By DJ Fusion

Player (via Podomatic feed):

Powered by Podbean.com

Backup Player (via Blip.TV feed):

Powered by Podbean.com

Direct mp3 Download (right click and “save as”)
Direct mp3 Download Backup (right click and “save as”; via Blip.TV)

Subscribe to get the weekly episodes of the syndicated FuseBox Radio Broadcast with DJ Fusion & Jon Judah!

XML

Get RSS Buttons

By Odeisel

You often wonder about artists’ motivations concerning ll ever see them committing to social activism.  There are moments like the Haitian earthquakes where there is mass mobilization, but many times situations like that are forced, because no one wants to be the guy that didn’t stand up. There are donations, and their tax write-off/public relations “foundations.” And of course there are many who toil anonymously in their own communities away from the spotlight who do things for their people, not their press.

The British Petroleum oil spill is an incident which has outraged the world, with people from the left and the right united in their distaste for the way that BP has handled the mishap. Energy is a key issue in this millennium but right now in terms of usage, it’s a matter of personal convenience. If you’re running out of gas on the highway, you’ll most likely get the next station you see and fill up.

The BP disaster, however has caused some artists to stand up and cry foul, many vowing to boycott the company (and its affiliates) and their fuels for the duration of this tragedy. Recently KORN, along with most of the top touring acts in music have decided to join this crusade. The list of artists, all of whom will be touring in 2010 include Disturbed, Lady Gaga, Rise Against, Godsmack, Backstreet Boys, Slightly Stoopid, Rob Zombie, Megadeth, Black Label Society with Zakk Wylde, Anthrax, Creed, Filter, Hellyeah and Flogging Molly. As the company’s stock price dwindles to almost half of where it stood before the April mishap, this is a significant blow, especially if these artists manage to galvanize their listeners to the crusade.

The number of vehicles, many of which are high consumption tour buses and equipment trucks, is presently hovering around 100, growing with the number of tours that join the fight. Summer festivals have also gotten on board the largest of which to date, is the twelve band biofuel consuming Rock Star Energy Drink Mayhem Festival.

In a statement released earlier today, KORN member Jonathan Davis noted, “This is the worst thing that has ever happened to the environment in U.S. history.  From everything we’re hearing about now, it’s become clear that BP cut corners to put profit ahead of safety.  The message we are sending should tell all the oil companies to spend the money and take the necessary precautions to make sure this doesn’t happen again. I’m really proud that this many artists have already come on board, and I hope more will join soon.”

As the weeks pass, and this calamity worsens, it’s important that both the artists and their listeners stand and be counted in a world where there is a heightened disregard for the common people and the planet itself. When holding a corporation accountable for a disaster is met with comments of “redistribution of wealth” from Minnesota Republican Michele Bachman, and Texas Republican  Representative Joe Barton actually apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward with words like “shakedown”, the people should voice their displeasure in the only manner that these forces understand: money and power.

By Nida Khan

We are living in precarious and dangerous times.  An unstable economy, rising unemployment, stagnant development and global economic/social uncertainty are exacerbating the fears of many.  But something is also quietly bubbling underneath the surface; a treacherous, detrimental push for a shift in American psychology that runs counter to the core principles upon which this great nation was founded: the deliberate effort to create a great divide by once again pitting “us” against “them.”  Except this time, the bogeyman could be you, me or any one who looks as if he/she “doesn’t belong.”

For the past few days, we have been bombarded with images of the infamous failed Times Square car bomb suspect, Faisal Shahzad.  What began as a thorough search for the persons involved in the foiled attempt has morphed into dialogue that is establishing dangerous precedent for many to be presumed guilty on the basis of their national origin, familial ancestry, or travel records. 

When authorities first released footage of an initial suspect, the vast majority of broadcasters and reporters stayed clear of mentioning this man’s race.  Save for a few exceptions, the bulk of coverage on the major news networks – conservative Fox News, more liberal MSNBC and ‘fair and balanced’ CNN –  weren’t focusing on this man’s Whiteness, but rather leading with copy like “officials are seeking a middle-aged man seen here” or ‘they are searching for a man in his 40’s’.  Fast-forward to Mr. Shahzad and all you see blaring across your TV screen is his ethnicity and ties to a far away land.  But it isn’t only Pakistanis or Pakistani Americans that should be deeply concerned about this troubling imaging and change in verbiage.

Last month, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the most controversial immigration bill in our country’s history.  Literally institutionalizing and justifying racial profiling, this SB 1070 legislation transferred immense authority to the local police, who are often noted for their biased behavior and poor judgment (one needs to only look at New Jersey where racial profiling was found even at the state police level). 

What is even more troubling than the potential backlash against all minorities in Arizona, is the ripple effect this is having nationwide.  Several other states are already pursuing their own versions of immigration “reform” which amounts to little more than criminalizing and dehumanizing certain groups of people.  The politicians and pundits that are pushing this anti-immigrant message need to be reminded of the intricate benefits that immigrants from all over the world have bestowed upon the United States and the plethora of ways in which they continue to do so.  If the backers of SB 1070 wanted to be truly honest, they may as well say “if you’re not White, show me proof you belong here” – because that’s literally what this bill means.

Everyone is familiar with the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which reads in part:  “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  How did we go from that optimistic, inclusive message to one filled with fear mongering, division and a sense of entitlement?  If you are Brown, Black or tan in Arizona, your family members could have been there before the area even received statehood in 1912.  As some on the right push for all Pakistanis and all Muslims, whether citizens or not, be monitored and watched, they are in fact turning back the clock on decades of progress.  If they espouse that we “end political correctness” by questioning everyone who “doesn’t look like us,” what is to become of the inalienable rights that led the vast majority here in the first place?

For those who do not see the ominous bias in our mainstream press when it comes to coverage of others versus coverage of so-called natives, just watch and observe over the coming days, weeks and months as Shahzad’s background is probed and dissected.  But unlike when Timothy McVeigh slaughtered scores and injured hundreds, the focus won’t be on his own troubled life (which includes the recent loss of his home and other economic troubles), but it will instead be on any ties to extremist elements. 

In no way am I condoning his behavior or stating that he didn’t have ties to any groups in Pakistan, but what I am doing is reminding people that when Joseph Stack flew a plane into an IRS building less than three months ago and killed an African-American man, he was not labeled a terrorist.  And yet this foiled attempt in Times Square, where nothing thankfully happened, will almost certainly create a backlash for Pakistanis, Muslims or anyone that resembles them. 

As the jargon gains momentum with talk of homegrown terrorists and the cells within, we have to wonder, are we at stake here to slowly lose all of our basic fundamental civil liberties?  There is now even talk from politicians like Senator Joe Lieberman pushing for legislation that would strip anyone accused of terrorism of his/her citizenship. 

If terror and terrorism are terms used at our own discretion, do we now hold the power to determine one’s allegiance, patriotism or love of country?  If we can now be stopped in Arizona simply for jay walking and asked to produce our papers, isn’t that justifying bigotry and racism?  Are these consistent regressive maneuvers a reaction to an ever-unstable economic future?  Or is something more nefarious at play?  When did the UNITED States of America became a land comprised “us” verses everyone else? 

These are indeed volatile times, and we should all be very, very afraid.

Nida Khan is an independent journalist and producer working in both print and radio.  She is currently a news correspondent with WRKS 98.7 Kiss FM NY, and is a member of the production team of Rev. Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated broadcast, ‘Keeping it Real’.  Nida previously served as the Editor-in-Chief of elan:  The Guide to Global Muslim Culture, and has contributed pieces for such diverse outlets as the Associated Press, Alternet.org, DUB Magazine, Lifetimetv.com, The Source Magazine, The Women’s Media Center and more.  hit her up at twitter.com/NidaKhanNY

By Odeisel

“There are some people who live their lives not for themselves but for others”-Dorothy Height

There are many people in this life that operate away from the bright lights. They fight battles that normal people aren’t even aware of and whisper into the ears of those in power. They push entire movements along through selfless constant activity yet exist anonymously to the world at large despite their monumental achievement.

Dorothy Height stood beside Dr. King during his “I Have A Dream” speech and spoke at his wife’s funeral over 40 years later. She gave an ear and council to Rosa Parks long after she stood up by staying seated. She turned obstacles to doors her entire life, from being denied entry to Barnard University, and pivoting to a career with distinction at NYU and immediately went into civil service, becoming a caseworker for New York City’s Welfare Department.

