly for women), and enabled families to buy school materials, take vacations, buy more clothes for their kids, and rely less on high-priced credit for basic household needs. And, thanks to rapid economic growth, the government deficit has steadily fallen, not grown.
Added 12.06.2018
The depths of hypocrisy of the Republican Party in supporting Trump’s meeting with the North Korean dictator in Singapore are hard to plumb. This is a party whose leading members adopted the Ostrich Foreign Policy Principle for decades. If you don’t like a country’s government or political and economic system, pretend it does not exist.
Added 12.06.2018
US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has spoken out against China’s strategy of “intimidation and coercion” in the South China Sea, including the deployment of anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and electronic jammers, and, more recently, the landing of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft at Woody Island. There are, Mattis warned, “consequences to China ignoring the international community.” But what consequences?
Added 12.06.2018
With a general election approaching in September, Swedish voters are being warned that now it’s their turn to be targeted by Russian interference in the democratic process. According to Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), which is leading the country’s efforts to counter foreign-influence operations, such interference is very likely, and citizens should be on the lookout for disinformation and fake news.