I know that it is improper never to say “never.” However, I feel I must in order to set the record straight. Martin Luther King, Jr., was never an advocate of capitalism in his campaigns for civil and human rights. His perspective had been that of a democratic socialist since the latter part of his college days. He did not insist on spouting off about socialism for much of his public career because he was attacking the fundamental rights related to local and interstate travel, public accommodations, and voting for the first ten years. The remaining three years of his life, before it was struck down by an assassin’s bullet, were focused on economic exploitation, militarization, and the ongoing institutional discrimination.
Many scholars like to demythologize King by claiming that he evolved into a radical or revolutionary; he became a socialist only after his foray into the ghettos of Chicago; he acceded to some of the demands of the Black Power movement and the burgeoning Black Panthers crusade; he learned more about the evils of capitalism as he answered the call of Marian Wright (Edelman) and then-Senator Robert F. Kennedy to construct a Poor People’s Campaign; he sought to evangelize the nation about nonviolent resolution of conflict by lambasting the Johnson Administration’s escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and connecting it to the mistreatment of young black males; and his concern for Memphis sanitation workers forced him to address directly the worth of the labor movement and the exploitation of labor. In my opinion, these scholars are wrong, for they do not appreciate the fact that there is ample evidence of King’s strong affinity to socialism prior to 1955; King intermittently criticized American capitalism throughout his public career; and, perhaps most importantly, King was compelled first to deal with the superficial and peripheral elements of Jim Crow segregation before he could grapple with the systemic structural, procedural, and policymaking dimensions of racism.
King was not flawless in his pursuit of justice for the marginalized. After all, he was a member of a fallible species as all Homo sapiens are. The development of Operation Breadbasket in 1962 on the heels of the Albany movement in Atlanta, Georgia, was not acquiescence to the economic mainstream by encouraging blacks to become diehard capitalists. Rather, it was in recognition of the fact that employers were racist in their actions and African Americans were faced with unfair hiring practices, on the one hand, and deprived of job training, on the other hand. Breadbasket was begun in order to call attention to unemployment and underemployment among blacks through boycotts against companies not hiring blacks in appreciable, if any, numbers and arbitration with those and other businesses to agree to ways to address and redress the inequitable disparities. These actions were not salvos to modern industrial capitalism, but, rather, a realization of the urgent and emergent needs of people who could not support themselves or their families.
When we embark upon a discussion of King’s legacy, we must not settle on simply paying homage to the “I Have a Dream” speech, the Birmingham and Selma campaigns that largely contributed to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, respectively, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the paranormal premonition of his “Mountaintop” climax the night before his murder. We must, even in confabulating about his meaning for the twenty-first century, mirror his exhortation that “the whole Jericho Road must be changed.” Dr. King’s legacy is one that embraces the tenets of moral law: try to reach your ideal of society through knowing your values, pursuing the best possible, making your strategies and tactics relevant and specific to the situation or the issue, being aware of the consequences of your actions, working in collaboration with others, and seeking to effectuate positive social change that respects the dignity and worth of human personality—whatever one’s metaphysical or theological persuasion might be.
