Over the last, say, ten days, I noticed progressives were intensifying their proposals for an Obama counterterrorism agenda. So I wrote up the leftward edge of counterterrorism policy for the Washington Independent. Welcome to a recalibration of liberty and security.
Yet while liberals have spent much of this time opposing the Bush administration’s agenda, many of their proposals for Obama go beyond merely rolling back President George W. Bush’s policies — withdrawing from Iraq, shuttering the Guantanamo Bay detention complex, abolishing torture — to offer new areas of emphasis, like stabilizing Afghanistan, an Arab-Israeli peace and a re-envisioned balance between security and liberty.
It’s not actually that lame! Sometimes lede-writing is a troublesome thing. Check out, for instance, Taylor Marsh’s plan for Afghanistan:
Taylor Marsh, a progressive political analyst and former radio host, also urged a renewed counterterrorism focus in South Asia. “Counterterrorism in the Obama administration has to begin with the Af-Pak region immediately,” she said, referring the to Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. “First, we need limited additional deployment of forces into Afghanistan. Afghan cities must be made more stable, through working with NATO countries, or we’re going to have more problems not fewer with regard to terrorism. Because focusing on Pakistan alone, the jihadists will simply cross the border where we’re not building security. The Af-Pak region deals with two countries of varying complexities and unique challenges for Obama — but neither country can be dealt with in a vacuum.”
What is she, Ahmed Rashid n’ shit? Yezzzur. This is progressive counterterrorism.
Login Here




5 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Personally I thought that said precisely nothing.
Meanwhile, how about you give the Pakis some drones already. They’ve clipped like 3000 militants themselves during the period in which every single US airstrike causes a diplomatic incident. There’s a simple solution there, especially given that you’re already commmitted to supplying air force equipment.
Take the NSA spying on Americans. Big problem if you do it from the US and call yourself the NSA. Give your equipment to Canada and call yourself something else and you achieve the exact same result with a little plausible deniability that goes a long way.
BTW here’s a story about a detainee on trial in that no-Gitmo world, which is supposedly somehow better…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/wor…..30158.html
If you’ve got Gitmo + a dozen black sites where your existence and detention is denied and you close Gitmo, you’re left with what ?
Seriously… Taylor Marsh? That has to be the single easiest person in the world to get to respond to a request for a quote. The Independent’s fact checkers should’ve given you a slap on the wrist for calling her a radio host as well – http://johnbrownks.blogspot.co…..marsh.html
I think a fair minimum for judging the behavior of wannabe progressive talking heads from this point forward is that, if they ever pushed the idea of a tape where Michelle Obama said “whitey” a lot, this fact must be included side-by-side with whatever commentary they offer so that a reader is fully informed on the quality of their expertise – http://www.taylormarsh.com/arc…..p?id=27847
Also, who exactly is proposing that we focus on Pakistan alone? The level of expertise and interest demonstrated by that quote is roughly that of someone who listened to a couple of Obama’s foreign policy speeches and regurgitated them and screwed up a couple details in the process.
Spencer, just for giggles, can you gimme a brief idea of what you mean by “progressive”?