Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Peace Activists Can Achieve in the Age of Obama
Reading the collected literary works of Barack Hussein Obama in the days since November 4 has been an interesting experience. Like many in the Richmond peace community, I volunteered for Obama in the fall, and had paid close attention to his speeches and debate performances since his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses last January. Still, I hadn't actually read his two quite substantial books (Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope).
Reading through those pages now leaves one with three distinct impressions. Dreams of My Father leaves one stunned and amazed that a person with this set of life experiences and this degree of social justice consciousness has actually been elected president. The Audacity of Hope leaves one impressed by not only the author's familiarity and relatively subtle approaches to a range of policy issues but with his ability to link a wide range of concerns within a coherent interpretive frame.
Finally, one cannot help but be impressed by the degree to which the campaign Obama waged and won was consistent with the vision of politics he lays out in his books. The basics of that vision can be summarized as follows: America is a seriously flawed place, but the basic instincts of its people are good. Our history has often been awful and brutal, but we as a people have the capacity for change. Ordinary people can be the agents driving that change, but that can only happen if we recover a faith in public life-that is, in politics. But that, in turn, can only happen if we reconnect politics to moral values in a clear way.
Obama's vision has already re-made history and opened up new possibilities for America's future political development. But now that his presidency is upon us, it's worth taking a hard look at just what Obama's world view is, and the trajectory it suggests for the next four years and beyond. While Obama repeatedly articulates a small-r republican faith in ordinary people's capacity to shape the future, it will be Obama himself calling the shots and shaping the agenda. Indeed, contrary to the hopes of many progressive activists calling for sustained mobilization and pressure to push Obama in a progressive direction, the evidence of The Audacity of Hope in particular suggests that Obama is not someone likely to bow to pressures of any kind unless or until he himself is persuaded of the wisdom of a given course of action.
So what then is Obama's world view? I will focus here on questions of war, peace, and international relations. The Audacity of Hope reveals Obama to be what might be called a progressive realist.
The "realist" part comes in Obama's acceptance of the basic framework of international politics in the 21st century. That framework is highlighted most obviously by the disproportionate power of the United States, backed by a massive military. Obama thinks the U.S. must play a lead role in world affairs, both to protect American interests and to help solve common problems, and that sometimes that lead role requires use of military force (as in Afghanistan).
Obama's realism is likely to make many peace activists uncomfortable. He does not think war is always wrong, and he does not think that American hegemony is necessarily a bad thing.
But Obama's form of realism is very different from the Bush-Cheney belief that America is both all-powerful and infallible. Obama recognizes that the U.S. historically has often played a destructive role overseas (he cites Vietnam and support for dictators, including in Indonesia as examples). He thinks that the "war on terror" (a phrase hopefully soon to be retired) cannot be won in Iraq or other military misadventures, but only by a more complex strategy in which military force plays a subordinate role. He does not call for cuts in the military budget, but does call for spending less on expensive weapons system and more on personnel and training. And he calls for paying attention to and devoting resources to the dire problems of the developing world, including Africa, for both humanitarian and practical reasons.
Obama's brand of realism is reminiscent of that of the mid-twentieth century Protestant theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr was deeply interested in social justice both domestically and internationally, but also very clear that we human beings are deeply motivated by our own self-interest and that justice, reason, and even love itself can never fully tame our tendency to act selfishly, especially when we act as a group via the nation-state. Niebuhr's understanding of the human condition led him away from pacifism; instead he embraced the military fight against Nazism and fascism in World War II. Yet at the same time, Niebuhr wrote favorably of the possibilities for using nonviolent civil disobedience to advance social change, particularly with respect to civil rights, in the process helping inspire Martin Luther King, Jr.
In a world governed by power, Niebuhr believed, those who hoped to advance justice and democracy needed to be willing to use power-hence his endorsement of the basic Cold War framework (one which Obama writes admiringly about). But Niebuhr also warned of the hubris that comes with believing that our own motives are pure and that our power is limitless (just as Obama criticizes many of the side consequences of the Cold War, such as our involvement in coups abroad and the rise of the military-industrial complex at home).
What Obama hopes to do is to craft a broad new national security strategy with the same coherence as the Cold War containment strategy, but without the associated hubris. Such a strategy gives up on the idea we can spread democracy by force, but aggressively seeks to confront real security threats (such as loose nuclear weapons), using force when necessary. Importantly, Obama also recognizes the need to pay attention as well to "promoting peace," a goal which centrally must include raising the standards of living of the one-half of the world's population living on less than two dollars a day.
Overall Obama's vision, if realized, would certainly represent a historic shift of orientation, and his presidency promises a welcome return of the idea that sensible foreign policy must take seriously the perspectives of other countries and their peoples. What role might the peace community play in helping take advantage of the opportunity this presidency represents?
As noted above, I do not think it is realistic to suppose that activist pressure can alter Obama's basic framework, including his commitment to periodic use of force. Obama has made it very clear he intends to send more troops into Afghanistan (even while pursuing a withdrawal from Iraq), and I don't think public pressure can stop that particular train.
Where public pressure might pay real dividends is in ensuring that the "progressive" aspect of Obama's realist outlook is not left on the shelf. For instance, Obama is well aware of the problems of world poverty and the role the IMF, World Bank and global debt have played in accentuating such poverty. Relatively early in his campaign, he called for a doubling of foreign aid. Yet in the vice-presidential debate Joe Biden suggested increasing foreign aid might be one of the items to fall by the wayside as a result of the economic crisis.
Hopefully that was just another example of Biden putting his foot in his mouth. But the peace community and all those concerned with advancing justice need to make our voices heard and assure that the best promises offered by Obama are not sacrificed on the altar of expediency. The danger is that pledges to do something real to help the world's poor and secure the basis for long-term peace are quietly forgotten while bigger ticket items (Iraq, Afghanistan, the economic crisis) hog the headlines.
That is a danger the peace community can help avert. While we cannot alter Obama's basic framework for engaging with the world, we can insist that the new administration have the courage to live up to its own best principles.
- Posted in
42 Comments so far
Show AllThis is an excellent article. And realistic rather than the usual Utopian theoretical flights of fancy.
I believe its a very good analysis of Obama's destination.
Foreign aid will not be increased, perhaps even reduced.
A nice academic essay...and no doubt a good overview of Obama's thinking.
But consider this: "Obama has made it very clear he intends to send more troops into Afghanistan."
Now look at how this idea shapes up in the mind of a seasoned reporter on the ground:
"The Afghan Minister of Defence has 65,000 troops under his dubious command but says he needs 500,000 to control Afghanistan. The Soviets failed to contain the country even when they had 100,000 troops here with 150,000 Afghan soldiers in support. And as Barack Obama prepares to send another 7,000 US soldiers into the pit of Afghanistan, the Spanish and Italians are talking of leaving while the Norwegians may pull their 500 troops out of the area north of Heart. Repeatedly, Western leaders talk of the “key” – of training more and more Afghans to fight in the army. But that was the same “key” which the Russians tried – and it did not fit the lock.
"'We' are not winning in Afghanistan."
Robert Fisk
The Independent, Thursday, 27 November 2008
http://tinyurl.com/567ogy
He has more than 30 years’ experience in some of the world’s hottest disaster zones. His home has been in Beirut since 1976; he speaks colloquial Arabic; he has had three face-to-face interviews with Osama bin Laden ...
The rest of Fisk's report - and his many other pieces - are worth reading.
Obama is wrong.
Fusion
I agree with you. But I don't think we can just withdraw our forces. I think they may be right in transferring some troops into Afganistan. But there can be no long term commitment there.
I'm not sure that transfer of troops won't hasten our withdrawal from Iraq.
Pakistan and Mexico are the two spots that threaten our country, not Iraq and Afganistan. I expect Obama knows that.
We are turning a corner, from Winter to Spring, from despair to hope, from aggression to security, from war to peace. We are entering a new era. An era where the strength and power of America can once again be used as a force for good in the world.
This is a historic moment. We are witnessing the rebirth of freedom. The old paradigm has shifted. This the dawning of the age of Obama!
There are undoubtedly many with a peace sentiment, witness those pushing baby strollers amongst the millions and millions marching in February of '03, but these people are very fragmented, and that event was organized and promoted by people I wouldn't consider peace activists but justice activists by any means necessary with a bent toward violent agitation. Are there any organizations out there that are close to assuming leadership of a cohesive peace community? Those in the Department of Peace movement perhaps? This Deepak Chopra is crossing over from the spiritualist community to political commentary, perhaps someone like him, a Marianne Williamson, Dr. Ari or Vandana Shiva could come forward as a coalescing force(?). We see where leaving spiritualistic language to the Swaggerts and Dobsons has led, so maybe those intolerant of such words in the past realize they should accept it on some level, at least for the sake of human discussion. Perhaps a true peace community will spawn out of the growing bread lines which will probable double or triple in length this year, maybe through lack of strength to throw a Molotov cocktail and run.
Sioux Rose
PUCK TWAIN: Good post and intelligent strategy. In my mind the academic realm's "separation of disciplines" added to the "Dewey Decimel System" and the categorization of subjects has divided minds so that few CAN connect the dots. If Hollywood's gliteratti added to some of the illumined minds of the spiritual movement (not fundamentalists, who have tried to co-opt that "title") added to some notable left/progressive authors did coalesce their various "followers," there would be a more cohesive force ready to push for change.
"This Deepak Chopra is crossing over from the spiritualist community to political commentary, perhaps someone like him, a Marianne Williamson..." Oh come on. Deeply Packed Pocket Chopra who is in the multi-million dollar spirituality business... or the self indulgence of the Course in Miracles money making crowd? Come on. What the hell is a "true peace community"? No. You won't see "a true peace community will spawn out of the growing bread lines which will probable double or triple in length this year.." You will see far far worse.
"Obama's acceptance of the basic framework of international politics in the 21st century. That framework is highlighted most obviously by the disproportionate power of the United States, backed by a massive military. Obama thinks the U.S. must play a lead role in world affairs, both to protect American interests and to help solve common problems, and that sometimes that lead role requires use of military force (as in Afghanistan).
Obama's realism is likely to make many peace activists uncomfortable. He does not think war is always wrong, and he does not think that American hegemony is necessarily a bad thing."
Why is it unrealistic for the U.S. to stop throwing its weight around and meddling? Why is peace unrealistic?
When has there ever been a "good war?" One that didn't involve plunder? Why is an end to Empire but a fantasy?
Doesn't that sort of thinking just play into the right-wing mindset that progressive ideas are just pipe dreams?
I've read Obama's books, too, but there's a significant difference between the philosophy he expresses there and his choice of personnel for his foreign policy team and unqualified defense of Israeli aggression. Apparently the books were just well-crafted campaign literature.
Alex
You mean we are STILL living in the Oceania of 1984 under the boot of "big brother"?? You mean O'Bama's books are only Newspeak? But how could this be? This is a liberal society! We have ten thousand ice cream flavors and countless more luxuries and conveniences! O'bama's books read like my favorite ice cream tastes! Both fantastic products of the greatest country on earth! This aint Oceania! No!
Ah....but.....Obama has FAITH! Yikes!!!
Sioux Rose
LAWYER: It's probable that one with large political ambitions would build their resume in such a manner. Otherwse, the closer he got to the innermost circles of power, the more the poisons affected him and blurred his judgment calls.
A man who would defend the "right" to kill the unborn by the most gruesome manner possible (partial birth abortion) does not have a social conscience. He is a barbarian, plain and simple.
Faithful Catholic, as a Christian I share your concerns.
But as a Democrat and a proud Obama supporter, I am pro-choice.
I think Obama strikes the right balance between pr-life and pro-choice.
Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
Obama: "I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..
1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion."
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
Obama: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006
Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. There is no way that a Christian can say that Christ Jesus would support such a thing. Remember, Christian means one who is a "Christ follower". Do you really think that Jesus, Who loved the little children and cared for the poor and needy, would advocate abortion anymore than He would have approved of the illegal and immoral Iraq War? Do you think that Jesus Christ would support the killing of an innocent person under ANY circumstances, at ANY point in its life, or for ANY reason. If you do, you need to step away from the hemp pipe.
I love how liberals are so black-and-white in their thinking when it comes to the programs they want to pass, but then all of a sudden, when conservatives make a similar black-and-white statement, we are given all sorts of reasons why there are "gray areas" that we must consider.
"Oh, the poor woman will her life ruined by having a baby"
"Oh, she needs to finish her education"
"You don't understand because you are a man"
Yada, yada, yada.
I wonder if Hitler had all these "gray areas" when he excused his actions regarding Jews, the infirm, the mentally retarded, and his extermination of them from the German soil.
Sioux Rose
FAITHFUL: I think Jesus would also be appalled that the lion's share of a VERY RICH nation's budget/resources goes to war, policing, incarcerating citizens... yep, some of them the would-be-fathers of women left pregnant, left in a crumbling fiscal nexus that promises NO safe roof over their heads to birth said babies. In other words, IF ours was a truly compassionate society, which is to say one designed in the image and likeness of those teachings resonant with Jesus, then the whole abortion debate would be moot. Where is the love? Where is the community support? How many millions homeless? How many in need of drug treatment programs, or mental illness therapies? How many without decent jobs left like slaves to lives of quiet desperation? Until and unless the society makes a web of supports to all persons, the issue of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is like focusing on the dust on the floor of a crumbling edifice.
Thank you Sioux Rose. The other side of the coin.
The fact that we are a nation who's wealth, economy, and very survival is built on the continuation of war after war after war indicates that we are insane as a nation. Of course the Prince of Peace would be appalled (and beyond appalled) at the idea of the vast majority of our resources going towards invading other countries and killing innocent citizens in those countries.
The issue of whether or not to kill an unborn baby is hardly focusing on the dust on the floor in a crumbling building. It is staring at the foundation and trying to tell people that the foundation is crumbling. How we treat the weakest and most defenseless among us, whether they be born or unborn, is the barometer of the whole society. You liberals want to blow it off as if it is just so much chaff and nonsense. But if politicians will not protect the innocent among us for the sake of getting their sorry rear ends re-elected, what makes you think they give a rat's rear end about the poor, about innocent Iraqui civilians, or anyone else who doesn't have the money or power to command their attention. When you care for those who can do nothing in return for you, then your love is real. The "love" of politicians, both left and right, is as phony as fool's gold -- i.e., it looks good and plays well to the brain dead who keep repeatedly voting for them, but it ain't worth a darn.
The Christian Faith demands that we care for all who are weak and helpless, that we raise our voice over injustice, and care for those in need. Some day, maybe, liberals will realize that Christianity is the only thing which can stop madmen. Politics has not and will not work. Only a great awakening which results in men and women around the world both embracing the Faith and truly living it out will save our world.
"Only a great awakening which results in men and women around the world both embracing the Faith and truly living it out will save our world." Please. It has nothing to do with "Faith". It has everything to do with being civilized. Jesus supposedly said that, "the poor will always be with you". Great huh?! Why should that be?
Faithful Catholic
You are perfectly welcome to be anti-choice, thats your decision.
The only thing I ask of people that want to make decisions for other people is that you take responsibility. Choose as many as you like, but you will be personably responsible for the Mother and all medical bills and for the child till age of consent.
To me, making a choice for someone else, that may or may not share your own personal or religious preference, without assuming the responsibility seems fairly easy to me. Costs you nothing.
I happen to be a Catholic myself, but I would never dream of trying to force my religion on someone else.
You, sir, are a poor and sorry excuse for a Catholic. Do us a favor and go be an Episcopalian or something else. We have more than enough sorry wretches in the Church without you adding to it.
First off, if you were anything other than a Catholic in name only, you would realize that the Church has numerous apostolates which are dedicated to helping women with problem pregnancies. The problem is not a lack of care. It is that the "choice" that women are supposedly given does not include allowing them to talk with us at abortion clinics before they kill their babies. We are not allowed to offer them information, we can't do a one-on-one with them to tell them of the various apostolates in our city that could help them. That's choice? Baloney!!
And as for your last statement -- Lord, that would gag a maggot!! The apostles had no such idea that they "would never dream of forcing their religion down someone's throat". They thought that all men should be converted. The Church is here today because the Apostles and those who followed them went out and converted the world with the message that Christ Jesus is the true God Who came to us in the Flesh and that men should repent of their sins and turn to Him for salvation.
You make me sick.
You are one sick puppy.
Human sacrifice in Christianity was necessary for salvation. Think about it. God demanded that of a mortal. What would you call a cult that demanded human blood sacrifice? I think you know.
A payment for sin was required. Of course, someone like you, who doesn't understand the heinous nature of sin and how offensive it is to God, would then also not understand why a life had to be given for a life. To you it's all just fairy tales, isn't it?
I am not the one pretending to be a Catholic. It is especially sick of you that you would take the name of a man who died rather than compromise his Catholic Faith, yet you compromise it and try to make us think that you are the real deal as a Catholic. Like I said, do us all a favor and get out of the Church, since you aren't a Catholic anyway.
3 million killed in Vietnam. A couple more million in Cambodia. 1/2 million children killed by Clinton's sanctions against Iraq. 1-million killed in Iraq under Christian G.W. Bush. "There is no way that a Christian can say that Christ Jesus would support such a thing." You got that right.
So is a man who backs his government in bombing civilians with 500 pounds bombs from 50,000 feet up. And so is the citizen who supports his government and pays taxes to do so. "He is a barbarian, plain and simple.
I agree. The election we just had was a moral monstrosity. We were offered a choice between two maniacs -- one determined to kill the innocent in the womb and the other determined to kill the innocent in Iraq. What a vile choice for an American with a conscience to have to make!!
oh, go away!!!
Who?
Me?
If you are telling us pro-lifers to go away, we will not. The only way you are going to get rid of us is to do what all God haters and liberals have done through the centuries -- kill us for the "good of the society". I am already praying for a good martyrdom. I expect no less from the monsters who run our society.
Huh? I seem to recall the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition, and the Christian extermination of Arawaks by Columbus, and the slave trade, and the killing of the indigenous populations of the Americas, the theft of Hawaii, native lands......... Ayup. All with GOD on our side. Great legacy, eh? These are the MONSTERS that run socities, including our own. Interesting how "pro-lifers" love to bomb kids in foreign countries with nary an outcry. Ah. But I forget, they have GOD on their side. Wonderful.
It is fair that we should give Obama some time before we can judge him. As far as peace and economy are concerned, we can predict the following:
Imperial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue through Obama's presidency.
Obama as President will not be able to withstand the power of AIPAC. Israel will continue to terrorize the Middle East with our weapons. Israel has become the most immoral nation in the world.
Our economy will continue to dive south. All this bailout effort will continue to support the dishonest and corrupt corporations and their CEOs. Fraud at the highest level will be rampant.
Some good things will continue to happen here, though. Our universities will continue to produce the finest scholar in science and humanities. An average American, although powerless, will continue to be a decent and caring person.
jagdish,
"Israel has become the most immoral nation in the world."
How many people have been killed in Darfur? I guess to you the life of a single Palestinian is worth 100 times as much as a Sudanese life.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/23/AR2005042301032.html
"We cannot alter ... but we can insist ..."
Now THAT really lowers the bar. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Williamson! The most relevant fact today is this: THE PEOPLE CAN ALTER federal policy by voting in the people's interests (by definition AGAINST elite interests) with all of our individual exchange/association. This includes at the voting booth, in the public policy arena generally, in the markets (especially), and in all sectors. Get to work, people!
The first thing the people MUST be given to change the course of our nation is A TRUE CHOICE and not the same old lying, tired, nasty, illegal, political hacks who are in an "good ole boys club" in DC. There wasn't a shred of difference between the two candidates this election. Both of them have the morals of an alley cat.
The ideas in this article are rather disgusting. Realism? No, it sounds like what the author is describing is Wilsonian idealism - intervening abroad for a moral cause. It's really not too different from the foreign policy vision of George W. Bush, or even Bill Clinton with his "humanitarian intervention" idea.
Afghanistan is the most bombed nation on earth. It's been the bloody playground for a number of imperial powers: Britain, Russia and now the United States. Does anybody really believe adding more hostile forces there is going to tame the locals? The people of Afghanistan are not a threat to the people of the United States. About 3,500 of them were killed when Bush launched his revenge bombing of that country following 9-11, and they had nothing to do with it. It was pure murder.
It's also worth recounting the United States' involvement in Afghanistan prior to 9-11. The CIA was covertly arming and training the mujahedeen there to provoke the Soviets into invading Afghanistan. So, said President Carter's former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at one point was an Obama campaign advisor. (Sick.)