Any real legatee of King’s must be acutely cognizant of the latter’s core orientation towards democratic socialism. The solution to economic exploitation—apart from discriminatory employment practices—is not only a redistribution of the wealth of this country, but also ensuring that every individual has a livable income, can participate fully in the body politic, and can have all the basic and existential human needs satisfied.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
AH, HAH! MOMENTS
Recently, I have been hearing folks having epiphanic experiences when it comes to institutionalized racism in the United States. I am surprised and quickly become suspicious when these instances are reported, because I reflexively disbelieve anyone living in this country can be so impervious to what has been systematically going on for centuries with regard to African Americans (as well as other peoples of color), that they claim ignorance even as they continue to swim, if you will, in reservoirs of privilege as they have all of their lives! There are countless matrices and social stimuli that daily replay the racial divide within everybody’s purview. We do not need a surfeit of data to observe the injustices and to resolve to collaborate unendingly to fight against this blight upon all of our humanity—although Michelle Alexander has done precisely that in her book entitled, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
Colorblindness, of course, is a popular descriptor of what many wish for and claim today it exists, on the one hand, and an expression of the shallow and uncritical perception many have who simply do not wish to deal with the sickness of racism, on the other hand. Colorblindness can be used as a foil ostensibly to hide our greed, selfishness, individualism, and indifference to the plight of people of darker hue. Prejudice raises its ugly head not only in the thoughts of lower-class whites who have the privilege of sighing that they ain’t like no nigger, but also in the charitable contributions of the well-off who never consider sacrificing current material comforts in order to help to begin to dismantle a system designed to lock people in the poorhouse. Yet because we insist that our society has reached an age of colorblindness, we can exculpate ourselves from any responsibility for a system of oppression and exploitation that scandalizes human dignity and worth. Consequently, a structure of exclusion fundamentally based on racial categories can be blatantly perpetuated by lofting from our lips the sordid and flagrantly cynical subterfuge that we have finally arrived!
Every black person in the United States should develop a hermeneutic of suspicion when dealing with others alleging enlightenment and also live in this environment steeped in racism. It is very, very difficult to transcend it unscathed. Knowing the history of well-minded liberals and some progressives in this country, blacks cannot drop their guards because some of the most vicious forms of racism have been engendered and propagated by such people! Race matters in this country because we let it by supposedly having the luxury to ignore and be indifferent to it—while those categorized, prejudged, and victimized by it recognize its validity and its entrenchment in all facets of our regular milieu.
Until we discern the continuum of racial discrimination—from individual prejudice to institutional genocide—we will forever plead some exonerative ignorance or contemplative epiphany ad infinitum that renders us in effect inactive perpetrators of the status quo, which promises that the day of freedom, dignity, and equality for all persons shall remain a pipe dream!
Colorblindness, of course, is a popular descriptor of what many wish for and claim today it exists, on the one hand, and an expression of the shallow and uncritical perception many have who simply do not wish to deal with the sickness of racism, on the other hand. Colorblindness can be used as a foil ostensibly to hide our greed, selfishness, individualism, and indifference to the plight of people of darker hue. Prejudice raises its ugly head not only in the thoughts of lower-class whites who have the privilege of sighing that they ain’t like no nigger, but also in the charitable contributions of the well-off who never consider sacrificing current material comforts in order to help to begin to dismantle a system designed to lock people in the poorhouse. Yet because we insist that our society has reached an age of colorblindness, we can exculpate ourselves from any responsibility for a system of oppression and exploitation that scandalizes human dignity and worth. Consequently, a structure of exclusion fundamentally based on racial categories can be blatantly perpetuated by lofting from our lips the sordid and flagrantly cynical subterfuge that we have finally arrived!
Every black person in the United States should develop a hermeneutic of suspicion when dealing with others alleging enlightenment and also live in this environment steeped in racism. It is very, very difficult to transcend it unscathed. Knowing the history of well-minded liberals and some progressives in this country, blacks cannot drop their guards because some of the most vicious forms of racism have been engendered and propagated by such people! Race matters in this country because we let it by supposedly having the luxury to ignore and be indifferent to it—while those categorized, prejudged, and victimized by it recognize its validity and its entrenchment in all facets of our regular milieu.
Until we discern the continuum of racial discrimination—from individual prejudice to institutional genocide—we will forever plead some exonerative ignorance or contemplative epiphany ad infinitum that renders us in effect inactive perpetrators of the status quo, which promises that the day of freedom, dignity, and equality for all persons shall remain a pipe dream!
Friday, March 11, 2011
MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA?
There is pressure upon Nobel Peace Prize laureate, President Barack Obama, to proceed to a military solution to the crisis in Libya. Unfortunately, Col. Muammar Qaddafi has elected to trounce the rebels through air attacks, ground forces, and other military technologies rather than face up to the civil strife he helped to cause prior to his offensive defense tactics in the face of the uprising. The United States has tolerated Qaddafi’s human rights abuses since he became less vituperative against us some years back.
Qaddafi has been in office much longer than Hosni Mubarak. With such a long tenure at the helm of the ship of state, a political leader must be dictatorial and violent against the people. There is no way for opposition to be on the losing end for decades without massive suppression occurring. Needless to say, Qaddafi’s rule has not been exceptional.
It is ironic that one of the main responses of the Obama administration has been to defer to the United Nations as far as military intervention is concerned. We have repeatedly defied the U.N. since its inception, when we have used the device of “national security” to do whatsoever we wanted to preserve or advance our interests. Meanwhile, we watch from afar innocent Libyan civilians being massacred and virtually defenseless demonstrators struck down, because we are more concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq—two places where a hefty portion of our military arsenal is still engaged, both actively and poised for future sorties.
There are many in Obama’s coterie who believe that Qaddafi is definitely on the way out and, therefore, sitting on our duffs is not a bad option for now. This attitude is appalling, for it makes light of the awful devastation the Libyan dictator is wreaking on his own people today. How can we be so cavalier about people’s lives?
Many of our European allies depend upon this authoritarian regime’s oil. They will begin to feel more desperate about what’s happening in that country and may themselves opt to engage their own military might. Perhaps, we will be more favorable to that action, or more willing to support them rather than the democratic rebels of darker hue in Libya itself.
Ultimately, I do not favor a military solution to the crisis in Libya. There are ways to force Qaddafi out without using a weapon of mass destruction. The question is whether our intelligence and diplomacy are fit for the challenge. At this point, I fear the answer to that question and the many lives that are at stake!
Qaddafi has been in office much longer than Hosni Mubarak. With such a long tenure at the helm of the ship of state, a political leader must be dictatorial and violent against the people. There is no way for opposition to be on the losing end for decades without massive suppression occurring. Needless to say, Qaddafi’s rule has not been exceptional.
It is ironic that one of the main responses of the Obama administration has been to defer to the United Nations as far as military intervention is concerned. We have repeatedly defied the U.N. since its inception, when we have used the device of “national security” to do whatsoever we wanted to preserve or advance our interests. Meanwhile, we watch from afar innocent Libyan civilians being massacred and virtually defenseless demonstrators struck down, because we are more concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq—two places where a hefty portion of our military arsenal is still engaged, both actively and poised for future sorties.
There are many in Obama’s coterie who believe that Qaddafi is definitely on the way out and, therefore, sitting on our duffs is not a bad option for now. This attitude is appalling, for it makes light of the awful devastation the Libyan dictator is wreaking on his own people today. How can we be so cavalier about people’s lives?
Many of our European allies depend upon this authoritarian regime’s oil. They will begin to feel more desperate about what’s happening in that country and may themselves opt to engage their own military might. Perhaps, we will be more favorable to that action, or more willing to support them rather than the democratic rebels of darker hue in Libya itself.
Ultimately, I do not favor a military solution to the crisis in Libya. There are ways to force Qaddafi out without using a weapon of mass destruction. The question is whether our intelligence and diplomacy are fit for the challenge. At this point, I fear the answer to that question and the many lives that are at stake!
UNION BUSTING IN WISCONSIN
The public sector needs protection from those who favor the well-to-do at the expense of the average worker. Many who have this inclination seem impervious to the fact that their support works against their own interest. What kind of democracy is it that fervently seeks after tax cuts for the richest in the nation, yet removes the primarily thing that has historically kept workers shielded from callously greedy business owners, namely, collective bargaining? Many people had struggled and died to make the work environment tolerable. If it were not for unions, children would be allowed to work, wages would not keep up with inflation, the work week would be tediously longer than it is now, there would be no such thing as overtime, maternity leave, medical benefits, pensions, retirement pay, improved working conditions, etc.
What makes what happened in Wisconsin that much more egregious is the manner in which they railroaded the bill through because of the absence of fourteen Democratic lawmakers who were disgusted in the puerile discussions made by Republicans. These Republican legislators claimed they were acting on a conservative mandate from the people—people who were clearly unable to ascertain that they themselves were being blamed for the fiscal crisis in their state. The average public sector worker is not the type of individual that brought the economy to its knees in 2008. It is so much easier to attack the masses of people who have very little recourse for defense except for protesting in the public square.