In the 1940s, she served on the national Board of the YWCA. In the 50s she continued her fight for not only Black equality, but women’s rights, with her service to the National Council of Negro Women (which she served as President for 40 years from 1957-1997) where she used her platform to bring together both Black and White women together for a series of gatherings she christened “Wednesdays in Mississippi” which sought to focus on the common struggles of women of all races, from both above and below the Mason/Dixon line.

Her presence on the battle field opened further doors for height, leading both to First lady Eleanor Roosevelt and President Lyndon Johnson all the way to President Obama, who recently sought her council on the issues of race and economy in America. In a world where talk is abundant and words lose meaning while smothered with rhetoric sauce, her actions spoke volumes to her character.

Height served as council/advisor to such varied organizations as The National Council for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which was formed in response to the gross treatment of African American involved in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. She served as consultant on African affairs to the Secretary of State as well as on Presidential committees on Employment of the Handicapped and on the Status of Women.

She won numerous awards including the Congressional Medal Of Freedom, the highest civilian honor possible, but that’s not why she gave of herself. Dorothy Height had a thing with doors, and the ones that she kicked open, she hoped would be widened and held open by those who ventured through them. That opportunity was presented by a woman who committed more than a lifetime to service. Yes, some live their lives not for themselves but for others. Today we lost someone that lived their lives for a better America; a closer more unified country. While many talked it she lived it. Let that be her epitaph.

By A Negro And A Keyboard

Last week, former New Jersey Governor and Wall Street tycoon Jon Corzine paid a visit to my job. As he was paraded through the office, shaking hands and smiling, I found my mind drifting to the last time I had observed him in person: two days before losing his job to then Republican contender Chris Christie. What I remember most about that day, was his special guest for the day – the 3rd Wonder of the Black World himself, President Barack Obama (The 1st  two of course being Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr.).

On this particular day, the fourth time President Obama had campaigned for Corzine since July of that year, he addressed a crowd of thousands of mostly brown-skinned citizens, going harder than Diddy with that Vote or Die campaign.  The President tried to coerce these folks to come out and vote for Corzine as they once had for him, then proceeded to venerate about Corzine so much you would have thought that they were starring in a remake of Step Brothers.  Obama was in full soul brother mode that day, cracking jokes about minority voters making sure to bring their “cousin Pookies” out to vote with them (Another post, another time). Despite his most valiant efforts,  not even his world-changing arm was strong enough to shake the ‘hood out of complacency and into the voting booth, as Christie would convincingly take the Governor’s mansion.

Remebering Corzine that morning, while his pockets stay fat, he was a shell of his former self; with all of that rich man hubris knocked out of him. As a few of our staff members took him on a walking tour of the local area, he was stopped in the street by many local urban folks, snapping photos, asking for autographs, and yelling things like “You are still the REAL Governor of New Jersey!” I know Corzine had to think to himself, Oh, NOW I got the ‘hood on smash, huh? Unfortunately, as of my last check 10 minutes ago, the state’s website reads, “The Honorable Christopher J. Christie.”

Now, I can’t exactly say just how honorable Governor Christie really is, but after only two months in office, he is clearly illustrated that, in the words of Kanye West, he is going to tell New Jersey like George Bush told ‘Ye: F**k y’all n***as, y’all outta here!

Yes, you residents of America’s Armpit, particularly you urbanites, Chris Christie is not playing games with you at all. Within the first 3 weeks of his term, Christie immediately signed an executive order freezing the state’s Coalition on Affordable Housing (COAH), and established a task force to examine all affordable housing laws (which was actually rescinded two days ago, after being held up by appeal in the state’s court). Not surprisingly, COAH is the governmental department that makes home prices affordable for low-income people to move to suburban and “less colorful” areas in the state. I guess he must have seen what happened when they let Grandpa Freeman into Woodcrest with Huey and Riley on The Boondocks.

Next, he signed another executive order declaring a state of fiscal emergency in New Jersey, and announced his proposed solutions to close the deficit, which included cutting $475 million in aid to over 500 school districts, NJ Transit, colleges, and hospitals, as well as suspending the funding to the state’s Department of the Public Advocate, whose primary charge is to inform citizens of their rights, particularly the most indigent populations, such as the elderly, immigrants, developmentally-disabled and those whose homes are in foreclosure.

