‘Surge’ And ‘Escalation’ Are Not Synonyms

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by attackerman and Douglas Foote, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: ‘Surge’ And ‘Escalation’ Are Not Synonyms: Let’s be very specific about what we mean w… http://bit.ly/70ShTJ [...]

Have you considered doing a follow-up to your excellent article on the “Obama Doctrine” in the American Prospect (March 24, 2008): http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the… Dan Rather, who just returned from Afghanistan reported on the Rachel Maddow Show last night that the current strategy includes “soft power” (people from the state department, those who work with aid organizations, various civilian workers), but we're not hearing much about that from the White House. Is the “Obama Doctrine” alive and well or has it been abandoned? Who are Obama's closest foreign policy advisers now? Has he retained some of the people who advised him during the campaign and helped to formulate the Obama Doctrine? Or is he surrounded by military advisers and more hawkish foreign policy advisers now? If he has not abandoned a foreign policy that promotes human dignity, we should see strong traces of it in his speech tonight. Otherwise, I’d like to know what happened. It would make a great article.

Thank you — so, so much — for suggesting that. (And for having read “The Obama Doctrine” in the first place!) I think about a follow-up all the time. Like, all the time. If you ever find me in a bar, several drinks deep, you will hear me muttering to myself about how to frame it and pull it off. I promise you I will revisit this piece as soon as I figure out the best possible way.

Please do it soon. Thinking about “The Obama Doctrine” is the only thing that keeps me from not giving up on the whole progressive cause. I'm encouraging more people to read it this week. I've mentioned you in emails to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. They might have some ideas on how to proceed.

I defy anyone to find the term “surge” in any military manuals/histories from before the Bush years. Seriously, it sounds like a term that was “focus grouped.” It's no different than when we call the Iraq invasion the “liberation of Iraq” or other such nonsense.
We can mince words all day, but we will still be there and the killing will continue. I'm no peacenik but I'm tired of good people dying to keep crooks in power. We could send a million folks in and it wouldn't change the odds.
I think we need to wake up to the fact that we're being played. They need the uncle sam gravy train to keep running. They need us to get our people killed and do the fighting. What would motivate them to step up? I say we pack up one night and leave a nice note and some gift certificates.
there is no military solution to afghanistan!

As a side note one of my friends will be deploying to Afghanistan later next year with his civil affairs unit. He told me that they were told they would be doing a little “payoff” scheme like we used with the Sunnis in Iraq/anbar. He also said they would be doing retina scans, fingerprinting and cataloging those paid to stay neutral to make sure they weren't working both sides or involved in any way.
I think,(if what he says is true)this is a sad state of affairs concerning where we are in Afghanistan.

I tend to agree with you, SaltCity, and the news coming from your friend is alarming. This is the speech I would like to hear Obama give tonight: The Afghan Speech Obama Should Give (But Won't) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/engelhard….

rogerthat,
I think the 30,000 number (if true) is disingenuous as well, as if it were some kind of “half way point” between the hawks and the one's who want us out. 40,000 was the alleged request number-as if he can tell the left “look here, it's an increase but NOT all the generals want”
btw
generals always want more troops (more tanks, more planes, more ships, etc-more $400/gallon gasoline/diesel)

Yes, this is all very depressing. I'm listening to Chris Matthews on MSNBC right now and he's calling the escalation and handoff to the Afghans “The Obama Doctrine.” Spencer, you need to do that article.

I tend to agree with you, SaltCity, and the news coming from your friend is alarming. This is the speech I would like to hear Obama give tonight: The Afghan Speech Obama Should Give (But Won't) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/engelhard….

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by FooteSteppes: RT @attackerman: ‘surge’ and ‘escalation’ are not synonyms. Here’s how to distinguish them. http://bit.ly/7JMseG...

rogerthat,
I think the 30,000 number (if true) is disingenuous as well, as if it were some kind of “half way point” between the hawks and the one's who want us out. 40,000 was the alleged request number-as if he can tell the left “look here, it's an increase but NOT all the generals want”
btw
generals always want more troops (more tanks, more planes, more ships, etc-more $400/gallon gasoline/diesel)

Yes, this is all very depressing. I'm listening to Chris Matthews on MSNBC right now and he's calling the escalation and handoff to the Afghans “The Obama Doctrine.” Spencer, you need to do that article.

[...] And sooner or later those who say that all this was too little, and too late, will look at the facts. Take Spencer Ackerman calling out the Wall Street Journal: [...]