During his presidential campaign Obama talked about the fact that Iraq was a "stupid" war, inferring that the war in Afghanistan was warranted. Really? What war isn't stupid? Who profits from war? Not the people expected to fight these wars, nor the people who are attacked – in Iraq's case, without legitimate provocation. The only beneficiaries are the corporations – war profiteers and mercenaries .
The reality is that Obama is conducting a "war" against the poor, against the people of Afghanistan who have been the victims of decades of war and depravation. The American ruling class has a beef with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the mythical Osama Bin Laden (who the U.S. says masterminded the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but has offered no concrete evidence to substantiate the claim), but engages in collective punishment of Afghan civilians (a Geneva Conventions war crime). Meanwhile, these "terrorist" and boogymen are of their own making.
The other pick for Haiti "relief" is Bill Clinton, who waged a covert war on Haiti when he was in office. His administration gave huge subsidies to his Arkansas farmers and destroyed Haiti's food security and the livelihood of thousands of local rice farmers.
The U.S. has been exploiting and oppressing poor nations – violating its own "democratic principles" and the human rights of the people of other countries for so long... it's fair to ask: will there be any accountability or justice for those who are suffering so much under the weight of the U.S.' inhumane "neoliberal" policies? Maybe there will be a comeuppance. MLK said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
If Obama is being "boxed into war" and "thwarted" in his efforts to scale back or end the wars by General Petraeus and key Pentagon officials, it surely is a sign that the military industrial complex is out of control.
In the U.S. the military industrial complex are flexing their muscles and feeling their oaths. They see themselves to be as powerful, if not more powerful than the elected "Commander-in-Chief."
Eisenhower warned about the "unwarranted influence" of the military; that it would threaten the "very structure of our society."
Wouldn't it be ironic and perhaps inevitable, if the so-called "banana republic" meme that the U.S. press and public has branded developing countries with in the past were to come to pass in the U.S.? These oppressive regimes were more often then not encouraged and supported by the U.S. government (because military dictatorships are so much more amenable to Western influence (corruption, assassination threats) then "socialist" democracies).
Militarism is one of the main reasons for the pain and suffering around the world. The governments of the poorest of the poor in developing countries buy up arms from the U.S. and others at the expense of feeding their desperately poor populations or building infrastructure.
The U.S.' military adventures are largely to blame for the failed economy. One could correctly say that the U.S. is a "failed state."
The Pentagon and military brass such as General Petraeus do not respond to public opinion or Executive pressure. Evidently they don't believe in the very democratic principles they portray as the goal for the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.