EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Commander-in-Chief Elected to End a War
Barack Obama's presidency will be recorded in the history books as having begun on January 20, 2009, in Washington, D.C.
In fact, it began on another, colder January night in Dubuque, Iowa. Obama was not in Dubuque that night.
But Brianna Cleland, a 22-year-old teacher, was.
"I really want to make something happen in America," she told me that night. "And the way to do that is with someone new, with someone different, and that's Barack Obama."
Cleland had never caucused before.
Neither had most of the Iowans who joined her at Dubuque County Precinct 19's Democratic presidential caucus in the Mississippi Riverfront city's Carnegie-Stout Library.
For them, and for thousands like them, Obama represented the promise of fundamental, transformational change.
It was not just a matter of breaking with George Bush.
It was a matter of breaking with Bill Clinton, and with the definition of the Democratic party as a managerial institution that was poised to run things for awhile after a more dynamic but less able Republican party had messed up sufficiently to make dull centrism seem appealing.
As Obama takes office, far from Iowa, and far from the political dynamic that was in play last January, he would do well to remember that it was this sense that he would be different that made people like Brianna Cleland brave the cold, and people like 25-year-old Liz Wagner, a high school social studies teacher who caucuses wearing an orange "I Caucus for Darfur" t-shirt that night.
Wagner's shirt may have referenced a neglected region of Africa, but she was really motivated by a deep, genuinely pained frustration with a foreign-policy consensus that saw Democrats joining Republicans in making excuses for humanitarian, diplomatic and strategic failures that culminated with a unwise and unnecessary war in Iraq.
"I'm glad that he was opposed to the Iraq War before it started," Wagner said of Obama. "It shows he has some judgment. That's more that you can say about most of the other candidates or most of the Democrats in Congress."
Wagner was right. Obama might not have run as an anti-war candidate, but he was understood as such. The Iowans who caucused for the young senator from Illinois, giving him the victory that would propel him into serious competition for the presidency, did so because they saw him as the most political viable foe of the Bush doctrine and the disasters it has caused.
It ought never be forgotten that Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee because of his opposition to George Bush's wrongheaded approach to the world.
As a candidate, Obama promised change.
Today, as he assumes the presidency, Obama will continue to promise change.
Pundits in Washington may debate what that change entails.
But the people who made Barack Obama our president understand - and so should the man who is now our president.
The first and most fundamental change must come in how this nation relates to the rest of the world.
And the place to begin is with Iraq.
This new president, our new president, should end George Bush's war.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show AllIs it too much to ask, on this day of infinite hope for change, that progressives finally start using the right language to further our cause?
There is NO Iraq war, and hasn't been since 2003, when we achieved both of our war goals in the war AGAINST Iraq and Saddam Hussein. There is now a 'friendly' occupation of Iraq, which we have been promised will end, or at least begun ending, within 16 months, unless it doesn't.
The US military hands out NO medals for any 'Iraq war', and never has. Instead, it awards an 'Iraq Campaign' medal, because Iraq is just one battlefield in the '(global) war on terror', a war for which the military DOES award a medal.
The US government and the US military are fighting a '(global) war on terror', while the US people (and progressives, unfortunately) STILL talk of Iraq and Afghanistan (but not Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) as separate wars. They are all part and parcel of our global and unending conflict.
It is the (global) war on terror that must be stopped, or at least discussed, or at the very least acknowledged.
Otherwise we can make no progress.
"Infinite hope: is an oxymoron.
No. Actually it isn't.
'Iraq Campaign' medal
As it was and ever shall be. Lay your life on the line. Kill people. Be killed. Be maimed for life. And receive in return ... drumroll ... A FUCKING TRINKET.
HUAH !!
-- EKATON --
JUST DO IT!
Not only end the occupation of Iraq, but end our role as world policeman, meddling in other countries' affairs. Let's also end our "WAR ON DRUGS" and treat drug abuse the way that we treat alcohol abuse.
Now here's a couple of sensible thought's.
Let other countries fend for themselves and pay for their own defense and their own problems.
I couldn't bear to watch it. I feel nothing but pain when I see a fellow human, in this case a smart, decent, fundamentally liberal man with a charming but vulnerable family, caught in a trap like a beautiful insect in amber. But he asked for it. Apparently he wanted to be in over his head. Not one mention in all these months about reducing the military budget, not one. Oops. More of the same coming.
I may wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
· Yr Obd't Servant
More trash from the "Nation."
I worked and wrote for the new president. i was angered by the Clintos and what they were trying to do and by a twist of fate we all, who worked so hard defeated them and propelled Barak Obama to the presidency. Since those bleak days I have hoped that he would be different create a new path for the USA and the world. He may do that but to date i am extremely unhappy with the Clinton era retread Larry Summers.
The depression we are in right now gives us an opportunity to retool the American economy and the worlds priorities and shift toward an integrated method of Carbon capture so as we save humanity. we have seven years . . .yes seven years to do this before the runaway feedback lops begin. if you think this depression is bad its nothing to what we can expect from an environmental meltdown. if anyone does not think this is so go to the NASA website and read the postings of james Hansen.
Larry Summers, believes that we have to look after the economy first, I believe that we must design the economy around a seven year unstoppable disaster. Summers is not the answer or is too much Clintonism, Barak Obama is a good guy but he is too conservative and sold to the DNC and the power brokers. For them its money first the environment second.
IKE Kay
I agree with your diagnosis of the problems that face us, but a few corrections are in order. (the science of climate change is an evolving science, which can barely keep up with events)
1: Hansen now says we have only FOUR years to make actual, meaningful progress.
-and BTW, he has now retreated from a 500ppm upper limit to CO2 before we experience catastrophic repercusions. He now thinks that 350ppm is the upper limit. (Oops)
2: There is no, I repeat NO carbon capture technology current or in the near future that we can ramp up fast enough to even slow down climate change, much less stop it in its' tracks.
3: Many, if not most Climatologists, at least those familiar with Systems Sciences, are convinced that even if we were to stop all emissions of CO2 tomorrow, we have already set in motion positive feedback processes (which I assume is what you mean when you say "feedback loops"), and that we are now going to have to face the consequences of our opting out of the "contract" that the Earth (Gaia) has maintained with all of life upon it.
4: And finally, my belief is that we must now pay as much attention to how we, as a species, will adapt to a new climate, as well as how we can at least slow it down.
Recommended reading for those interested in this comment: "With Speed and Violence" by Fred Pearce and "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock
One hopeful sign is the announcement today of George Mitchell as Mid East envoy. Mitchell was extremely effective in N Ireland, and, as an Arab-American, shows a new direction. While I have been wildly unhappy with most of Obama's picks, from Emanuel to Clinton, this one could be hugely effective and productive.
And what of Afghanistan? And the whole "global war on terror"? If Mr. Obama thinks that he can fight these futile wars AND rescue the economy, he's begging for a great disillusionment ...
If I may add a bit more: Mr. Obama is not MY commander-in-chief. I'm not in the military, nor have I ever been in the military (thank Heaven). Technically speaking, he should be commander-in-chief only during a time of formally-declared war (something this country has not had since WWII). The wars of his predecessor were not declared by the Congress, as required by the Constitution; therefore, they're unlawful, and should be ended swiftly, and those responsible (which include plenty of current and former members of both houses of Congress, as well as former members of the past administration) ought to be held responsible, in courts of law, for their actions.
The alternative is to live in a country where the young think that crimes in high places are never paid for, that the higher you rise, the less likely you are to pay for your wrong-doings with your money, your freedom, or even your life. It's going to be dreadful living in a country like that.
As in Star Wars, the enemy is the Empire; in our case, the US Empire. Its leader is always the planet's #1 enemy; the face change from Bush to Obama doesn't change anything. Obama is on the record supporting more war and imperial expansion and voted in favor of both on numerous occasions. Obama was never an anti-war candidate; rather, he was made to seem like an anti-war candidate, an image the author Nichols abetted. Obama is now responsible for every death caused by the US Empire and its (few) allies. That could stop tommorrow, but Obama lacks the guts to engage in such a vastly moral and uplifting act as announcing the wholesale rollback of the US Empire--its immediate withdrawl from all its foreign bases and multiple combat zones. All of this ultimately says Obama has no moral principles and is thus little different from Bush or Cheney, despite his rhetoric.
Mr. Nichols, (excuse the honorific - I have been reading to much of the NYTimes)
My personal history reminds me that at the beginning of the Afgan war many Americans, myself included, gathered to protest that making war on a country for the actions of a few (mostly foreigners to Afganistan) was, to say the least, an overkill that would exhaust our military and our treasury. It reminds me that perhaps most of my fellow citizens saw through ALL reasonings for a war in Iraq. It may be true that Obama was "perceived" as the anti-war candidate, but there was only ONE candidate in the Democratic party who actually was the anti-war candidate (Kucinich, of course), and he did not even come close. My tears of joy that America has elected an Afro-American president are tempered by tears of frustration that we now must beg that same person to do what was and is the only right choice - end both wars and bring our military home.
I'm not holding my breath on this one but if he really does succeed in getting the country out of Iraq and Afghanistan by 2011, I'll be damned.
"This new president, our new president, should end George Bush's war."
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and dare I say, more bullshit.
Obama was the first politician I recall calling for attacks inside of Pakistan. This would be an escalation of warfare in South Asia, would it not? Obama will NOT "withdraw from Iraq" because that phrase means NO MORE US PRESENCE IN IRAQ, PERIOD. He'll leave behind a residual force at a minimum. He WILL escalate needless war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He serves the power elite. Presidents of the United States are middle managers at best.
More of the same, more of the same, more of the same, inauguration intoxication aside.
-- EKATON --
One of the clips on my personal funny highlights reel is an employee Christmas party many moons ago. When asked by a waitress whether he wanted coffee, a co-worker replied gravely, but politely, "No thanks, ma'am-- I prefer to remain drunk."
I'm a teetotaler today, myself. But there are a lot of people who, for the forseeable future, will prefer to remain drunk.
· Yr Obd't Servant
You really, really have to reach into the definition of "empire" to use it in reference to America. And even then you have to detach other parts of the meaning. Is it really worth the effort?
Excuse me, but I live on an island that was once a monarchy, which ended when the US surrounded Oahu with gunboats and put the Queen in prison.
We have between 700 and 800 military bases worldwide.
I think that qualifies as "empire."
I agree. US not an empire unless you attach a qualifier like economic empire. Empires are quite a bit different.
It's not a war. It never was a war.
It was an invasion.
And then an occupation.
And OBama is not going to end it.
If he did, Big Guns and Big Oil would kill him and not even look back. Especially with the Zionist Biden riding in the catbird seat.