If a repressive regime can be forced to abdicate and abscond by citizen protests, then why is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people able to be squashed, impeached, or radically reformed? Union busting is repressive; the denial of the breadth of collective bargaining removes the major form of safeguards for the average laborer. Such action flies in the face of what it means to be a human being worthy of dignity and respect. Certainly, corporate Wisconsin could have taken much of the slack, rather than lobbying to save themselves and ignore consumers upon whom they depend.
Voting is a right in this country, and it ought to be. But that does not mean that voters are aware of their rights or can discern what is in their best interests and in the best interest of the whole. It is incumbent upon the informed electorate to educate the rest of the population that is perpetuating their own self-affliction. Labor unions are still needed to protect the contemporary worker. They are by no means antiquated, and all workers have benefitted from their long history of struggle and activism on behalf of laborers.
The other states that are considering Wisconsin-like measures, including my own state of Iowa, need to be assailed by an Egyptian-type rebellion in order to salvage the last vestiges of real democracy in our weakening republic. Union busting has to become and remain a relic of the Reagan administration!
What makes what happened in Wisconsin that much more egregious is the manner in which they railroaded the bill through because of the absence of fourteen Democratic lawmakers who were disgusted in the puerile discussions made by Republicans. These Republican legislators claimed they were acting on a conservative mandate from the people—people who were clearly unable to ascertain that they themselves were being blamed for the fiscal crisis in their state. The average public sector worker is not the type of individual that brought the economy to its knees in 2008. It is so much easier to attack the masses of people who have very little recourse for defense except for protesting in the public square.
If a repressive regime can be forced to abdicate and abscond by citizen protests, then why is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people able to be squashed, impeached, or radically reformed? Union busting is repressive; the denial of the breadth of collective bargaining removes the major form of safeguards for the average laborer. Such action flies in the face of what it means to be a human being worthy of dignity and respect. Certainly, corporate Wisconsin could have taken much of the slack, rather than lobbying to save themselves and ignore consumers upon whom they depend.
Voting is a right in this country, and it ought to be. But that does not mean that voters are aware of their rights or can discern what is in their best interests and in the best interest of the whole. It is incumbent upon the informed electorate to educate the rest of the population that is perpetuating their own self-affliction. Labor unions are still needed to protect the contemporary worker. They are by no means antiquated, and all workers have benefitted from their long history of struggle and activism on behalf of laborers.
The other states that are considering Wisconsin-like measures, including my own state of Iowa, need to be assailed by an Egyptian-type rebellion in order to salvage the last vestiges of real democracy in our weakening republic. Union busting has to become and remain a relic of the Reagan administration!
Friday, February 11, 2011
FINALLY, HE RESIGNS!
I'm not particularly fond of the daily fare of social networks like Facebook, but at last such tools have been used to advocate for a democratic society and urge protests aimed at the removal of an oligarchy that has been in place since for thirty years! Now, that's employing the Internet in a constructive manner, and I applaud the youth liberation movement in Egypt for its fervor and ingenuity.
As Frederick Douglass stated in the latter part of the nineteenth century, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Certainly, the masses of people repeatedly demanded the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, and today their earnest met with success. Hallelujah! Alhamdulillah!
After Anwar Sadat was assassinated, Mohammed Hosni Mubarak seemed like a godsend. He appeared generous to the opposition, freeing many political prisoners, and interested in opening up the economy to the marginalized. But that soon changed. In trying to squash what he saw as radical fundamentalism, the trajectory of his rulership changed dramatically. Rather than becoming a paradigm for democratic leadership, he became increasingly repressive and oppressive, allowing for nearly half of the population to live at subsistence levels. Mubarak cracked down on free, fair, and open elections, and sought to orchestrate his eventual succession. He put a lot of his personal allies in high political positions, including his son Gamal. Egypt has been in a state of emergency for decades, which served as a vehicle to crush any political reform. The dream of democracy was transformed into a nightmare of exploitation.
Somehow, Egypt remained a strong ally of the United States, as administration after administration simply looked the other way in order to maintain American interests in the region. As we have become increasingly receptive to the alleviation of pain for the Palestinians, we have not stridently criticized Mubarak for closing off refuge for displaced Palestinians. Because we consider Egypt key to our national security interests, we have oftentimes suddenly become blind when Egypt offends--as we have been with Saudi Arabia as well as with Israel. Rather than support the burgeoning liberation movement in Egypt, we acted like immobile deer in approaching headlights. The Obama Administration did not have the foresight or insight to discern the unrest brewing at the surface; it was afraid that any words critical of the Mubarak regime would enervate our friendly relations and destabilize the region. Mubarak use this softness on the part of the United States and continued to horde money for himself and his henchmen for a couple decades.
What's in store for Egyptland now? I would never fully trust military personnel to rule a country. It would be optimistic, however, to expect the military to share power, for the instability of the country needs to end, and who else but the military can forge such a state of affairs? I think a civilian coalition should spring up to help organize a new democracy that believes in curtailing the plight of the disinherited. That's what ethical government is all about!
In a very real sense, Mubarak is a tragic figure. Despite his billions, he clinged to a position against the will of the people. He still needed to be bolstered by status and station, rather than ceding to the masses their own process of striving for ideal democracy. In essence, he had become corrupt to the bone: delighting in power and disdaining the people whom he, at one time, vowed to support, sustain, develop, and enhance. Lord Acton was right: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mubarak had to be forced out; an it happened without the violence of most protesters. Now that's how to walk like an Egyptian!
As Frederick Douglass stated in the latter part of the nineteenth century, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Certainly, the masses of people repeatedly demanded the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, and today their earnest met with success. Hallelujah! Alhamdulillah!
After Anwar Sadat was assassinated, Mohammed Hosni Mubarak seemed like a godsend. He appeared generous to the opposition, freeing many political prisoners, and interested in opening up the economy to the marginalized. But that soon changed. In trying to squash what he saw as radical fundamentalism, the trajectory of his rulership changed dramatically. Rather than becoming a paradigm for democratic leadership, he became increasingly repressive and oppressive, allowing for nearly half of the population to live at subsistence levels. Mubarak cracked down on free, fair, and open elections, and sought to orchestrate his eventual succession. He put a lot of his personal allies in high political positions, including his son Gamal. Egypt has been in a state of emergency for decades, which served as a vehicle to crush any political reform. The dream of democracy was transformed into a nightmare of exploitation.
Somehow, Egypt remained a strong ally of the United States, as administration after administration simply looked the other way in order to maintain American interests in the region. As we have become increasingly receptive to the alleviation of pain for the Palestinians, we have not stridently criticized Mubarak for closing off refuge for displaced Palestinians. Because we consider Egypt key to our national security interests, we have oftentimes suddenly become blind when Egypt offends--as we have been with Saudi Arabia as well as with Israel. Rather than support the burgeoning liberation movement in Egypt, we acted like immobile deer in approaching headlights. The Obama Administration did not have the foresight or insight to discern the unrest brewing at the surface; it was afraid that any words critical of the Mubarak regime would enervate our friendly relations and destabilize the region. Mubarak use this softness on the part of the United States and continued to horde money for himself and his henchmen for a couple decades.
What's in store for Egyptland now? I would never fully trust military personnel to rule a country. It would be optimistic, however, to expect the military to share power, for the instability of the country needs to end, and who else but the military can forge such a state of affairs? I think a civilian coalition should spring up to help organize a new democracy that believes in curtailing the plight of the disinherited. That's what ethical government is all about!
