Topic: Foreign Policy
Barack Obama: The Mendacity of Hope, Pt. II Barack Obama's foreign policy posture is reminiscent of a previous president: George W. Bush.by Steven McDuffie
(libertarian)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
"Be it thy course to busy giddy minds With foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, May waste the memory of the former days." William Shakespeare, Henry IV
Iraq In 2008, then-Senator Obama was pushed to the forefront of the passel of potential Democratic nominees due in no small part to his apparent status as the peace candidate. During the presidential campaign, Obama constantly reminded supporters of his 16 month plan for withdrawal from Iraq—except when he claimed to have an eleven and a half month plan. I clearly recall warning my liberal friends and family members that they were very likely going to be sorely disappointed with Obama.
Many of my friends on the left—fellow anti-war activists—voted for Obama because they thought he would "bring the troops home". I assured them that, in all likelihood, there would still be tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq come 2012, and indeed, Obama has since all but promised exactly that. Of course, this cannot be surprising when one considers that, though Obama argued against the Iraq War as a senatorial candidate, once elected he rejected all timetables for withdrawal and backed every bill to fund the war, never once casting a single vote that could legitimately be regarded as being in opposition to the war.
Even a perfunctory review of Obama's rhetoric prior to, and during, his presidential campaign reveals his true beliefs about war, hegemony and imperialism. Many people on the anti-war left must surely remember Obama's October 2002 comment about "dumb wars", which revealed that his dubious opposition to the Iraq war originated—not in deeply-held liberal principles—but in a disagreement with the Bush administration over strategy and execution. But beyond the "dumb wars" comment, Obama has been a veritable wellspring of war-mongering and fear-mongering verbiage.
In my view, it's even conceivable that, had Obama been in the Senate, he may have voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. To wit: in June of 2004, when asked about the resolution, Obama told the New York Times, "What would I have done? I don't know." About the same time, when asked by NPR about the pro-war votes of Kerry and Edwards, Obama said, "I don't consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I wasn't in the position to actually cast a vote on it. I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision."
Bolstering my view that Obama likely would have voted for the 2002 Iraq resolution is this statement, from 2007: "No President should ever hesitate to use force—unilaterally if necessary—to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others—the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm."
When reading the quote above, I was reminded of the foreign policy advocated by the Founding Fathers—particularly Washington and Jefferson—until I reached the final sentence wherein Obama both retroactively endorses President George H.W. Bush's idiotic and illegal 1990 Gulf War, and leaves open the possibility that he, as president, will feel morally and historically justified in adopting an imperious and/or bellicose foreign policy posture—and certainly, his foreign policy staff have indicated a proclivity for imperiousness and bellicosity.
Echoing Rush Limbaugh in November of 2006, Obama averred, "9/11 showed us that try as we might to ignore the rest of the world, our enemies will no longer ignore us. And so we need to maintain a strong foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world." Here Obama betrays an ignorance of recent US foreign policy that is, frankly, mind-boggling—that is, mind-boggling until you realize that this man is a neocon. Contrary to what Obama thinks, prior to 9/11, the US Government had been on a decades long rampage in the Middle East, and the rest of the world. Even President George W. Bush knows that the US wasn't noninterventionist prior to 9/11, saying, in 2006, that "as a result" of the previous US policy, "anger and resentment bubbled forth with [...] a series of attacks, the most dramatic of which was on September the 11th."
In April 2007, Obama—apparently channeling Bill Kristol—told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (COCA), "I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so." This was the speech praised and celebrated by neo-con war-monger Robert Kagan, mentioned above.
The Pentagon has predicted increasing violence in Iraq in the coming weeks and months, and the Obama Administration has assured Iraqis and Americans alike, that if violence in Iraq increases, the presence of US combat troops will increase proportionately. The Obama US Military body count in Iraq stands at 50 as of this writing. The noise I am hearing from the Obama Administration guarantees that number will climb.
In March of this year, Obama extended the Clinton/Bush sanctions on Iran, citing the "continuing and unusual and extraordinary threat" posed by Iran. Obama continued, averring that the interests of the Iranian regime are "contrary to the interests of the United States in the region."
Contrary to Obama's occasional optimism that something like a diplomatic relationship can be reached with Iran, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has maintained that the Administration's opinion is that nothing in Iran will change. Both Clinton and Sec. of State Gates are proponents of ever-increasing sanctions on Iran with the goal of "crippling" the Iranian Government, and "improving America's credibility and influence".
Obama himself is no stranger to fear-mongering over Iran, as revealed in the first presidential debate of 2008, "I believe the Republican(sic) Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so." Obama's Iran policy is a bizarre chimera of, on the one hand, haughty belligerence—punishing sanctions and threats of force—and on the other hand, empty gestures of friendship. His obtuseness is intentional, in my opinion. Obama has to maintain the charade that he is a man of peace while perpetuating the hegemonic foreign policy posture that he inherited from Bush, and that he truly believes is morally and strategically right.
Afghanistan & Pakistan Obama maintained that the troop surge in Iraq didn't work, yet he thinks that a troop surge in Afghanistan will—a position he has never reconciled. Obama has earmarked 17,000 troops to be transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan—a move that prompted a letter asking that he reconsider from more than two dozen House members and policy advocates from all across the political spectrum. Don't expect Obama to pay attention to that letter, or to remember that it was the antiwar voter that propelled him to presidency. The man is clearly willing to commit the lives of thousands of husbands, fathers, sons and brothers1 in an effort to prove that Republican troop surges don't work, but Democrat troop surges do.
The White Paper released by the Obama Administration, reveals that—if we aren't already at war with Pakistan—we soon will be. Since Obama took office, there have been many more drone attacks by US forces operating from bases in Afghanistan, killing hundreds of people—according to a Pakistani Government document leaked to the press, mostly civilians. The Administration has made it clear that the drone attacks will increase and that ground forces may be employed in the near future, likely spurring an increase, not a decrease, in Islamic militancy and nationalism in Pakistan.
Obama the war-hawk will continue the wars that his predecessor foolishly and unconstitutionally bungled into, at the cost of thousands of lives—either changed forever, or snuffed out completely—and billions of dollars of tax-payer money. Obama's "comprehensive, new strategy" for Afghanistan is the foreign policy equavilant of a plan to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Steven McDuffie can be contacted by email at sdmcduffie {at} hotmail {dot} com.
Notes: 1. No offense intended here to women soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. When I served in the military, women were not permitted to perform combat duty. I am still stuck in the 20th Century, I guess.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Steven McDuffie only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Steven McDuffie is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
