Eight years ago for reasons best known to themselves and perhaps including a Scandinavian middle finger to George Bush, the Nobel Prize Committee decided to award the Peace prize to the new American president. One wonders how much they have rued their choice since as Barack Obama has continued the American policy of fighting wars around the world. To be sure, he's engaged in fewer wars, less intervention and overall backed away from the worst parts of the earlier "war on terror" but he nevertheless continued to keep the US deeply engaged in wars abroad. It is unknown what the Nobel committee expected of him, but it is unlikely that his actions would meet with their unqualified approval or that he would be even considered for the honor today. I felt back then that it was foolish to award so prestigious an honor on President Obama before he'd had a chance to live up to his idealistic declarations or our ridiculously high expectations. But like the committee, I too anticipated much of the new president and like them (I imagine) I look back at those dreams and wonder how I could have been so mistaken.
Barack Obama was not just the man who'd opposed the US-Iraq War from the start (while he certainly claimed that badge of distinction to implicitly criticize his opponents, it was far easier for the junior liberal Senator to take a progressive stance when there were no eyes on him and his opposition had little practical impact), but he was also the candidate who raced to the pole position on a slew of promises that promised a liberal utopia. And when faced with the greatest challenge to his candidacy in the controversy over Jeremiah Wright's positions, Obama found a way to spell out a wonderful and uplifting explanation that enunciated our shared progressive ideals. But above all, he promised an end to the bloody and violent policies of the last presidency and raised hopes of a return to best ideals of America, from ending extrajudicial detentions to closing the shameful chapter on torture. Alas, the rhetoric and ideals of the candidate that were deemed worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize proved utterly powerless to sway the actions of President Obama. To liberal supporters of the president, including myself, this is the single greatest failure of Obama's presidency. There are plenty of other issues that have not advanced as we might have wished, from single payer health care and universal coverage to gun control to reformed taxation and long term solutions to the budget deficits and financial imbalances to his signal failure to shut down the Guantanamo prison. But on those issues, it must be acknowledged that Obama lacked the support in Congress and on many of the issues also had insufficient popular support among the general populace to sway his opponents in Congress (and given the oddities of American electoral politics, a majority of support means little if it is concentrated in urban, generally more liberal areas) and was therefore highly constrained in his ability to effect change on a grand scale on any or all of these matters. A defter politician or a less polarizing figure may have been able to manage some incremental change but the deck was generally stacked against Obama on all policy issues dear to liberals, and faced with a stubbornly obstructionist opposition party, he had no choice but to accept that his ambitious agenda would never reach fruition.
However that makes Obama's war policy so much the more frustrating since this was one area where his legion of critics and opponents would generally hold that he has not gone as far as they would have liked and yet he has committed the US to military action around the world. In other words, this is one place where he was not trying to force action in the face of opposition but rather was heading down a path that suited the rightwing and hawkish portions of Congress. While the libertarian wing of the GOP objected to any intervention or continuation of prior engagements, they generally represent a smaller and less influential side of the party and Obama would have actually had more support from his opponents in Congress if he'd been more warlike than less. From a liberal perspective, it would be far better to see the president criticized for not going to war at all than for entering a war but failing to commit to killing enough of the enemy or for failing to sacrifice enough in American lives.
However, in all fairness to the president, there are some extenuating circumstances. The famous if inaccurate Pottery Barn analogy continues to drive our policy in Iraq. And given the former Administration's dreams that the Iraq model would spread and transform the whole of the Middle East, it was difficult for Obama to truly disengage from conflicts in Syria, Yemen and even Libya when it was US policy in Iraq that destabilized and changed the entire region. Sadly, the Iraq model is playing out across the Middle East, but it is the blight of instability and civil war rather than the bloom of liberal democracy that has spread far and wide. In retrospect, Obama has had little choice but to remain deeply involved in Iraq and has been further enmeshed in the region as the instability in Iraq has exploded outward and drawn nearly every major nation into a complicated and contradictory web of conflict. It may even be to Obama's credit that he has resisted deeper involvement and that he has tried to limit US intervention even when his own rash statements (the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons) or his allies' interests (Libya, Yemen) have forced his hand. Even his most controversial policy - extensive use of remote strikes with precision weapons or drone strikes, in common parlance - is more than anything else an attempt to keep US service personnel out of direct harm's way.