In a very real sense, Mubarak is a tragic figure. Despite his billions, he clinged to a position against the will of the people. He still needed to be bolstered by status and station, rather than ceding to the masses their own process of striving for ideal democracy. In essence, he had become corrupt to the bone: delighting in power and disdaining the people whom he, at one time, vowed to support, sustain, develop, and enhance. Lord Acton was right: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mubarak had to be forced out; an it happened without the violence of most protesters. Now that's how to walk like an Egyptian!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
PORTMAN & THE BIG O
I have never been a fan of Natalie Portman’s acting ability. Unlike critics who have been making comments about last year’s female performances, I do not believe she should be the odds-on favorite. I do not regard her acting in The Black Swan to be persuasive; she does not seem to emote very well and the way she talks appears to me to be one step removed from struggling both to remember her lines and to follow the director’s instructions. It seems to me she tries to rely on her appearance–which is far less than a lot of other talented actresses–to get her over. However, her outward countenance simply cannot compensate for a very shallow reservoir of talent.
Another aspect which is troubling is a condescending comportment on Portman’s part. I recall years ago when she was criticizing actresses who appear nude on screen, she insisted she would not deign to that. It was not long ago that she played a stripper in Closer scarcely removing any of her underwear. Her playing of this role was not only weak, but also mocking reality. Strippers remove their clothing and their relationship to the clientele goes much further than Portman’s portrayal. Perhaps, her statement was more a reflection of her age, rather than some precocity or moral compass. Clearly, age, romance, and pregnancy removed this sexual constipation, if you will, for she engages in hetero and same-sex activity in The Black Swan, albeit Mila Kunis is more knowledgeable and bare than Portman.
Of course, I am under no illusion that the buzz about Portman’s being a shoe-in for the Oscar will not mirror reality. The unfortunate thing is that her victory will slight the many other powerful performances over the past year. I liked her words at the Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony, when she supported labor. I glad she took advantage of the opportunity to say what she did. So, even though she did not, in my opinion, deserve to be standing there receiving the Actor for Best Actress, her real life show was par excellent!
Another aspect which is troubling is a condescending comportment on Portman’s part. I recall years ago when she was criticizing actresses who appear nude on screen, she insisted she would not deign to that. It was not long ago that she played a stripper in Closer scarcely removing any of her underwear. Her playing of this role was not only weak, but also mocking reality. Strippers remove their clothing and their relationship to the clientele goes much further than Portman’s portrayal. Perhaps, her statement was more a reflection of her age, rather than some precocity or moral compass. Clearly, age, romance, and pregnancy removed this sexual constipation, if you will, for she engages in hetero and same-sex activity in The Black Swan, albeit Mila Kunis is more knowledgeable and bare than Portman.
Of course, I am under no illusion that the buzz about Portman’s being a shoe-in for the Oscar will not mirror reality. The unfortunate thing is that her victory will slight the many other powerful performances over the past year. I liked her words at the Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony, when she supported labor. I glad she took advantage of the opportunity to say what she did. So, even though she did not, in my opinion, deserve to be standing there receiving the Actor for Best Actress, her real life show was par excellent!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
WHOSE WAR IS IT NOW?
During the Presidential Campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama repeatedly stated that in the Executive Office and as Commander in Chief, he would search in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and kill him. Those words, which I heard numerous times, not only sent chills up and down my spine, but also elicited anger. They still make me cringe! I did not see the point: after all, he had been criticized for saying he would converse with so-called enemies of the United States; however, I guess killing the enemy of all our enemies was alright.
When it was announced that President Obama would be the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, my horror and ire returned. Initially I felt it must be some weird or cruel joke, for how could a person who advocated violent retaliation against another be considered a paragon of peace? As a matter of fact, he was not only advocating murder, but also escalating warfare that had clearly failed heretofore and lost its erstwhile, ostensible purpose. Obama had spent much of the second term of President George W. Bush condemning the latter’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Now, here he was proverbially talking out of both sides of his mouth by extending and intensifying the war through a surge of military combatants.
I am not certain when a current U.S. president ought to stop blaming present circumstances on the past administration and take ownership of what is happening in the nation and the world under his own term. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, indeed, inherited by Obama—bequeathed to him by Bush and his entourage. But now we are two years past that abomination, if you will, and the continued 50,000 troops in Iraq and the nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan clearly belong to Obama. He has lowered the number in Iraq, although some U.S. soldiers are still fighting there; and he has acceded to the necessity of a surge in Afghanistan that continued the debacle of the Bush administration. This concessionary behavior emphasizes the fact Obama has purchased certain policies and made them his own.
