"Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged steadfast aid to Afghanistan in talks with its Western-backed leader Sunday and vowed to pursue the war on terror "with vigor" if he is elected, an Afghan official said.

On the second day of an international tour designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials, Obama and other U.S. senators held two hours of talks with President Hamid Karzai at his palace in the Afghan capital.

Obama has chided Karzai for not doing more to build confidence in the Afghan government, whose grip remains weak after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Mark Stroh said the senators had discussed issues including the painstaking rebuilding of the country's government and economy, the security situation and corruption with Karzai.

The Afghan presidency said Obama's message was positive.

"Sen. Obama conveyed ... that he is committed to supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigor," said Humayun Hamidzada, Karzai's spokesman.

Both Democrats and Republicans "are friends of Afghanistan and no matter who wins the U.S. elections, Afghanistan will have a very strong partner in the United States," Hamidzada said.

Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terrorism threats.

The Illinois senator has said the war in Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants are resurgent, deserves more troops and more attention as opposed to the conflict in Iraq.

Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two brigades a month while increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan. Obama has proposed sending two more combat brigades — about 7,000 troops — to Afghanistan. McCain also is advocating sending more forces to the war-battered country.

Obama also has expressed weariness with efforts by Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan, to go after militants in its territory. That frustration may strike a chord with Karzai, who has accused Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting the Taliban insurgency — a claim that Pakistan denies.

But Obama also has chided Karzai and his government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and helped to organize the country or its political and security institutions.

The War on Terrorism (also known as the War on Terror) is the common term for the various military, political and legal actions initiated by the United States government, often stated to be a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The terminology "War on Terrorism" and its objectives predate the 2001 attacks by about 20 years however, having become part of US policy already under the Reagan administration and, according to critics such as Noam Chomsky, sometimes led to active support of terrorist organizations in the struggle against Communism.

The official objectives of the 2001 War on Terrorism are to counter terrorist threats, prevent terrorist acts and curb the influence of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, human rights abuses and other violations of international law.

On September 20th, 2001, during an address to a joint session of congress and the American people, President George W. Bush formally declared war on terror when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald — Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor — has stated that those responsible for acts of terror such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws, and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of law": "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."

    President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their war mongering neoconservative think tank were very heartened to hear Senator Barack Obama's vow to continue with their so called "War On Terror", with vigor no less. The Bush Administration's nebulous and open ended "War On Terror" is making billionaires in the military-industrial complex ,as long as America is fighting a war someplace, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran, "it's all good". The United Kingdom of Great Britain no longer even uses the expression "war on terror", much less the faulty ideology. The UK has the insight to discern that terrorists are not "soldiers" but criminals and the best way to fight international terrorists is through law enforcement agencies, not the military. Common sense tells us we can't fight "terror" in any physical way, so a "War On Terror" is a smokescreen for some other agenda or an excuse to pursue world domination. Is this the "change we can believe in"?

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.  The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

   The political party and President that holds the above views on America and the fight against international terrorism, is genuinely the "change we can believe in". As far as Bush's overall "War On Terror", nothing will change in either a McCain or an Obama administration, as I see. The neoconservative agenda and the military-industrial profits will continue, just "politics as usual".

tags: war on terror  barack obama  obama  john mccain  mccain  takebackamerica  poliitcs  us  president  neoconservatism  military industrial complex  war  warpeace  afghanistan  pakistan  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit