When the American people voted Barack Obama into office on Nov. 4, I don't think they had an escalation of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan on their mind. They voted for real change, not another fruitless and costly military solution, but it seems that the fundamental nature of U.S. foreign policy has not changed since Bush's departure and likely will not change any time soon.
No invading force in history has been able to subdue the Afghan people. In fact, the best that the United States has been able to do is to control the major cities in an overwhelming rural country. The Taliban that was supposedly destroyed back in 2001 now controls well more than half of the country (though it's important to mention that today's "Taliban" has a slightly different character).
Rethink Afghanistan is the latest project of filmmaker Robert Greenwald. It features interviews from prominent experts and journalists calling for a non-aggressive approach to Afghanistan.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama is No King
I think it is important to emphasize that despite the Jan. 20 inauguration's occurring one day after the national celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama is not King.
He is also not a king. Therefore, do not decorate his head with a crown of thorns (or gold and jewels). Recognize that he is the elected leader of what is supposed to be a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our Constitution states that he is but a servant of the will of the people. The people must lead him - not the other way around.
Yet this same democracy, conceived with far better intentions than those of its current stewards, has been trampled on by U.S. president after U.S. president for hundreds of years in the form of illegal wars, institutional racism, and crippling poverty.
in the 1960s Dr. King spoke out against the three-headed monster: materialism, racism, and militarism. His work is far from over. The forces he resisted so courageously and selflessly are even more deeply entrenched than they were in his time. His words become more prophetic with each passing day, and I know he would still be marching were he alive. But that's Dr. King, who wore the garment of a preacher and the suit of a civil rights activist. Just as a house cannot stand if divided against itself, President Obama can never successfully confront the three core evils of this imperfect union as its head administrator. He is now the leader of the "world's greatest purveyor of violence." If only we had a new King...
He is also not a king. Therefore, do not decorate his head with a crown of thorns (or gold and jewels). Recognize that he is the elected leader of what is supposed to be a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our Constitution states that he is but a servant of the will of the people. The people must lead him - not the other way around.
Yet this same democracy, conceived with far better intentions than those of its current stewards, has been trampled on by U.S. president after U.S. president for hundreds of years in the form of illegal wars, institutional racism, and crippling poverty.
in the 1960s Dr. King spoke out against the three-headed monster: materialism, racism, and militarism. His work is far from over. The forces he resisted so courageously and selflessly are even more deeply entrenched than they were in his time. His words become more prophetic with each passing day, and I know he would still be marching were he alive. But that's Dr. King, who wore the garment of a preacher and the suit of a civil rights activist. Just as a house cannot stand if divided against itself, President Obama can never successfully confront the three core evils of this imperfect union as its head administrator. He is now the leader of the "world's greatest purveyor of violence." If only we had a new King...
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Obama: The Next 'War President'?
In a recent CBS "60 Minutes" interview, President-Elect Obama made clear that "stamping out Al Qaeda once and for all" and "capturing or killing Osama bin Laden" were among his top priorities. Is this sound policy or petty revenge?
I would argue the latter, particularly because it is quite likely that bin Laden is dead already, serving only as a justification for militarism and paranoia, and even if he were alive, how is his capture or death at all helpful to, let's say, saving the United States (and the world) from economic collapse, bringing our soldiers home promptly and safely, resolving global and domestic poverty, countering racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination - need I go on?
Let's take the issue of national security. How does a dead or captured bin Laden make the United States and its allies safer? If he's half as important as the media and the politicians say he is, wouldn't his capture or martyrdom only serve to strengthen the resolve of what few foot soldiers he still has at his disposal? Would not another man, or even another bin Laden (he has dozens of brethren), take his place?
When I hear all this rhetoric about "getting" Osama bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Americans know the difference between real life and Hollywood - otherwise how could the Obamas and McCains of the world continue to insult our intelligence? In the wonderful world of Hollywood, when you catch or kill the "bad guy," all his cronies seem to disappear. Even his ideology fades into the margins. Afterward there is only light where darkness once reigned supreme. This is not reality.
First, in the real world "good guys" and "bad guys" are much harder to define. Bin Laden is, in fact, a "good guy" to those who support him or understand that there is a method to his madness: that he has expressed concrete grievances against U.S. foreign policy that have been shared by much of the world along with some Americans. Conversely, the soldiers that make up any unwanted and/or illegal military expedition whose goal is to capture or kill bin Laden, whether he be in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bermuda, would be considered "bad guys" by the fearful locals, especially if they harmed civilians along the way (which they are bound to do if history is any lesson).
And say they actually find him somehow, six years after Bush himself admitted he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Osama bin Laden, and they don't harm any innocent bystanders in the process. Say there is no backlash from his lieutenants or from sympathetic Muslim populations. Let's pretend no one arises to replace him, assuming he is more important than his name recognition. Earlier in the same press conference in 2002, Bush said the simple words that should serve as a guide (though not in the direction Bush had intended): "Terror is bigger than one person."
It certainly is far bigger than one person. It involves people who have been "marginalized," as Bush put it, by oppressive governments and their militaries. It involves grave disputes between state and nonstate actors. It involves poverty and hopelessness. But Obama, like his opponents and predecessors in typical Hollywood fashion, would rather attack the symptom instead of the disease.
I would argue the latter, particularly because it is quite likely that bin Laden is dead already, serving only as a justification for militarism and paranoia, and even if he were alive, how is his capture or death at all helpful to, let's say, saving the United States (and the world) from economic collapse, bringing our soldiers home promptly and safely, resolving global and domestic poverty, countering racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination - need I go on?
Let's take the issue of national security. How does a dead or captured bin Laden make the United States and its allies safer? If he's half as important as the media and the politicians say he is, wouldn't his capture or martyrdom only serve to strengthen the resolve of what few foot soldiers he still has at his disposal? Would not another man, or even another bin Laden (he has dozens of brethren), take his place?
When I hear all this rhetoric about "getting" Osama bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Americans know the difference between real life and Hollywood - otherwise how could the Obamas and McCains of the world continue to insult our intelligence? In the wonderful world of Hollywood, when you catch or kill the "bad guy," all his cronies seem to disappear. Even his ideology fades into the margins. Afterward there is only light where darkness once reigned supreme. This is not reality.
First, in the real world "good guys" and "bad guys" are much harder to define. Bin Laden is, in fact, a "good guy" to those who support him or understand that there is a method to his madness: that he has expressed concrete grievances against U.S. foreign policy that have been shared by much of the world along with some Americans. Conversely, the soldiers that make up any unwanted and/or illegal military expedition whose goal is to capture or kill bin Laden, whether he be in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bermuda, would be considered "bad guys" by the fearful locals, especially if they harmed civilians along the way (which they are bound to do if history is any lesson).
And say they actually find him somehow, six years after Bush himself admitted he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Osama bin Laden, and they don't harm any innocent bystanders in the process. Say there is no backlash from his lieutenants or from sympathetic Muslim populations. Let's pretend no one arises to replace him, assuming he is more important than his name recognition. Earlier in the same press conference in 2002, Bush said the simple words that should serve as a guide (though not in the direction Bush had intended): "Terror is bigger than one person."
It certainly is far bigger than one person. It involves people who have been "marginalized," as Bush put it, by oppressive governments and their militaries. It involves grave disputes between state and nonstate actors. It involves poverty and hopelessness. But Obama, like his opponents and predecessors in typical Hollywood fashion, would rather attack the symptom instead of the disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)