In the end, I guess I can respect his foreign policy decisions. Muddled and contradictory as they seem and as they have been described by his critics, they are in reaction to a muddled and contradictory world and if all the advice and preferred policy of his critics (including my own) were to be assembled, the picture painted would be as muddled and contradictory, if not more so. But there is one striking failure, both on the part of the president and his staunchest critics in Congress and that is the lack of explanation or information on US intervention. Just this past week, the Defense Department admitted that US forces - probably Rangers, Green Berets or some other Special Forces units - are on the ground in Yemen. This is unbelievably disturbing - not only is Yemen one of the most confused conflicts where there no "good" or "bad" guys (by a long shot) but our interests run wildly contrary to the intentions and interests of our closest "allies" in the region, and there are no good outcomes to be expected of US intervention. However the greater problem is that our involvement is revealed only by chance and that not only does the President consider it unnecessary to tell his own citizens that he has committed troops to a foreign conflict but that Congress has never truly demanded or pushed for a clear report on US involvement abroad. Today, while some (if not all or even a startlingly small percentage of) Americans may be aware that their country is still deeply involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq, a much smaller group would be aware that US forces are involved in both Yemen and Syria. Worse yet, we have no way of knowing just how many other places we may be involved in "training" and "advising" local government forces in conflicts against forces that we consider dangers to us. Are we involved in Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan and/or the Philippines? What about Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica? Perhaps Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Ethiopia have US forces "helping" them? Are US forces involved in countries like the Ukraine and Georgia or Azerbaijan?
As a liberal, I would wish that the world was a better, more peaceful place and that we could solve our problems in more civilized ways. But I understand that the realities of the world actually around us often require violent answers. But the least one should expect from the government is honesty to its own people of where it chooses to put its citizens in harms way and why. Governments will always claim that openness would jeopardize their policy aims, but with all due respect this is nonsense - in a democracy, the power is supposed to lie with the governed not the elected representatives and the least those regents should do is be honest of where they have chosen to entangle the nation, no matter their reasons. And if this honesty would truly hurt the chances of success of the policy than perhaps the policy is flawed. But when the policy is hidden there is no chance to even evaluate it, much less make an informed decision of support for that policy that is being carried out in the name of the entire country.
Congress shows such tenacity in investigating some issues, especially when the name Clinton is involved and has now spent over two years over the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi (without ever finding any evidence of criminal wrongdoing or even negligence) and has now expanded their probe into matters far removed from the original question. Now, whether Secretary Clinton was ill-advised in some of her actions, there is no rational reason to believe that she ever acted with intent to harm the country and the investigation is almost transparently an attempt to destroy her bid for a historic presidential bid and possibly even more historic presidency. Yet those very driven Congressmen have spent little energy questioning how many places the US may have troops involved in undeclared wars. Senator Rand Paul who was willing to filibuster the Senate over his concerns that US drone strikes were targeting American citizens and denying them due process is far less concerned that the US is engaged in war (in everything but name) when those same strikes kill non-Americans. Congress has happily voted billions of dollars to fund military operations around the world but the details of those operations are hidden to the taxpayer citizens who pay for them, and no one in the halls of Congress or the vital Fourth Estate or even amongst the same taxpayers seem really concerned with compelling a response from the people who commit their country to potentially unending wars with the well-intentioned but nonetheless concealed stroked of a pen.
Ultimately, unless the people clamor for an answer and make it clear to their representatives that they deserve to know what their government is doing in their name, the secrecy will continue. Ironically, US involvement is not so very secret in the ranks of her enemies and lacking believable declarations from the US government, is probably greatly exaggerated even to the point where every injustice suffered at the hand of their own rulers is added to the account of the Americans and becomes just another reason to hate the US. The American people are often bemused as to why they are hated in so many corners of the world, not realizing the actions of their own government that contributes to those emotions. And while their government acts in secrecy, the account of hate and bitterness continues to compound, also in secrecy till it explodes upon us. These matters, the actions of ones government should concern all of us for we all live with the consequences and it is only fair that actions taken in one's name should be debated openly. The final definitive lesson of the Obama presidency - and the contrast of its actions to the idealism that preceded its actions - is that whether the White House incumbent is liberal or conservative, rightwing or leftwing, hawk or dove, the inertia of the establishment will ensure that the veils of secrecy remain intact and the apathy of the citizenry and their watchdogs of the Fourth Estate will keep things unchanged.
Barack Obama was not just the man who'd opposed the US-Iraq War from the start (while he certainly claimed that badge of distinction to implicitly criticize his opponents, it was far easier for the junior liberal Senator to take a progressive stance when there were no eyes on him and his opposition had little practical impact), but he was also the candidate who raced to the pole position on a slew of promises that promised a liberal utopia. And when faced with the greatest challenge to his candidacy in the controversy over Jeremiah Wright's positions, Obama found a way to spell out a wonderful and uplifting explanation that enunciated our shared progressive ideals. But above all, he promised an end to the bloody and violent policies of the last presidency and raised hopes of a return to best ideals of America, from ending extrajudicial detentions to closing the shameful chapter on torture. Alas, the rhetoric and ideals of the candidate that were deemed worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize proved utterly powerless to sway the actions of President Obama. To liberal supporters of the president, including myself, this is the single greatest failure of Obama's presidency. There are plenty of other issues that have not advanced as we might have wished, from single payer health care and universal coverage to gun control to reformed taxation and long term solutions to the budget deficits and financial imbalances to his signal failure to shut down the Guantanamo prison. But on those issues, it must be acknowledged that Obama lacked the support in Congress and on many of the issues also had insufficient popular support among the general populace to sway his opponents in Congress (and given the oddities of American electoral politics, a majority of support means little if it is concentrated in urban, generally more liberal areas) and was therefore highly constrained in his ability to effect change on a grand scale on any or all of these matters. A defter politician or a less polarizing figure may have been able to manage some incremental change but the deck was generally stacked against Obama on all policy issues dear to liberals, and faced with a stubbornly obstructionist opposition party, he had no choice but to accept that his ambitious agenda would never reach fruition.
However that makes Obama's war policy so much the more frustrating since this was one area where his legion of critics and opponents would generally hold that he has not gone as far as they would have liked and yet he has committed the US to military action around the world. In other words, this is one place where he was not trying to force action in the face of opposition but rather was heading down a path that suited the rightwing and hawkish portions of Congress. While the libertarian wing of the GOP objected to any intervention or continuation of prior engagements, they generally represent a smaller and less influential side of the party and Obama would have actually had more support from his opponents in Congress if he'd been more warlike than less. From a liberal perspective, it would be far better to see the president criticized for not going to war at all than for entering a war but failing to commit to killing enough of the enemy or for failing to sacrifice enough in American lives.
However, in all fairness to the president, there are some extenuating circumstances. The famous if inaccurate Pottery Barn analogy continues to drive our policy in Iraq. And given the former Administration's dreams that the Iraq model would spread and transform the whole of the Middle East, it was difficult for Obama to truly disengage from conflicts in Syria, Yemen and even Libya when it was US policy in Iraq that destabilized and changed the entire region. Sadly, the Iraq model is playing out across the Middle East, but it is the blight of instability and civil war rather than the bloom of liberal democracy that has spread far and wide. In retrospect, Obama has had little choice but to remain deeply involved in Iraq and has been further enmeshed in the region as the instability in Iraq has exploded outward and drawn nearly every major nation into a complicated and contradictory web of conflict. It may even be to Obama's credit that he has resisted deeper involvement and that he has tried to limit US intervention even when his own rash statements (the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons) or his allies' interests (Libya, Yemen) have forced his hand. Even his most controversial policy - extensive use of remote strikes with precision weapons or drone strikes, in common parlance - is more than anything else an attempt to keep US service personnel out of direct harm's way.
In the end, I guess I can respect his foreign policy decisions. Muddled and contradictory as they seem and as they have been described by his critics, they are in reaction to a muddled and contradictory world and if all the advice and preferred policy of his critics (including my own) were to be assembled, the picture painted would be as muddled and contradictory, if not more so. But there is one striking failure, both on the part of the president and his staunchest critics in Congress and that is the lack of explanation or information on US intervention. Just this past week, the Defense Department admitted that US forces - probably Rangers, Green Berets or some other Special Forces units - are on the ground in Yemen. This is unbelievably disturbing - not only is Yemen one of the most confused conflicts where there no "good" or "bad" guys (by a long shot) but our interests run wildly contrary to the intentions and interests of our closest "allies" in the region, and there are no good outcomes to be expected of US intervention. However the greater problem is that our involvement is revealed only by chance and that not only does the President consider it unnecessary to tell his own citizens that he has committed troops to a foreign conflict but that Congress has never truly demanded or pushed for a clear report on US involvement abroad. Today, while some (if not all or even a startlingly small percentage of) Americans may be aware that their country is still deeply involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq, a much smaller group would be aware that US forces are involved in both Yemen and Syria. Worse yet, we have no way of knowing just how many other places we may be involved in "training" and "advising" local government forces in conflicts against forces that we consider dangers to us. Are we involved in Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan and/or the Philippines? What about Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica? Perhaps Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Ethiopia have US forces "helping" them? Are US forces involved in countries like the Ukraine and Georgia or Azerbaijan?
As a liberal, I would wish that the world was a better, more peaceful place and that we could solve our problems in more civilized ways. But I understand that the realities of the world actually around us often require violent answers. But the least one should expect from the government is honesty to its own people of where it chooses to put its citizens in harms way and why. Governments will always claim that openness would jeopardize their policy aims, but with all due respect this is nonsense - in a democracy, the power is supposed to lie with the governed not the elected representatives and the least those regents should do is be honest of where they have chosen to entangle the nation, no matter their reasons. And if this honesty would truly hurt the chances of success of the policy than perhaps the policy is flawed. But when the policy is hidden there is no chance to even evaluate it, much less make an informed decision of support for that policy that is being carried out in the name of the entire country.
Congress shows such tenacity in investigating some issues, especially when the name Clinton is involved and has now spent over two years over the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi (without ever finding any evidence of criminal wrongdoing or even negligence) and has now expanded their probe into matters far removed from the original question. Now, whether Secretary Clinton was ill-advised in some of her actions, there is no rational reason to believe that she ever acted with intent to harm the country and the investigation is almost transparently an attempt to destroy her bid for a historic presidential bid and possibly even more historic presidency. Yet those very driven Congressmen have spent little energy questioning how many places the US may have troops involved in undeclared wars. Senator Rand Paul who was willing to filibuster the Senate over his concerns that US drone strikes were targeting American citizens and denying them due process is far less concerned that the US is engaged in war (in everything but name) when those same strikes kill non-Americans. Congress has happily voted billions of dollars to fund military operations around the world but the details of those operations are hidden to the taxpayer citizens who pay for them, and no one in the halls of Congress or the vital Fourth Estate or even amongst the same taxpayers seem really concerned with compelling a response from the people who commit their country to potentially unending wars with the well-intentioned but nonetheless concealed stroked of a pen.
Ultimately, unless the people clamor for an answer and make it clear to their representatives that they deserve to know what their government is doing in their name, the secrecy will continue. Ironically, US involvement is not so very secret in the ranks of her enemies and lacking believable declarations from the US government, is probably greatly exaggerated even to the point where every injustice suffered at the hand of their own rulers is added to the account of the Americans and becomes just another reason to hate the US. The American people are often bemused as to why they are hated in so many corners of the world, not realizing the actions of their own government that contributes to those emotions. And while their government acts in secrecy, the account of hate and bitterness continues to compound, also in secrecy till it explodes upon us. These matters, the actions of ones government should concern all of us for we all live with the consequences and it is only fair that actions taken in one's name should be debated openly. The final definitive lesson of the Obama presidency - and the contrast of its actions to the idealism that preceded its actions - is that whether the White House incumbent is liberal or conservative, rightwing or leftwing, hawk or dove, the inertia of the establishment will ensure that the veils of secrecy remain intact and the apathy of the citizenry and their watchdogs of the Fourth Estate will keep things unchanged.
No comments:
Post a Comment