It was Brzezinski's not so brilliant idea to arm the political Islamic fighters in Afghanistan under the theory that it would precipitate the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviets would be provoked into invading Afghanistan, and they'd be bogged down fighting a guerilla insurgency. In essence, the United States would give the Soviets their own "Vietnam war." This stupid idea, for which many died, was part of a theory that political Islam could be harnessed to overthrow the Soviet Union. This bloody idea came from some Czar-loyalist pal of Brzezinski, I understand, some extreme right winger with blood lust on his mind.
Of course, after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the CIA-trained mujahedeen used the terrorist skills they'd learned from the Americans upon American servicemen abroad. The U.S. training was all good for Osama bin Laden, a Saudi exile in Aghanistan, plotting murder from a cave with loyal suicide killers at call (so we're told).
Is there a connection between the violence unleashed in Afghanistan and the rise of violent political Islamic groups worldwide? Yes, there is. I just described it. In the intelligence trade, this problem is called "blowback," when your covert ops come back to bite you in the ass. You create a bigger problem, and it all stems from bloody deeds.
If this author's essay is so brilliant, please explain what U.S. troops are supposed to accomplish in Afghanistan. Are they preventing people from getting on U.S. domestic airlines with boxcutters? Do they stop bad thoughts in caves? Do we expect that the Afghani navy will show up off the coast of New England if U.S. troops aren't stationed in Kabul? Do the Afghanis even have an air force with which to attack the United States?
Tell me what the mission is for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If you can't and you want to bomb them, then maybe you're just involved with the same kind of executive-branch puffery and deadly revenge fantasy proposed by the author of this article, who I hope doesn't represent Obama's views.
Folks nodding their heads to this article need to have their heads examined. Seriously. People react to violence. If that's what you want, then send in the troops. But what's the point of that?
By the way, this author's insistence that Obama can't be moved on this issue is highly disturbing. He seems to admire it. However, Obama is not a king. He is a servant of the American people. Quite frankly, people are tired of the wars. It's just more blood and bankruptcy. We should not tolerate a meglomaniac in office, as suggested by the author of this essay. I hope the author's "leadership vision" for Obama fails to materialize, for it surely will lead to more death and war, and nothing good at all.
-TIA
I can only say that this is reality. Politics dictate some things and like it or not, our National interest demands some things. The end result is you must do certain things certain ways.
Would I be overjoyed if all our troops were home for lunch? Yes. But it was never going to happen. You simply cannot disengage that fast, nor can you abandon people that worked with and for you, though we have done it before. I hope we don't do it again.
No matter that Bush got us there when he shouldn't, reality will always dictate to ideology.
What's the mission?
-TIA
To disengage from both Iraq and Afganistan.
YWIA
Sioux Rose
TIA: Excellent post. I keep hearing Fisk's words that describe the deja vu of American forces following on the same roads used by former Soviet troops, and the road leads to the same destination. Futility, like insanity, means doing the same thing over and over and apparently never having to say you're sorry. Well, you get my drift...
The argument for "realism" is based on the cynical view that selfishness is simply human nature. It is socially created. We are told that we should be selfish, that being unselfish is unatural and exceptional. In Obama's case, "realism" allows him to justify for us, and perhaps himself, his immoral policies.
I was opposed to attacking, invading and occupying Afghanistan, and said so at the time. So did Howard Zinn. I thought it should have been a police action in re looking for who did Sept. 11th attack on WTC and the Pentagon. (I have not changed my mind, although I think there never was a good investigation of what happened on Sept.11 and that the Commission didn't do a thorough job, as do the majority of New Yorkers polled.)
It is not clear to me that we our government acts as a nation group, but that government does what is in the government's interest. Like Howard Zinn has pointed out, many times, the interests of the government and the interests of the people are not the same. His speech of Nov. 8,2008 was played on DemocracyNow on Jan. 2,2009 and it's a classic. www.democracynow.org the transcript is online, free. I've said it before, but if you haven't read "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", Howard Zinn's autobio, Boston:Beacon Press, 20003 edition, it's great, even just the introduction gives good points. To me, the book is a "how to" of social change for peace and justice.