Although I hold to a pacifist faith, I do not expect or require that posture of my political leaders. However, the greatest advocates and articulators of international law promulgated some dimension of the just war theory. Warfare is something that should never be engaged in lightly; and it should always be the last resort. It is not even arguable that our entrance into Iraq was either justifiable or the final straw, so to speak. Weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, and Islamic feuding had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pres. Obama seemed fully aware of this duping of the American people from the outset. Our foray into Afghanistan within a month after the horrible attacks seemed, on the surface, to be in hot pursuit of the alleged orchestrator of 9/11—this despite the fact that the base of operation for the terrorist themselves was our ally namely Saudi Arabia!
The U.S. military had been in Afghanistan before. Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have known the nearly insurmountable challenge of ferreting out terrorists in the cavernous, mountainous terrain would not achieve the goal of breaking up Al-quaeda and gaining the corporation of the Taliban. By perpetuating this folly, Obama must now own whatever course of action is taken under his watch. If withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan actually takes place in July without a concomitant redirection of foreign policy, then Obama is only engaging in cosmetic surgery without having made a precise diagnosis.
This October will mark the tenth anniversary of war against terror in Afghanistan. Better yet, it reveals some level of ineptitude over trying to find a culprit without a hint of warmness, if you will, for an entire decade! When should such a feckless pursuit end? I believe Obama’s wars—may, our wars—should come to an abrupt end!
When it was announced that President Obama would be the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, my horror and ire returned. Initially I felt it must be some weird or cruel joke, for how could a person who advocated violent retaliation against another be considered a paragon of peace? As a matter of fact, he was not only advocating murder, but also escalating warfare that had clearly failed heretofore and lost its erstwhile, ostensible purpose. Obama had spent much of the second term of President George W. Bush condemning the latter’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Now, here he was proverbially talking out of both sides of his mouth by extending and intensifying the war through a surge of military combatants.
I am not certain when a current U.S. president ought to stop blaming present circumstances on the past administration and take ownership of what is happening in the nation and the world under his own term. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, indeed, inherited by Obama—bequeathed to him by Bush and his entourage. But now we are two years past that abomination, if you will, and the continued 50,000 troops in Iraq and the nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan clearly belong to Obama. He has lowered the number in Iraq, although some U.S. soldiers are still fighting there; and he has acceded to the necessity of a surge in Afghanistan that continued the debacle of the Bush administration. This concessionary behavior emphasizes the fact Obama has purchased certain policies and made them his own.
Although I hold to a pacifist faith, I do not expect or require that posture of my political leaders. However, the greatest advocates and articulators of international law promulgated some dimension of the just war theory. Warfare is something that should never be engaged in lightly; and it should always be the last resort. It is not even arguable that our entrance into Iraq was either justifiable or the final straw, so to speak. Weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, and Islamic feuding had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pres. Obama seemed fully aware of this duping of the American people from the outset. Our foray into Afghanistan within a month after the horrible attacks seemed, on the surface, to be in hot pursuit of the alleged orchestrator of 9/11—this despite the fact that the base of operation for the terrorist themselves was our ally namely Saudi Arabia!
The U.S. military had been in Afghanistan before. Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have known the nearly insurmountable challenge of ferreting out terrorists in the cavernous, mountainous terrain would not achieve the goal of breaking up Al-quaeda and gaining the corporation of the Taliban. By perpetuating this folly, Obama must now own whatever course of action is taken under his watch. If withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan actually takes place in July without a concomitant redirection of foreign policy, then Obama is only engaging in cosmetic surgery without having made a precise diagnosis.
This October will mark the tenth anniversary of war against terror in Afghanistan. Better yet, it reveals some level of ineptitude over trying to find a culprit without a hint of warmness, if you will, for an entire decade! When should such a feckless pursuit end? I believe Obama’s wars—may, our wars—should come to an abrupt end!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)