Michael Steele: Afghanistan Was A War of "Obama's Choosing"

Remarkably, RNC Chair Michael Steele recently implied that Obama started the war in Afghanistan. Speaking at a Connecticut fundraiser for Republican candidates, Steele said the following:

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he said. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"

Apparently, it was just a fake war until Obama's presidency.

UPDATE: Several anti-war progressives have praised Steele for stating that the war is unwinnable. See, e.g., A cycle of stupidity. For the same reason, several conservatives have demanded that he resign as RNC chair. See, e.g., A Letter to Michael Steele.

Eugene Robinson Says Obama Must Meet His Afghanistan Deadline

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, one of President Obama's biggest media supporters, says that Obama must keep his promise and begin troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011. Recently, General David Patraeus said during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that "[w]e have to be very careful with timelines" and that withdrawal could not occur unless certain "conditions" were met.

NYT Reporter Who Wrote The Afghanistan Mineral Story Bashes Bloggers; Apologizes

On Monday, New York Times reporter James Risen published an article that made a remarkable claim. According to Risen, US scientists had recently discovered vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan worth at least $1 trillion.

Suspicious bloggers immediately jumped on the report. Many of them (myself included) pointed out that the story of mineral deposits in Afghanistan emerged as early as the 1980s and as recently as 2007. Indeed, a 2007 joint report of the US Geological Survey and the Navy similarly claimed that the nation had rich mineral reserves.

Some bloggers even questioned the timing of the story. The war in Afghanistan has become the subject of increasing criticism. Some commentators suggested that the story was a Pentagon-planted narrative seeking to rally public support for the war.

Risen Strikes Back
During a telephone interview with Yahoo News blogger John Cook, Risen attacked bloggers who questioned his reporting:

"Bloggers should do their own reporting instead of sitting around in their pajamas....

The thing that amazes me is that the blogosphere thinks they can deconstruct other people's stories. . . .Do you even know anything about me? Maybe you were still in school when I broke the NSA story, I don't know. It was back when you were in kindergarten, I think.

Risen shared a Pulitzer for breaking the NSA story in 2006. Despite this fact, his recent defensiveness is offensive and unprofessional. Furthermore, Risen cannot dispute the fact that his recent report about Afghanistan's mineral reserves did not uncover any new data. Nonetheless, Risen asks, "If it wasn't news, then why didn't anybody write about it?" Apparently, Risen did not read the blog articles that questioned his story. They contain numerous citations to articles that covered this issue in the past. Cook also provides links to similar reporting in his blog post.

Perhaps realizing that his angry words would become public, Risen called Cook after the interview and offered an apology to bloggers:

"I was taken aback by some of the criticism, and didn't sleep well last night, and was upset about it. I apologize."

Closing Comment
Clearly, the professional media could benefit from the scrutiny of hardworking and thoughtful bloggers. The general animosity Risen expresses towards bloggers is unwarranted.

The Pentagon "Helping" Afghanistan To Sell Mineral Rights

The New York Times has reported that US geologists have located almost $1 trillion in mineral deposits. The deposits include minerals such as iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium.

According to the article, the deposits are newly discovered. A recent article in Chinamining.org, however, reports that in 2007, China signed a $3 billion deal with Afghanistan to mine copper in the country. Also, in 2007, the US Geological Survey and the Navy released a report touting the rich "undiscovered" minerals in Afghanistan. The fact that officials in the US and in other countries already knew about the minerals has led to speculation that the New York Times article is being used to raise support for the Afghanistan War, which has drawn increasing criticism.

Here is the most interesting quote in the article (in my opinion):

The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”

During the Bush presidency, anti-war demonstrators chanted "no blood for oil." Now, what will they chant? Another question: Can an occuyping force really "help" the occupied country sell its precious resources?

Is the United States Operating a "Secret Prison" in Afghanistan?

According to the BBC, the International Committee of the Red Cross has confirmed that the United States is operating a secret prison in Afghanistan and that at least one detainee has died from abuse at the facility. The US denies that it is operating such a facility.

For the full story, see: BBC News - Red Cross confirms 'second jail' at Bagram, Afghanistan.

Are Liberals Fed Up With President Obama?

A pair of news articles portray growing discontent with President Obama among liberals. First, Politico reports that the Congressional Black Caucus -- the most liberal coalition in Congress -- believes that the Obama Administration has snubbed the group. One incident reported in the article describes conflict between Obama and Representative John Conyers (a senior black member of Congress). Conyers has voiced deep criticism of Obama on healthcare and Afghanistan. According to Politico, President Obama called Conyers and told him that his critiques were "demeaning."

President Obama's response to Conyers has ruffled some feathers:

That report [regarding Conyers and Obama] didn’t sit well with many African-American lawmakers, aides and lobbyists, who revere Conyers as an elder statesman.

"Conyers has been in Congress longer than Barack Obama could spell," said a black strategist close to both the White House and Congress. "If he’s making a complaint, it’s a shot across the bow, and you might want to pay attention to that."

Some of the battles, however, sound like "turf warfare." For example, CBC members complain that Obama met with Ben Jealous (head of the NAACP) and Reverend Al Sharpton although they are still waiting to meet with the President.

Perhaps that meeting with Jealous and Sharpton has translated into political support. Recently, Jealous and Sharpton both passionately defended Obama against criticism by some black politicians who say that he is not doing enough to address the concerns of poor people and blacks.

Coincidentally, these are the exact same allegations that Sharpton has made repeatedly against other presidents and politicians -- including Democrats. Now, Sharpton argues that it is ridiculous to expect Obama to push a "black agenda." It is probably immature to expect any president to advance something narrowly described as a "black agenda." But promoting equal economic opportunity and equality are not "black agendas"; these are universal concerns that liberals expect Democrats to pursue.

A second article, in USA Today, suggests that Obama is losing his liberal base. Although liberals still support Obama in great numbers, there are growing signs of discontent. On issues ranging from national security to healthcare reform, Obama has faced conflict with progressives.

Donna Brazile, an Obama supporter, says that: "The energized base which transformed the nation and elected our first black president [is] now disengaged. . . If this was September, I would hit the panic button." Although liberals have criticized the President, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the notion that Obama has taken liberals for granted is "silly." Note to Gibbs: The flip dismissal of liberal concerns will not do much to alleviate existing tensions.

Why Aren't Self-Proclaimed Fiscal Conservatives Questioning Afghanistan Troop Surge?

Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties approach healthcare reform with a high degree of skepticism. Senator Joe Lieberman, who has received $1 million from the insurance industry over the course of his Senate career, has vowed to oppose any reform package that contains a public plan option. Lieberman explains that he is voting his "conscience" and that he cannot endorse an expansion in government during an economic downturn.

Senator Mary Landrieu has expressed a similar view. Some media outlets report, however, that in exchange for her vote allowing debate on the latest Senate healthcare reform bill, the White House promised to secure an additional $100 million in Medicaid assistance for Louisiana (the state Landrieu represents).

Across the aisle, Republicans are behaving like "born-again budget conservatives." They suddenly embraced fiscal restraint following the election of President Obama, but they recklessly agreed to cut taxes and increase spending during the Bush administration. Their newly found fiscal salvation leads them to oppose healthcare reform and basically any other element of government spending unrelated to wars and cops.

Fighting Wars versus Healing the Sick
After weeks of deliberation regarding a military-endorsed troop surge in Afghanistan, President Obama, according to emerging reports, has agreed to send an additional 34,000 troops to fight the Taliban. The troop surge would take place over the next 9 months. The estimated cost for the war over the next decade approaches $1 trillion -- more than the cost of each healthcare reform package pending in Congress.

Two Democrats in Congress -- Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Representative David Obey of Wisconsin -- have called for a surtax on upper-income earners to finance the troop surge. Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives, however, have remained virtually silent regarding the expense and deficit-impact of the war in Afghanistan. Most of these individuals strongly endorse the troop surge and voted for the war in Iraq.

Bombing foreign nations and leading young Americans to their deaths in the name of national security (however skeptical the claim) is worth the expense. Funding healthcare for almost all Americans is reprehensible and socialist. Someone please explain this logic.