Casey and Obama – Moon of Alabama

February 27, 2008

Casey and Obama

In the Texas primary debate Obama came out with a story from a captain in Afghanistan. The captain claimed he lacked personal and had to use captured weapon and ammunition because he couldn’t get the stuff he needed through the army logistics. Obama was attacked as telling a lie, but it was confirmed that the captain really told that story.

In a Senate hearing yesterday Gen.Casey testified that the story is indeed plausible:

Gen. George Casey, the Army’s chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama’s recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn’t have enough soldiers or weapons. But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

Casey was the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq and did not want more troops there, i.e. he was against the "surge". His main point was that troops did not get enough rest and the army would fall apart.

But here is some interesting detail missing in the reports from yesterday hearings. When the Senate confirmed him for his new job as chief of the army, McCain and Clinton voted against Casey, while Obama voted for him.

What does this do the horserace? I don’t know. But support of the anti-surge military fraction for Obama is an interesting detail which should be mentioned.

Posted by b on February 27, 2008 at 09:03 UTC | Permalink

Comments

I have the vague impression that re. foreign policy there is a divide between the neo-cons and their affiliates (such as Hill and her ‘experience’) and Obama, other Dem-Reps (plus the ‘anti-war’ public), internationalists, that is settling down, jelling and hardening, with capital, finance aka Wall St, and big biz, the old guard from all over the pol. spectrum, on the Obama side (short-hand, Obama being merely a manifestation of these attitudes.)
In public, the discourse is about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ wars, the boon, boost or necessity of allies (see for ex. Kerry, NATOs role, etc.), the superiority of diplomacy and negotiated solutions, the recovering of the US image, soft power vs. hard power, and so on, nostalgia.
The crippling costs of the Iraq war are directly related to the recession, by for ex. Edwards and his wife village voice
The burgeoning of mild and measured anti-Israel discourse, be it framed in anti-Zionist, anti-Likud, anti-racist, pro-Palestinian, or US supremacist voices, also from the ‘true, sincere’ helpers of, believers in, jews/a jewish state/israel, seems to be based on the underlying idea of ‘no more wars for/with Israel’ as past efforts haven’t been, well, useful, in any way, and very expensive to boot.
(Israel has demonstrated it is weak, duplicitous, confused, and cannot ever conquer any oil fields, even with the backing of the first military power in the world. IMHO.)
Afghanistan is a ‘good’ war and worth being pursued properly if one ticks some of the check boxes for ‘good wars.’ (see Obama.) Perhaps it is just retrenching, re-scaling, war is necessary, but lets have a little less of it. Maybe there is more to it. Convincing geo-strategic arguments are hard to find, or by now old history (see pipelines, etc.)
In public, the myth of fighting Al-Q where it actually resides, and finally annihilating Binny’s associates, followers, that is in Afgh. and Pakistan, not in Iraq, as the Al-Q+Iraq meme seems to have died, is forced down the public’s throat.
All this is also tied to Kosovo, now Kosova, but this is long enough.
my take on this day at end of feb, vague as i said.

Posted by: Tangerine | Feb 27 2008 16:28 utc | 1

Back to Main