Lyndon Johnson as the Vietnam war disintegrated. The linking of the
items below is entirely appropriate. How sad it all was, and is. -Ed
From: Ross Altman
What: Phil Ochs' 70th birthday Celebration
When: Tomorrow, Sunday, Dec. 19, 7PM
Who: Listed below
Where: The Found Theater, in Long Beach (details below)
A small circle of friends will celebrate Phil Ochs' 70th birthday at The
Found Theatre in Long Beach on Sunday, December 19 at 7:00 PM with folk
singers Ross Altman, Len Chandler, Carolyn Hester, Karla and Amy Blume,
Drayfus Grayson, Neil Hartman, Lenny Potash and Eva Scherb. Tickets are $7.
The Found Theatre is located at 599 Long Beach Blvd (at 6th) in Long Beach,
CA. For reservations call (562) 433-3363, or email info@foundtheatre.org
Phil Ochs took his life 35 years ago in 1976, during the Bicentennial, at
the age of 35. Composer of the patriotic anthem Power and the Glory-second
only to This Land Is Your Land in its melding of the American landscape with
a profound identification with its people, including the downtrodden and
imprisoned-Ochs raised the modern protest song to a high art; it has since
been recorded by singers as diverse as Pete Seeger and (we kid you not)
Anita Bryant. With such classics as I Ain't Marching Anymore, Draft Dodger
Rag and There But for Fortune he became the voice of the antiwar movement;
and with such classics as Here's To the State of Mississippi, What's That I
Hear and Too Many Martyrs (for Medgar Evers) he became a voice (along with
Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and Len Chandler) of the civil rights
movement.
To honor the occasion, Smithsonian Folkways Records is generously donating
posters, free downloads, and the grand prize boxed set of Broadside
Recordings, including the early work of both Phil Ochs and Len Chandler, to
give away in a raffle, which along with a special birthday cake will
highlight the evening with fun and refreshments.
By Ross Altman
(Ross's outstanding, comprehensive article and a UTube of Phil singing
'I Ain't Marching Anymore' can be found at
http://www.folkworks.org/index.php)
***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/16/afghanistan-barack-obama-taliban?INTCMP=SRCH
Will the Afghanistan war break Obama's presidency?
Barack Obama is suffering his own Vietnam moment, waging a war he can
neither explain nor afford
by Simon Tisdall
The Guardian: 16 December 2010
Barack Obama puts a brave face on it. The Afghan war is winnable, he
insists. "We are going to break the Taliban's momentum," he told US troops
at Bagram this month. He repeated the mantra today. But American
commentators and analysts, across the political spectrum, are wondering
aloud: will it happen the other way around? Will the war break Obama's
presidency?
Obama is not yet the Rose Garden prisoner of a failed policy - the fate that
befell a Democrat predecessor, Jimmy Carter, whose administration was taken
hostage by Iran's revolutionary mullahs. But he's uncomfortably close, for
all the determined White House talk.
Obama the presidential candidate talked up the war, spoke of fighting the
good fight in Afghanistan in contrast to Iraq, wrote Peter Feaver in Foreign
Policy. But Obama the president struggles to communicate his aims, much as
he struggled on healthcare. Feaver said:
"The administration's strategy appears to be to drive the public narrative
underground."
In other words, Obama would rather not talk about it unless he can't avoid
it
This reluctance is political and intellectual. Veteran foreign policy
analyst Leslie Gelb, writing in the Daily Beast, said Obama can no longer
persuasively answer the basic question: why are 100,000 American troops in
Afghanistan, at an annual cost of $113bn?
"Afghanistan is no longer a vital interest of the United States but
continuing the war there tears at our own nation's very vitals," Gelb said,
arguing that international terrorism now has many bases, including Stockholm
and London, and is no longer centred in the Hindu Kush (if it ever was). He
added:
"With America drowning under a $1.5tn deficit for next year and an almost
$15tn overall debt, we are verging on banana republic-hood... Of course I
feel for the Afghans; but I feel far, far more for Americans."
Obama's electoral vulnerability, waging a war he can't explain and can't
afford, is explored further by the conservative columnist George Will. With
US casualties at record highs and public support falling, Will speculated
about a repeat not of Carter's misfortunes but of Lyndon Johnson's:
"Taliban leaders surely know that North Vietnam won the Vietnam war not in
Vietnam but in America. And they surely known the role played by North
Vietnam's 1968 Tet offensive. Although US forces thoroughly defeated the
enemy, the American public, seeing only chaos and the prospect of many more
years of it, turned decisively against the war."
On this analysis, the all-powerful General David Petraeus can "surge" the
reinforcements Obama sent him as long as he likes. Increased violence has
the opposite effect to that intended. It strengthens the general's most
potent foes - who stand behind him, not in front of him.
These "foes" include a majority of the public, the CIA (which believes that
Pakistani support for the jihadis is fatally undermining the whole
counter-insurgency project), many Democrats in Congress, White House
containment advocates such as vice-president Joe Biden, and maybe even Obama
himself.
To a degree, he was trapped by his own stump rhetoric. But insider accounts
suggest Obama knows in his heart he was bounced into an escalating conflict
by a bunch of Iraq-tainted military top brass keen to prove they can win a
war. He sacked generals McKiernan and McChrystal. But he can't sack 'em all.
Obama, of course, is adamant that a phased troop drawdown will begin next
July. But the real deadline has been pushed back and back. As they say in
Kabul: "2014 is the new 2011". And even that may not stick, especially if
sections of the Afghan security forces continue their impersonation of Dad's
Army.
All the same, next summer may still prove to be showdown time for Obama's
war - for both his presidency and his hopes of a second term. "Obama's most
ardent political supporters are the most fervent opponents of his war
policies," said Feaver. If limited July, 2011 withdrawals "start a rapid
rush to the exit", as the American left hopes, the Republicans whose votes
have sustained Obama will desert him. If Obama adheres to Petraeus's slower,
"conditions-based" withdrawal through 2014 and beyond, Obama may lose his
political base. "Any remaining left-leaning props undergirding public
support will likely collapse altogether," Feaver predicted.
Will makes the same point a different way. Whether Obama is re-elected in
2012 "depends partly on whether the party's left, which provides a
disproportionate portion of the party's energy, is energised," he said,
adding:
"Whatever one thinks of the current strategy, Obama is prosecuting it with
a vigour that indicates a refusal to allow political calculations to
condition national security. This presidential virtue could imperil his
presidency."
Analyst Tony Cordesman, quoted in Politico, said Obama had six months to
show results - or face the electoral consequences. "Few in America or
outside it will be willing to hear another explanation of why the new
strategy has not yet been validated in the field."
The writing is on the wall for Obama. The latest opinion poll, published
yesterday by the Washington Post/ABC News, is chilling for the White House.
A record 60% of Americans now believe the war is not worth fighting; only
45% approve Obama's handling of the conflict.
A more telling statistic perhaps is that 54% of Americans support the July
2011 start date for beginning troop withdrawals, while 27% say they should
start sooner. According to a separate poll this month, a majority of Afghans
also believes the US and Nato should leave by mid-2011 or earlier.
This clamour cannot be ignored indefinitely. If Obama allows his generals to
drag their feet, and the casualties keep mounting, he risks a political
meltdown and the destruction of his presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment