|
U.S. Foreign Policy – “Here we go again.”
VP Biden today gave the first outlook on the Obama administration's foreign policy in a speech at the current Security Conference in Munich. The short version:
No change
Specifics:
– Missile defense in Europe will continue to be build.
We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost effective.
The Iran line is pure bullshit. The missile defense the U.S. plans is to enable a nuclear first strike capability against Russia. Russia will have to fight this.
– On Iran the Bush policy of uncompromising non-talks will continue:
We are willing to talk to Iran, and to offer a very clear choice: continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon your illicit nuclear program and support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives.
– On Afghanistan this gem:
… the imperative of stopping the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan from providing a haven for terrorists.
These mountains are either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. To define them as "between" makes them some extraterritorial neverland where no laws apply. A verbal trick to allow for unlimited war on the area.
– In general:
When it comes to radical groups that use terror as a tool, radical states that harbor extremists, undermine peace and seek or spread weapons of mass destruction and regimes that systematically kill or ethnically cleanse their own people – we must stand united and use every means at our disposal to end the threat they pose.
The sentence is no different than anything Cheney would have said.
So on all major foreign policy issues there will be no change at all. As William Pfaff recently commented:
The institutional rigidity of U.S. foreign policy has
been locked in place. The ideas – there are many – about
negotiations, local, regional, or multinational, seem ruled out.
Here we go again.
I don’t think I’m hysterical, Copeland. But honestly, you don’t know Obama personally, so you have no idea what his character is. You are just responding to the propaganda put out by his own operatives and carried on corporate media.
It is hard enough to judge character in people you’ve known for years.
Additionally, character is malleable. Every single one of us has done honorable things, but we’ve all also done despicable things. I know I have.
Here’s an example: Richard Nixon.
Boy, has history given him a bad rap. Apparently he had a despicable character. He was manipulative, insecure, calculating, berating, a liar, anti-semetic, an alchoholic, hypocritical, square, uptight, cursed, sweated, ranted, you name it.
And yet, he got us out of Vietnam, he really did. He negotiated with Breznev, made detente with China, established the EPA and OSHA, the Consumer Product Safety Comission, integrated the schools, set up an affirmative action plan, explored a universal minimum wage and universal healthcare, increased government payments to citizens by 2.6% (almost 9% of GDP), decreased defense spending from 9.1 to 5.8% of GDP, instituted revenue sharing with states and municipalities, and indexed Social Security to inflation, among other significant accomplishments.
Most of this was actually bolder and more towards the left than the Democrats. Outside of his policy in Southeast Asia, he won the abiding respect of McGovern.
He was one of the last Presidents who was his own man and not a front for a faceless cabal.
Obama will do none of this. In fact he, and his vaunted character will undo as much of this as he can.
He is already a murderer, is defending a fascist apologist for torture (Yoo), is engaged in escalating Bush’s faith-based crony shenanigans, and has given more unaccountable money to the wealthy than any other President in history except for Bush, and that’s only in his first month.
Let Mr. Character (who was friends with every slimeball in the Slimey City) really get rolling.
In the world of class warfare, Nixon improved the lot of the little guy, and Obama is looking out for those who invested in him.
Obama is just like Bush: He makes a big feel good speech about something — where the devil is in the details that the media never covers and people never hear about, and at the same time, he is screwing you with his other hand. Like his big speech about executive pay limits which has holes big enough to drive a custom built Hummer through.
I don’t care about Obama’s character or his personality. I don’t care what he says. All I care about is what he does.
And so far he has shown himself to be one big phony — about as substantial as his record in the Senate.
But, why listen to me, I’m hysterical.
Posted by: Malooga | Feb 7 2009 21:43 utc | 24
copeland,
sorry to be blunt
The necessity of rethinking objectives falls to Obama and his people; and it is hoped that they don’t screw it up. There is no mission left in Afghanistan that can justify the loss of life or the bleeding out of our resources, while Americans are losing their jobs and the economy is in shambles.
There never was a mission, just officialy announced slaughter of a people in far away lands.
but who still gives a shit about loss of usamerican resources, and americans loosing their jobs.
People that have nothing to do with either are dying and no one in usamerica gives a shit.
IF us america would not bleed money (they don’t seem to give a shit about their “finest”) everyone would still be happy to go along on the most excellent adventure.
What the fuck has any of those recently bombed afghani/pakistani farmer ever done to the US. Nothing!!!!!
So quite frankly the US Americans can go bleed some more money, as they seem to be animated only by money and not by real blood.
US americans do not give a dime about the rest of the world, they have proven this over and over again. Oh, yes, some go demonstrate and stuff, but they are the minority unfortunately.
The stupid policy keeps killing people in the Pashtun areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, many of whom are unconnected to the Taliban;
it is not stupid policy that keeps killing people, it is bombs, from airplanes, from drones, big fat several hundred kilo heavy fucking bombs made in the USofA.
and the casualties are shrugged off by the insurgents, who are prepared to keep fighting till Kingdom Come.
like the soldiers of the us army/marines/navy that are being shrugged of by their officials. you fight with the army you have, instead of army you want.
It’s this kind of dinking around that will surely risk touching off a regional war with horrible consequences, or else slowly set the stage for a calamitous defeat and humiliation of the US soldiers, followed by an inglorious (WTF!!!) retreat from Afghanistan.
because the war is not horrible just yet, (someone should ask the liberated women, men and children), and the only horrible consequence is a regional war, not the war started by the US in – that is a good war?
Hopefully soon the humiliation of the US Army and their inglorious retreat from Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other oversees base will start. Sooner than later. To say in the words of Riverbend (may she be safe – where ever she is) take your smart weapons and your dumb soldiers and go home!!!
Obama rethinking any objectives – what makes you actually think he does? His words, his actions, his cabinets, his advisers, his shiny teeth?
There is no mission left in Afghanistan that can justify the loss of life or the bleeding out of our resources, while Americans are losing their jobs and the economy is in shambles.
There was no mission in afghanistan ever, just a country that was already destroyed by war, just the idea of easy victory after a humiliating terrorist attack in the states.
The decision to talk with the Iranians, could be productive too, and will be much saner than political entrenchment with an Israeli govt that is moving further to the right.
how generous of the usamericans to talk, lets bomb instead, Rambo, Rocky, Die Hard and Harder!!!!
and as for the Iraelis, they would be forced to live in peace with their neighbors without blindsided unwavering support from the elected US Madman/women.
Good grief, how many people have to die worldwide until people understand that war is not the answer, that there is no glory and honor in sending other peoples kids of to die, and certainly there is no glory and honor to be found in killing defenseless women, children, and men in their homes, thousands of thousands of miles away.
And to finish of, people are loosing jobs and their lively hoods worldwide, so again, why should anyone care about the poor usarmericans if the usgovernment does not care about them.
Posted by: sabine | Feb 7 2009 23:02 utc | 36
The Maňana People
This kind of talk, “Obama can’t do it by himself,” “You can’t turn a large ship around overnight,” is the kind of talk that people who are safe and solvent in comfy houses or apartments can throw around: full of justifications and excuses. And all of these excuses, no matter how intricate or clever, boil down to one thing: “Maňana.” We can’t do it now, so we’ll do it tomorrow. And, of course, tomorrow, somehow, never comes…
When the bombs are falling on YOUR children, when soldiers or police are breaking down your doors, when YOU are being set up on terrorist charges, when you are out of work and have lost everything you ever had, when it is your parent or child dying from some preventable illness but you have no healthcare or the hospitals just been bombed, when you are about to be deported — well, something inside of you changes. You just don’t see things that way anymore. You either get angry or you get depressed. Anger, righteous anger, is far better. And you begin to fight for what is right. Once you start fighting, all those “Maňana” people are not your allies — they are the resistance you either have to convert or fight against. Of course, they are mostly ignorant, not evil, because, in reality, they are one step, one unlucky incident away from where you are. And they know that subconsciously, yet their fear keeps them from allying with you before they absolutely need to. They may have read their Niemöller, but it was just a good poem, it never penetrated their heart.
