The Common Ills: Enhanced State of the Union lying (as with Iraq, so with Afghanistan)

US President Barack Obama used one hour and five seconds of prime time last night to say nothing in a Constitutionally mandated State of the Union address. As CNN's Gloria Borger observed (link is text with video of the speech and response), "In many ways, what we heard tonight is the same old, same old argument." The most important critical observation came from Fred Kaplan (Slate) who offered it as a parenthetical, "(As for Iraq, it's so forgotten he didn't even deign to mention it.)"

Here's what Barack had to say on Afghanistan:

Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda. Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue and by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over. Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We're negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions -- training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.

In terms of the drawdown, it's more honest than what he said about Iraq. And that's allowed the news outlets to be more honest than they were about Iraq. Devin Dwyer and Jonathan Karl (ABC News) word it this way, "There are currently 66,000 U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. Obama has vowed to bring nearly all of them home by the end of next year, though a small contingent will likely remain to train Afghan forces and assist counterterrorism operations, officials have said. "

Just like in Iraq, where US service members remain for training and counterterrorism operations. So, no, it's not really ending.

But then, as Ramzy Baroud (OnIslam.net) observed earlier this week, "When the last US combat brigade had reportedly left Iraq in Dec. 2011, this was meant to be an end of an era. Historians know well that conflicts do not end with a presidential decree or troop deployments. Iraq merely entered a new phase of conflict and the US, Britain, and others, remain integral parties of that conflict."

US troops remain in Iraq to this day (and thousands remain in Kuwait, ready to go back in, thanks to the agreement DoD signed in December) and they will remain in Afghanistan.

[The agreement is the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America which was signed December 6th. We noted it that day and explored it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots. This document calls for US troops in Iraq to do counter-terrorism operations and to do joint-patrols with the Iraqi military.]

In terms of Barack's nonsense about 'achieving' any objective? As Ruth observed last night on Barack's support for the new thug in Egypt, "That is not unlike President Barack Obama's reasons for supporting the tyrant Nouri al-Maliki. So, remember that, ye fools who think Mr. Obama gives a damn about freedoms. He is all about 'stability' and more than happy to use despots and tyrants to achieve it. He does not care about the native people or the conditions they have to live under."

Hamid Karzai is yet another US puppet who is only in place because the US provides protection. Just like Nouri. He doesn't represent the people of Afghanistan and, like Nouri, he's largely confined to his country's capital. Think of them as imperial pets who never wanded off the front yard.

Iraq wasn't mentioned but should have been the driving force of the reports following the speech.

Nouri's cracking down on Baghdad yet again. Has the military refusing to allow Iraqis from the west to enter the capital. We've been covering that since Monday. This isn't 'freedom,' this isn't about anything except Nouri and his desperation for power. The US-installed him. Barack made some ridiculous remarks -- when speaking of gun control -- about what people deserve.

Well maybe the Iraqi people deserved to have their votes counted in 2010, Barack? Maybe when they went to the polls, defied violence and efforts to steal their vote and made Iraqiya their first choice, maybe Barack should have supported that. Or at least respected it.

Instead, he worked overtime to overturn it. Let's again note John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

So his sop last night about what the American people deserve?

Reality: If you don't respect the rights of people 'over there,' you really don't respect the rights of people at home. If you tell yourself you're smarter than a native people and can decide for them, it's not much of a reach to also ignore the people in your own country and delude yourself that you're ignoring them to do what's 'best' for them.

Barack doesn't respect democracy.

And the press doesn't give a damn about Afghanistan.

If they did, this morning would be all about Barack's words last night, his claims, his efforts to 'leave' Afghanistan while he insists upon the US controlling it (via Karzai) and how this worked out (it didn't) in Iraq. But today's press only sells wars. It's not too good at covring them day-to-day and please, please don't expect it to ever offer real analysis because that's just too much, even after a decade of war, for their little minds to process.

(Hence the press avoidance of counter-insurgency which, in other times, they managed to critically analyze and report on.)

The following community sites -- plus Ms. magazine's blog, Susan's On the Edge, Adam Kokesh and IPS -- updated last night and this morning: