Obama and his (virtual) virtuous war
12/8/09 | 19 comments
John Buell

Obama and his (virtual) virtuous war


By John Buell

I expected to be disappointed by President Barack Obama’s West Point address. During the campaign he constantly reminded us that this war had been thrust upon us. Like World War II, it would define us.

Unfortunately, even after months of reflection Obama’s speech added little more to his case than catchy metaphors and inconsistent analysis, with spick-and-span cadets as props.

Employing the language of foreign policy realism, Obama informed his audience that the Taliban constituted a threat to our national interest. He then promised a carefully delimited military response sufficient to get the job done but cost effective enough not to threaten domestic priorities.

Obama’s hard-nosed realism invites careful scrutiny. College international relations texts generally point out that realism in international relations has a distinguished pedigree going back to Thucydides’ “History of the

Peloponnesian Wars.” No sentimentalist, the Greek historian portrayed a world in which war would play a continuing role. Thucydides, however, conveyed another sensitivity lost to many of today’s “realists” and completely absent in Obama’s speech. Thucydides highlighted the contingencies in war, the misleading information on which its protagonists depended. His sense of the tragic would challenge Obama’s hubristic notion that war could be nicely calibrated in numbers of troop commitment and length of stay.

Obama seems overawed by a Pentagon brass whose rhetoric of war, replete with references to surgical strikes and smart bombs, only furthers such hubris.

Even if realism is to be one’s guide, shouldn’t dangers and stakes be specified by clear analysis and closely examined factual claims? We are told that Afghanistan was the source of the 9-11 attacks and that it remains the “epicenter” of Islamic extremism. “Epicenter” is a powerful metaphor. Obama conjures up a terrifying vision of an Afghanistan-centered earthquake or tsunami rapidly spreading to engulf the innocent.

Yet 9-11 was carried out mostly by Saudis whose logistical support came primarily from Islamic extremists in Germany. Intelligence agencies throughout the world increasingly believe that al-Qaida itself is a dispersed, loosely knit collection. Hardly the sort of entity where chopping off the head ends the danger. Ironically, Obama himself seems to acknowledge this point, though not its implications for an Afghanistan escalation, with a comment late in his speech about the need for supple and dispersed intelligence.

If al-Qaida is the source of evil in the world, we should not only encourage cooperative intelligence with other nations, but also strive to understand its motives. As Nir Rosen, fellow at the New York University School of Law and Security, points out, Islamic extremists gain converts not by denouncing our freedoms but rather by highlighting our one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and India and Pakistan’s ongoing conflict over Kashmir.

Since intelligence reports also suggest that al-Qaida is now more concentrated in Pakistan than Afghanistan and instability in a nuclear-armed Pakistan a much larger regional and world threat, action on these issues is imperative.

A broader look at the U.S. moral posture in the world is just what Obama’s rhetoric sidesteps. Near the conclusion of the speech a president who had spoken of our pursuit of hard national interest went on to celebrate the idealism that has purportedly always motivated U.S. foreign policy:

“For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.”

As historian Andrew Bacevich points out, however, this is “the way we prefer to see ourselves and, therefore, the narrative that we use to justify all that we do in the world. It is really telling that this president, whose background is quite different [from prior presidents], would embrace that narrative so uncritically. [T]hat is indicative of the extent to which there is going to be any change in Washington.”

Months ago, this president hinted at the limits of our celebratory narrative when he admitted our role in overthrowing Iran’s democratic government in the ’50s. Nonetheless, the simplistic narrative of good versus evil combined inconsistently with a shallow realpolitik and inordinate confidence in the efficacy of military continues unabated in D.C. That these notions hold such sway over even a president who likely harbors inner doubts about this D.C. consensus is doubly tragic for him and for us.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers may reach him at jbuell@acadia.net.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
19 comments on this item
On 12/8/09 at 6:47 AM, ElectraGlide wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

All The Terrorist Bombs Around The World Yesterday

Did Not Hurt Anyone Really

The Bombs After All Was Just A Demonstration

Of The Terrorist Continuing Announcement That

They Just Want To Talk and Just Be Friends

John@Your Article Has NO Solutions

Just What You Wish Would Happen

We All Wish

But At Least The USA is doing Something

While Waiting For The Rest of the World

To WAKE UP and HELP OUT<

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 7:13 AM, Stevey_Dee wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Why is Obama's approval rating down to 47%?

Pretty low for being so early in his term...

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 8:26 AM, GMouffette wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Tele...anger is justified at times. But when you'd rather see the president failing than the country succeeding that shows that there is something wrong with you and/or your company.

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 9:00 AM, Stevey_Dee wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Well GMouffette, you are ASSUMING, and you know what that means.....

I never said I want him to fail, just pointing out that his rating is really low for being so early in his term.

I would say with his rating so low that maybe he is not doing what the people that voted him in office want him to do.

So I would suggest you not ASSUME again until you have all the facts..

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 9:24 AM, ElectraGlide wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

@Tele As you very well Know

Ratings Are Always Down

When There Is So Much At Stake

But the Big Issue IS Polarization

Let Us just Say Hanging Around 50% Is Bad

Let Us Just Say Look At BDN Posters And the Hatred for the Other Side

Let Us Just Say the Posters All over America are the Same

Let Us Just Say That Polarization Is A Fact

And That Fact Is Not Helping Us In The USA Today

???~~How Do You Change The Fact<<

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 9:40 AM, HarryHSnyderIII wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

When people decide to elect a neophyte, even one with a fantastically convincing line, they are going to be disappointed. Obama promised far too much. He talked of "change" a whimsical commodity which can elicit images of anything a listener chooses. One might be forgiven for thinking "maybe we've had enough "change" for awhile." or "how can we afford all this change" after all, this is not spare change anymore.

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 10:42 AM, GMouffette wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

You are gloating about low approval ratings. That's not an assumption that is the truth.

Even when Bush was president I hoped he would succeed and do the right things. Conversely, that doesn't seem to happen for Obama by the right. It's pathetic. Just look to the senate and the republican's best tactic, obstruction. Rather than collaborate, they errect a stern divide.

Pathetic.

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 10:46 AM, Stevey_Dee wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

You are ASSUMING again. Get over it.

The only truth is that your wrong.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Deal with it.

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 12:04 PM, ElectraGlide wrote: Click here to view hidden comment         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
On 12/8/09 at 12:19 PM, fredrogers wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

For all the geo-political BS, for the 'fight on terrorism", it still comes down for me as to what you tell a GoldStar family when you come knocking at thier door?

The Neon_cons had their chance and failed to define a victory and get out, now too the President, in a Johnson-ese manuveuver, delcared it 'too big too fail".

Sadly, this President and the previous are more defined by political victories at any costs for a War we will never end, until we can pull out, and it will not be by ANY military victory that gets us out.

And too what to say as we shake the hands of soldiers in Bangor coming and going, and the rest of those soldiers still with us and thier families , some enduring a life long struggle with injuries, loss of employment, and much more?

I'll quote a Gold Star Family:

"...Celeste Zappala and Dante Zappala are the mother and brother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, the first Pennsylvania National Guard member killed in the

war in Iraq...( over 5 yrs ago now)....We must ask President Obama, now more than ever: How many more quiet graveyards will echo with the wails

of families who have lost their beloveds to this war that never should have been, before it is finally over?...."

And what is the mission, the goal is, and the defining success to end this war will be?

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 1:08 PM, ElectraGlide wrote: Click here to view hidden comment         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
On 12/8/09 at 2:00 PM, fredrogers wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"......... And President Karzai also said in that interview, he believes in five years, 2014, the Afghans should be capable. That is his goal of taking control of the entire country. B..............................." December 6, 2009 They also "loose" 25% of it's soldiers.

Gates is no better than Rumsfeld. A politician playing War games.

He said this AM that we have not done a good enough job to prepare the Afghan military. In 8 years? He said we do not pay them enough, we have not trained enough of them either for them,....................... you are not going to believe this..............................., so they can rotate out with fresh recruits, because if we don't they will either leave the military or fight until they die, HUH?

This is insanity, it's is just political cover (up ?) to extend the time, when maybe some miracle will end the war?

Sad.

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 2:03 PM, ElectraGlide wrote: Click here to view hidden comment         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
On 12/8/09 at 2:12 PM, fredrogers wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

the second Lebanon effort is the same story, at the end is 'thier' country to defend when we leave ?

There are 30,000 Afgan troops who are sitting home, eating steaks, with thier famalies at home, while WE FIGHT FOR THIER COUNTRY?

"....By January, 2003 just over 1,700 soldiers in five Kandaks (Pashto for battalions) had completed the 10-week training course, and by June 2003 a total of 4,000 troops had been trained. Initial recruiting problems lay in the lack of cooperation from regional warlords and inconsistent international support. The problem of desertion dogged the force in its early days: in the summer of 2003, the desertion rate was estimated to be ten percent and in mid-March, 2004 estimate suggested that 3,000 soldiers had deserted.."

".Martin Strmecki, a member of the Defense Policy Board and a former top Pentagon adviser on Afghanistan, told a Senate committee last month that the Afghan Army should increase to 250,000 soldiers and the national police force should add more than 100,000 officers. Mr. Strmecki said that only when Afghan security forces reached those numbers would they achieve “the level necessary for success in counterinsurgency............”

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 3:41 PM, ElectraGlide wrote: Click here to view hidden comment         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
On 12/8/09 at 3:41 PM, HarryHSnyderIII wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Since the whole premise of the Iraq war is based on a lie, several lies actually, and since there is no defined goal, except the secret Cheney one. and since there is no exit strategy except the one we had in Vietnam (Can anyone pronounce Iraqiazation) and since the Iraqis in Baghdad are as capable as the Vietnamese in Saigon of holding the Country, we should have been outta there the Day Old-bomber took office. If war crimes were committed he had the chance to expose them. If there was crookedness, he should have put the light to 'er. What happened to The Iraqis paying us back in oil? What happened to the "democratic centerpiece of the middle east? What happened to the facts? 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, 2 were Yemenese, 1 was Palestinian, 1 was Egyptian. So logically we go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. At some level this has to be ridiculous, but both Democrats and Republicans support this solution. In 2001 we could have shut the middle east down. We could have launched a realistic war on terror, by cutting our Middle east fuel ties. We were already getting our largest amounts of foreign oil from Canada, and Mexico, rationing and pricing could have done the rest, instead we borrowed money from our good friend Communist China, and attacked two countries which probably had little or nothing to do with 9/11.

I hope the US citizens wake up before it is too late. We are being sold a bill-of-goods, and down the proverbial river by our Governments both Republican and Democratic. I'm not complaining, I had the absolute best of what this Nation had to offer, and my time is just about over, I only wish I had a country to pass to the young folks that was as good as the one passed to me.

Report abuse
On 12/8/09 at 5:19 PM, ElectraGlide wrote: Click here to view hidden comment         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
On 12/8/09 at 5:45 PM, PeterTaber wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Back in my youth when I found myself in the unsavory company of privileged young oil men like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and similar scumbags as we all sought to dodge the draft, I recall hearing repeatedly in the U.S. news media how it would only be a matter of a short time before the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) would be capable of taking over from the American forces the task of ensuring that the fascist puppet regime in Saigon remained in power. We all well know now what an absurd lie that was. The best known thing that George Santayana ever said seems to be applicable today.

Report abuse
On 12/12/09 at 7:38 PM, mike_staples wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"Back in my youth when I found myself in the unsavory company of privileged young oil men"

In their company? What were you doing, their laundry?

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.