For those of us coming from inner cities, don’t all of these institutions that he wants to cut deal directly with minorities? Most of the people in my ‘hood went to public school, use public transportation because they can’t afford a car, went to public colleges (if at all), and often go to the emergency room because they have no healthcare coverage.

Once “Governor Wrecking Ball,” as he has been dubbed, finally gave his first budget address a few days ago, he openly violated Corzine’s whole term as Governor and had state educators in tears when he announced a planned $800 million slash in school aid. Christie also announced a major reduction in property tax rebates for the middle class, as well as announcing cuts in wage subsidies, health care and other programs for the poor and unemployed, all while announcing a $1 billion tax cut for families making $400,000 or more. Hood translation for what Christie is saying: I’m not f**king around with y’all, and I dare y’all to sing that Drake, “Money to Blow” trash around me now!”

While Christie is putting the smack down on the middle and lower classes in New Jersey, he should make a point to go through Newark, Camden, Paterson, East Orange and every other minority neighborhood in New Jersey, giving out nail-salon vouchers and Chinese chicken wings, because he owes his job to many of these people. Not because they would ever imagine going to the polls and casting their ballots for him, but rather, because they refused to cast their ballots for anyone.

In a year that witnessed record-low voter turnout in New Jersey, it was the minority vote that really hit rock bottom. The registered black vote for the state is 15%, and in 2008, 12% percent came out, but in 2009, somewhere in the 7-8% range. The scary part about this situation is that statistics show that among minority voters aged 18-29, blacks are the most likely to vote.

I applaud those who got out there and rocked that vote last fall; taking a stand while some of our more ignorant folk sat back and figured everything would just “work itself out”. It’s that thought process that has public assistance costs going through the roof and the lines at my local fish spot backed up with Louis Vuitton-wearing yet EBT card-paying patrons as I write this.

So all of you out on those blocks in New Jersey’s inner-cities, who neglected to exercise your civil right, when Governor Christie puts your whole existence in the Vulcan Death Grip over his term, think about how you didn’t go to ballot box that day because it was raining and you didn’t want to mess up your weave or Jordans, and next time you see Jon Corzine, spare him that bulls**t.

Recklessly Yours,

A Negro and a Keyboard

Follow Us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/planetill

Join Us on the Planet Ill Facebook Group for more discussion

Check out Planet Ill’s page on Essence.com

Follow us on Networked Blogs

By Odeisel

After many moons and a titanic tug of war over the bill itself and the accompanying bill, Congress came to a vote late Sunday night with the bill receiving 219 votes, 3 over the amount needed to push it forward.

More than 30 states are presently looking to fight the bill on the basis of it being unconsitutional on the basis that you can’t require Americans to buy a certain product. I  wonder how auto insurance slips through that reasoning.

Watch and celebrate or yell racial epithets at the screen.  Your choice.

By Odeisel

Following the historic first step towards universal healthcare, President Obama gives his words on the victory that will mark his Presidency as accomplishing something that both Roosevelts, LBJ, Clinton, and Nixon Failed to do.

By Odeisel

Existence is a peculiar item when it comes to history. We are, therefore we exist and our presence in the here and now is de facto testimony to that statement. But in our absence, history outlines our existence to those who could not bear witness, and that testimony is in the hands of others.  Therein lies a problem.

Last week, following a spirited, partisan-fueled serve-and-volley discussion, the Texas Board of Education approved change in the social studies curriculum which heavily favors a conservative view of American history, including a religion tinted opinion that undermines the Founding Fathers’ attempts at framing secular government. Consequently, there is an overt tilt towards Republican political ideals. The vote on the board went along party lines (in Texas, BOE members are elected). This curriculum change is important because Texas is the second largest buyer of books, which will affect, by sheer weight of volume, the purchasing choices of neighboring states. While technology has muted to a small degree that overarching influence, it still plays a major role.

This long running war of ideals has been going on in Texas for a few years, with creationism locking horns with Darwinist theory and officials attempting to reconcile the Founding Father’s Christian values with the aforementioned secular state. According to the Dr. Don McLeroy, a Texan dentist and creationist leading the Republican charge, the board is simply reversing a left-leaning view of history that has espoused an America disassociated with its initial Christian principles. McLeroy, in an interview with the New York Times noted, “We are adding balance. History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

On surface, it would seem to be fairly innocuous and typical of the two-party system tit-for-tat tug of war. But upon further inspection, something would appear to be stealthily sinister in execution. During the discussions, Hispanic board members vehemently attempted to get more Hispanic figures into the curriculum; an attempt that would certainly speak to the identity, self esteem, and determination of hundreds of thousands of students. That attempt was summarily blocked.

Also questioned was the relevance of including Justice Thurgood Marshall, who, even when you discount his inclusion on the basis of being the first Black appointee to the Supreme Court, argued Brown V. Board of Ed, which is essentially and ironically the start of the present educational system in the United States.  Regardless of where you stand on the condition of education, that pivotal moment on its own merits inclusion.

McLeroy, who leads the board, is not a historian. In fact, despite the sweeping alterations to existing curricula, no credible third party economists, historians, or sociologists were consulted at any point during discussions. At best this stands at haphazard, partisan chicanery. At its most ominous, it is the attempted white-washing of America by people who are unqualified and patently self interested in foisting their way of life on others, with our children’s understanding of our country and this world shamelessly disregarded.

In removing the opportunity for counter arguments to exist, you not only infringe on the rights of those who hold those beliefs but you also rob yourself of the opportunity to defend your principles. If you are right, and wish to sway the minds of the modest fence straddler, you should welcome the opportunity to clash with and defeat opposing ideas. The Christ these “gentlemen” proffer said to be fishers of men, but they are dredging the ocean and removing the water.

In their opposition to Darwinism and other elements of naturalist periphery, they are going to inevitably prove the tenets of their enemies: that might does indeed make right, that the Will of God is secondary on the field of man to hubris, and that effrontery is undeniably the real force that moves things on Planet Earth. These are the crusades, being fought not with sinew and steel but with pens and paper, with the minds of our children collectively in the balance. These people in their inglorious faux intellectualism are adopting the very principles they are trying to mute in order to serve their religious agenda. That is the very height of hypocrisy.

This isn’t a battle over the existence of God/Creator. This is about the tyranny of a representative democracy and the inactivity of Americans on local political levels. There is no defined majority. There is who gets off their ass and is counted and who doesn’t.  Vote. Participate in the goings on of your local municipality. Attend PTA meetings. As a citizen you have that responsibility, especially when you have children and you are raising future citizens. Stay abreast of how your taxes are spent. Form relationships with your local representatives. Attach responsibility to your support. Your vote should be for sale and the currency should be service and representation.

This situation in Texas is a manifestation of what happens when people want to be left alone and don’t bother voting and recuse themselves from their civic duties. Ultimately, we don’t find out who is right over the existence of God until we die.  But our own existence, in the hands of those who would wage war with words, is certainly worth defending. We exist. Our continued existence, while subject to the whims of our witnesses, should at least be objectively counted.

Follow Odeisel on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/odeisel

Follow Us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/planetill

Join Us on the Planet Ill Facebook Group for more discussion

Check out Planet Ill’s page on Essence.com

Follow us on Networked Blogs

By Odeisel

It’s been a year to the day since Barack Obama was elected to the office of the President of The United States. He ran on the mantra of change and his election would have seemed to represent a mandate of the people. During the past year he’s had his share of victories and failures. Let’s take a walk through the last year and see where he has succeeded and where he has failed in his office and look at a few factors in that motion.

It would seem that someone who is such a good speaker, and possessing of natural communicative gifts would have a better time in delivering a message to the people. In that effect Obama’s presidency and the perception of him has taken a tremendous hit.  His primary mission, even in the midst of the domestic and global fiscal meltdown, has been pushing forward healthcare reform. While healthcare is a huge issue in terms of the financial drain that Medicaid/Medicare is rapidly becoming, Americans are more worried about jobs and keeping their homes.

Obama has done a horrible job of communicating the basics of healthcare reform and why people should care about whether it is reformed. One of the largest costs for businesses presently is the cost of health care. It is tied into compensation and factors heavily into who employers can afford. That connection has not been effectively drawn and as such the people have drawn a lie in the sand, believing that what they want, and what he has tried to accomplish is incongruous.

The same can be said for the seeming Wall Street “bailouts.” By casting Wall Street and greed as the main antagonist, Obama and his allies have created a widening schism between Wall Street and Main Street.  The problem with that is that they are more closely related than you would believe. In the race to cast bankers as greedy, and the call for the end of the huge bonuses, one thing has been glaringly hushed: big bonuses are taxed, and at higher rates than normal income.  Those taxes feed municipalities. When those taxes are eliminated, guess who has to make that up? Main Street. With that in mind, it’s clear that a Wall Street witch hunt is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The only ones that pay for that are regular citizens, and the race to escape blame by Obama and the Democratic majority is a disservice to the American people.

In addition most of the TARP funds have been paid back with interest to the government. In my particular opinion, it’s a mistake not to make that abundantly clear.  The term bailout itself carries the feel of handout, when in fact it was a business decision that has reaped the proper benefits for the most part. What is done with that interest and increase is perhaps another matter but the money itself has been returned in many instances. Whenever you can mark a victory, you should…unless of course you aren’t going to account for that money.

The most glaring failing of the Obama term so far is the idea of change itself. In colluding or falling behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Obama administration has failed to make any headway towards changing the way that glad-handing politics has been. Despite repeatedly calling for bipartisanship, President Obama has allowed Pelosi to not only push a decidedly one sided agenda, but to also rub it in the face of the minority, short-circuiting any hope of reconciliation. This inability to work across the aisle was exacerbated by the tragic departure of Ted Kennedy who was known as a communicator with the ability to work with Republicans in order to get things done.

Consequently, in what speaks to dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, Kennedy’s Senate seat yesterday, which had been staunchly held by a Democrat for over half a century, was lost to Republican candidate Scott Brown. Similarly, Obama has taken a loss in New Jersey with the defeat of John Corzine as governor. Both races featured faulty campaigns in general which included last-ditch efforts by Obama to save sinking ships, and both failed due to an inability to connect with the voice of the people.

All was not lost however in the first year. What Obama has been able to accomplish in terms of rehabbing the image of America globally has been nothing short of incredible. Foreign invasions on multiple fronts as well as being the epicenter of the global economic crisis had done horrific damage to the idea of America as a good nation. Obama’s charisma and eloquence has done much to mute the boorish American cowboy aesthetic and has led to increased coalition building among nations. Some may choose to see this as furthering the momentum towards increased globalization and the drift towards one world government, but what it does not accomplish is leaving of America on the outside looking in.

The Obama administration has made strides towards curbing nuclear proliferation and has succeeded in opening up talk with North Korea, who has traditionally proven notoriously difficult to deal with. In addition, Obama has been able to at least on the surface convince other nations that terrorism is not an American problem but a global issue and has opened the door for additional aid in troops, peace keeping, and financial aid to many of the hot spots around the globe related to the “War on Terror.” Regardless of where you stand on the issue, having allies in such things is never something to frown upon as an exercise.

On the home front, Obama has called for improvements in education and for the responsibility of the American people to each other. He has managed to avoid the pitfalls of race concerning many matters, most recently the revelations of Harry Reid in reference to his supposed lack of “Negro dialect.”  While not joining the fray (because of course, there are more glaring issues to deal with) Obama perhaps loses a bit of cultural credibility, as well as the chance to make teaching moments out of these instances.

In judging what someone has accomplished, you have to look at the surrounding conditions. While he is the captain of the ship, he took stewardship of a capsizing ship and is perhaps charged with bailing water. We are aware of that as a mitigating circumstance. We are aware of the damage done by previous practices and administrations. However, this is the role he chose, and he is responsible now, so the communication and execution of his office is his and his alone.

 This has been year one of four, and miles to go to both repair damage, build infrastructure, and forge ahead towards creating the America of the 21^st century. His place in history is assured, but what will be remembered is still being written. It is our hope that he learns from defeats and does not adopt the prevailing arrogance of the Democratic Party, lest he lose the advantage of majority, and loses the goodwill of the people who voted for him. One down, three to go. Planet Ill gives the President a C+/B-.

Follow Odeisel on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/odeisel

Follow Us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/planetill

Join Us on the Planet Ill Facebook Group for more discussion

Check out Planet Ill’s page on Essence.com

Follow us on Networked Blogs

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery

The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

United States Military Academy at West Point

December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.
They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy
al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we
have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the
Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection
between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. 

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And
our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops –no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we
were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately
be responsible for their own country. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local
leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with
Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.
Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of
conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all
peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its
problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty. 

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.  

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the
people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.