“We don’t have to protest now because Obama will fix things.” And so anti-war groups across the country have actually stopped vigiling. Really, we should be screaming and protesting even more when a new politician takes office. The slimy think tanks did not take time off when Obama was elected; neither did the military/post-industrial/complex; they got right to work behind the scenes and made sure that their choices were installed as “Assistant Under-Secretary for Minitruth,” and every other position that was open. But this is when the “Maňana” people rise up across the country and proclaim with one strong powerful united voice, “Not yet! — we are not ready to stand up against killing, we have to give him a chance to begin killing, to get to like killing, to overcome the moral compunction, and to work himself into an inextricable situation. Then, we can protest.”
Angry Arab is very good at exposing this stuff with Zionist-lite types: You know, the type who “feel” for the Palestinians, but… Or the ones who try to draw some sort of moral equivalence. sabine here makes clear that there is no moral equivalence between killing for a few more months and being the ones who are being killed. John Kerry became famous at the “Winter Soldier” hearings for asking, “Who will be last soldier to die for a useless cause?” Of course, once Americans get over their solipsism the question becomes, “Who will be the last 100,000 Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Iraqis to die for an immoral and illegal war?”
And I know that the people who always find these slippery excuses for Obama are the same ones who would be screaming if McCain had been elected and was bombing Pakistan. But, you see, they can always do this because they know what Obama “wants”: Obama wants good things. And they knew what Bush “wanted”: Bush wanted bad things. It is so simple. Even a little child could grasp this concept….. That is, unless they were busy cowering from bombs and bullets, tanks and bulldozers. The concept is: elect a “good” person and then you can say “Maňana” every night before you go to sleep. And then tomorrow night, you can say “Maňana” too.
Rabbi Hillel was never a member of the “Maňana” cult; he admonished others, “If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am not for others, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?” Not quite as catchy as “Maňana,” but, it seems to me, a whole lot wiser.
Posted by: Malooga | Feb 8 2009 3:17 utc | 49
@ Thrasyboulos 53:
It’s hard to remember where I read what, but I certainly read this article (and the previous one linked at bottom) on wsws, which I generally find to be pretty reliable. It cites the LA Times article, which one of your links discredits, based upon the fact that they reputedly confused “rendition” with “extraordinary rendition.” Yet, some of it seems pretty clear and forthright:
The Los Angeles Times cites unnamed US intelligence officials who say, “The rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street.”…
Meanwhile, Obama’s order ostensibly shutting down the CIA’s network of secret prisons allows an exception for “facilities used only to hold people in short-term, transitory basis.” What constitutes “short-term” is not defined.
This provision will allow the CIA’s secret prison system to function more or less as it did in the Bush administration. While under the Bush administration prisoners could be held indefinitely in CIA-run black holes, in many cases the CIA prisons—many of which were located in eastern Europe—acted as way stations for prisoners who were to be shipped off to regimes where the abductees were subjected to torture.
Obama has not challenged the Bush administration’s pseudo-legal claim that the president can, without judicial review, claim any individual—US citizen or not—an “enemy combatant,” subject to secret arrest and indefinite detention. Nor has Obama undone the military tribunal system of kangaroo-court justice for those caught up in the US dragnet.
In relationship to the use of torture by the US military and the CIA, Obama left himself ample room for maneuver. While one order claimed to end forms of interrogation not sanctioned by the Army Field Manual, Obama has proposed the creation of a task force that would study ways of changing the Manual to allow for new forms of interrogation.
Even Obama’s celebrated order ending of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay changes nothing. The current Guatánamo inmates, as well as future “detainees,” may be subject to extraordinary rendition based on executive fiat.
Moreover, Obama has made assurances that his administration will not investigate or prosecute those officials—including former Bush administration officials such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales—who were responsible for the policies of torture and illegal detention.
And from the previous article in the series:
They do not affect the hundreds of prisoners—600 at the Bagram prison camp in Afghanistan alone—incarcerated beyond the barbed wire of Guantánamo. If and when Guantánamo is closed, the US government will simply ship alleged terrorists caught up its international dragnet to other American-run prison camps.
On the question of so-called “harsh interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture, Obama’s orders leave room for their continuation. White House Counsel Gregory Craig told reporters the administration was prepared to take into account demands from the CIA that such methods be allowed. Obama announced the creation of a task force that will consider new interrogation methods beyond those sanctioned by the Army Field Manual, which now accepts 19 forms of interrogation, as well as the practice of extraordinary rendition.
Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama’s nominee for director of national intelligence, told a Senate confirmation hearing that the Army Field Manual would itself be changed, potentially allowing new forms of harsh interrogation, but that such changes would be kept secret.
As a human being, I believe that MOST, if not all, of the methods sanctioned by the Army Field Manual constitute what I feel to be torture. Waterboarding is just a stylish name for drowning. NPR ran one of its disgusting “normalizing” stories about the technique the other day, claiming that the Army did this to its own members so that they could resist breaking if captured. (“See, it nothing. What was everyone getting so worked up about?”) They neglected to mention that it is far easier to have people you trust to not hurt you do things to you, then if you are a prisoner who could easily be offed and never noticed.
I also believe that US and European soldiers are in Afghanistan illegally and immorally, so getting all worked up about these details is to follow the red herring and miss the heart of the matter. We can argue back and forth what is permissible to do to the Afghanis and Iraqis until they cease to exist, as we did over the Native Americans.
So all I can say is, “We report, you decide.” Soon enough the CIA planewatchers will know whether anything has actually changed. I think that what is likely is that a torture victim will turn into a disappeared victim, since they don’t want any more Maher Arar’s around giving interviews to Amy Goodman. And so there won’t be any, one way or another, as Debbie Harry might say.
Posted by: Malooga | Feb 8 2009 5:47 utc | 63
Sure, not because he is noble, but because the military told him they couldn’t feed the troops.
As we have detailed earlier, this past week was a disaster for US Grand Imperial Policy. You don’t rush Henry Kissinger off to Moscow because you’ve planned and executed well. America does not suddenly call for regional conferences because they are good, but because they are unexpectedy weak. Next, they’ll have to exhume James Baker too. Get the adults in to try and salvage things.
Obama — the masterful politician lamely telegraphed his moves and the rest of the world had time to plan and respond. Putin never telegraphs his moves, but then he clearly isn’t the caliber of politician that Obama is.
Obama is making mistake after mistake in my book. The right will be breathing down his neck within a year, and the left will hate him. The rest of the world will benefit — which is fine by me — but Grand Imperial Policy, which he is put in place to manage, will suffer.
And he ain’t gonna help the middle and lower classes until they wipe the stars from their eyes and revolt.
After Bush, they should have been more suspect about the Boy-King strategy.
In any event, Obama was installed to upgrade the brand and manage domestic discontent while they cut social benefits, which he is ensuring they will have to do by shoveling even more money to the banksters. He seems well suited to the role.
If I can’t convince anyone that there are Grand strategies — that benefits have been systematically cut since 1972 worldwide by almost all politicians; that the wealthy have waged organized war against the poor since then, that Europe’s alliance with the US has not served its people but its elite, etc. — well, that’s my problem because I am not a good enough writer and persuasive enough arguer, and because people don’t really want to hear the message.
By the way, when I asked what the US and Europe’s legitimate mission in Afghanistan is, no one responded.
In any event, here is the latest from M K Bhadrakumar: Biden may hold unclenched Iranian hand
Read it all; these are brief excerpts:
Tehran knows a main reason is that it has a crucial role to play in salvaging the crisis in Afghanistan. On Wednesday, the European Union’s External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner flagged the importance of inviting Iran to the EU’s forthcoming “regional conference” on Afghanistan. The ruling Christian Democratic Union of Germany has proposed in the Bundestag the setting up of a “Contact Group” on Afghanistan that would comprise the UN Security Council’s permanent members, as well as the EU, Pakistan and Iran.
On Wednesday, in her first press conference as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced that the US will attend the next round of multilateral talks with Iran on the nuclear issue next week in Germany. ..
On Tuesday, the chief of Iran’s armed forces General Hassan Firouz Abadi, who comes directly under the Supreme Leader, implied that “conspiracies” against the incumbent in the Byzantine corridors of Iranian domestic politics have withered away and that Iran needed someone of Ahmadinejad’s “capability and dynamism”. Former president Mohammad Khatami, who was tipped to be a candidate of the reformist camp, has since excused himself from the race.
Arguably, the Iranian regime has also cleared the way for a swift engagement with the Obama era. At a minimum, it seems Iran anticipated that an opportune moment to engage might unceremoniously arise….
To be sure, the US is in acute need of Iran’s cooperation for the success of its new Afghan strategy. The US’s “surge” strategy is coming under a cloud already. Critics are piling up questions marks and voicing skepticism about its need and efficacy. In his Congressional testimony in Washington on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that while the US military expects to be able to send three additional combat brigades totaling up to 12,000 troops to Afghanistan between late spring and mid-summer, he remained “deeply skeptical” of any further troop increases. The US commanders in Afghanistan asked for as many as 30,000 more combat and support troops.
Gates suggested the US goals in Afghanistan must be “modest” and “realistic”. He said, “This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan.” Critics point out that even a doubling of the current US troop strength of 30,000 will not mean much. Military experts estimate the Afghan insurgency can be successfully overcome only with a force level of half a million troops.
Besides, other major hitches remain.
First, European countries remain averse to making troop contributions. According to Robert Hunter, former US ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the Bill Clinton administration, there could at best be only some “token response” if Washington made a new appeal, despite the “extraordinary goodwill” for Obama among Europeans. “I rather suspect if the United States pushes too hard on asking for new forces, it will lead to a rebuff,” Hunter said.
The US will be compelled to hasten the search for a political solution even as robust attempts to regain the military momentum from Taliban continue. This is where Iran’s cooperation is critically needed. It is never easy to finesse a contradictory strategy of “Talk, talk; fight, fight”….
Tehran must seriously ponder if its interests are served by Karzai’s exit at this juncture or not. Tehran stands to gain out of a genuinely independent Karzai who asserts Afghanistan’s sovereignty and resists the US diktat. Karzai is becoming assertive and is even demanding a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with the US on the Iraqi model, which would give Kabul decisive say in critical matters such as where the US troops should be based and how they operate.
Karzai is openly seeking Russian military aid. As Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta put it, “our [Afghan] military personnel, pilots in particular, are familiar with [and have been trained in] Russian techniques. And some of the Russian helicopters work well in our mountainous areas. So if the Russians help us in these areas, we … are not opposed to it”….
Nothing could alter the Afghan calculus more than if a Tehran-Islamabad axis emerges, unlikely as the prospect may seem at this point. But then, in the quicksands of Afghan politics, anything can change overnight. Therefore, if Biden, the grey cardinal of the US foreign policy establishment, extends his hand to a distinguished Iranian personality with unclenched fist at Munich next weekend, he will be doing so not a day too soon.
Posted by: Malooga | Feb 8 2009 12:09 utc | 70
Great read, yet again, muchas gracias compañeros.
Obama’s choice of VP, cabinet and advisors did not come as a huge surprise to anyone whose been reading between the lines of his eloquent speeches. Sometimes I get the impression that when ever he spoke of change, he envisioned largely a change of faces, far less the policies.
To make my point, instead of me dragging out his infamously one-sided address to the American Israel Public Affairs Council, I am having a closer look at his remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in April 2007. Although you might say I am picking the raisins from the cake, the length of the speech requires me to be selective:
Good morning. We all know that these are not the best of times for America’s reputation in the world. We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect. We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision.
Not once as yet have I heard him say sorry, either on his own account or that of the US as a whole, for the many hundreds of thousands people killed by the US military since he entered federal politics. He apologizes for calling staffers and reporters “sweetie”, for appointing Tom Daschle, for mentioning Nancy’s séances, for having referred to US casualties in Iraq as “wasted”, but a heartfelt expression of him feeling sadness and grief for the countless people killed by US troops I have yet to hear. Not that I am expecting it any time soon, his silence on the recent mass killings of civilians in Gaza perpetrated with US military equip and consent convey the picture.
But while we know what we have lost as a consequence of this tragic war, I also know what I have found in my travels over the past two years.
In an old building in Ukraine, I saw test tubes filled with anthrax and the plague lying virtually unlocked and unguarded – dangers we were told could only be secured with America’s help.
As B said, “here we go again”.
So 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.
Can anyone else see the phrase ‘project for a new American century’ in those two sentences?
I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.
Leader of the free world hey? Freedom of what? Being spied on by your own government, and O has no problem with that as his support for FISA clearly underlined. Free to have the budget of your already struggling social security services cut in order to finance the bail out of already bloated Wall Street? The US has per capita the highest imprison rate, right up there with such shiny beacons as North Korea. There are numerous countries where citizens enjoy plenty more liberties than in the US, which in my eyes makes his insistence that the US is the world leader when it comes to Freedom sound farcical.
This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership. The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us.
Mr. President, what the world expects is for you to make sure US troops get the hell out of any country your military illegally invaded. What is expected is that you give the order for the killing of foreign citizens by US troops to stop immediately.
I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.
Over the horizon force! You gotta hand it to him, he does have a knack for putting it bluntly. It seems to have escaped him that it is US troops which cause the wider chaos in the region.
Moreover, until we change our approach in Iraq, it will be increasingly difficult to refocus our efforts on the challenges in the wider region – on the conflict in the Middle East, where Hamas and Hezbollah feel emboldened and Israel’s prospects for a secure peace seem uncertain; on Iran, which has been strengthened by the war in Iraq; and on Afghanistan, where more American forces are needed to battle al Qaeda, track down Osama bin Laden, and stop that country from backsliding toward instability.
I appreciate the fact that Obama did not join the pro-Iraq war lobbyists in the lead up to the invasion, but he has always been a staunch supporter of the terrible war in Afghanistan and a loyal devotee to the Zionist cause, and a goose when it comes to understanding terrorism. If he to this day believes that US troops in Afghanistan fight AQ, then his comprehension of world affairs is close to be on par with Bush’s.
The second way America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it.
We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is why our country’s greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.
Fu.k off Obama. Building a 21 century military, where is there change from the previous administration? Just like under Bush, gazillions will be heaped upon the MIC, while bridges crumble and the number of homeless rises.
Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
That is close to 100’000 extra soldiers times $100’000 per year each to employ them, equalling an extra 10 billion dollars every year being thrown away on running a killing machine, at a time when there are is a seemingly endless list of more important needs for the cash to be spend on.
Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.
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.
The caveats he weaves into his speeches are incredible. In other words, he, just like his soulless predecessor, has no qualms to defy world opinion and militarily enforce US interests, whatever he deems vital.
The third way America must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency – securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
How about him speaking for a change about the miserable fact that there is no greater producer of WMD than the USA and that itself must and therefore will stop using weapons of mass destruction, or go that extra step and announce his plan on initiating a total nuclear disarmament world wide?
As starting points, the world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy.
Translates to possibly harsh sanctions and a continued threat to carry out a war crime if Iran doesn’t give up on it’s right to pursue nuclear technology.
We must do so not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner – a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections. Extending an outstretched hand to these states must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people.
Great statement. Gives hope.
To sum this up, let me quote from Hoss’s comment, which sentiment I pretty much share.
Protest the policy, write against it, send emails, write letters, and make phone calls. That is how the policies are going to be changed not by hoping that Obama and his people will do it on their own.
Obama is no doubt a man with a positive dream, but so was George Bush, depends on who you ask. So maybe its best to ask yourself, and when I do so I come up with questions like, if you apparently stand for less war, why increase your troop numbers? When reading of his plans for increased military numbers and the military’s continued dominant role in his vision for maintaining or recapturing US world hegemony I have to wonder what is going on in this guy’s mind when he is talking about “reaching out to the forgotten corners of this world.”
The point has been made up-thread that focusing on the process rather than the result is defeating ourselves, and I’d have to agree. Who cares how nicely worded the excuses are, for the relatives of the many dead and many more crippled people the US foreign policy steam roller leaves behind it comes as no consolation that the bombs were well meant. To ensure he stops this madness Obama’s feet need to be held to the fire even more so than Bush’s, as unlike Shrub, Obama actually promised change.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 8 2009 23:37 utc | 96
|
