[I'd Like to Shred] Obama's Report Card

by Destiney Linker for Salem AntiWar

People of the world (or, at least, the maximum four of you who will read this), forgive me. This is my first blog in years and my first ever to deal with a political situation.

That said, let me say that I am deeply disappointed in President Barack Obama. Of all the people I know who voted for him, I probably had the most hope for his administration, a fact which can be easily demonstrated by the embarrassing admonition that I received a commemorative Obama plate for Saturnalia 2008 and cried as I opened it. Yes. Cried. Actual tears. I’m not a political expert; my biggest claim to expertise would be the several hundred hours I log every year watching CNN.

THAT said, let me get to the actual point here: though I am shamed at the lack of progress our president has shown on many issues, namely healthcare, the multiple wars in which the US is engaged, and LGBTQ rights, I also find myself in the conundrum of being disappointed, yet unsurprised. Despite the millions of people who found themselves wiping away tears of joy at the image of President Bush hauling his sorry administration out of the White House as Obama triumphantly pushed his way into the clusterfuck that W. had left him, I saw this coming all along. Sure, I was blinded by pure relief and an inevitable admiration for Obama, which I still hold even though he has let us all down, but I knew that, despite the rhetoric of change that was a hallmark of his campaign, he would commence upon the weighty task of destroying this country, much the way presidents have been doing since 1945 (that’s an optimistic estimation).

This cynicism results, not surprisingly, from my exceedingly liberal college education. And, since Obama announced his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, my doubts have been confirmed.

You see (and I say this with the motivation of sounding not-so-preachy), Obama enters into an administration that just recently (if at all) emerged from the invisible quagmire that was the Cold War. The US/Soviet tensions that escalated in the post-WWII years defined a new era in US foreign policy. As I learned in a Spring International Relations course, foreign policy rarely, if ever, changes significant course. This makes sense. As many of you may know, the effect of real time events takes a considerable while to show their mark on the man-made constructs that are national and international markets. The same goes for the realm of politics, except on a greater scale.

This state of things worsens when we consider the fact that justification of war/intervention (in such conflicts as Korea, Vietnam, and the myriad depositions for which the CIA was responsible [aka, the assassinations of such democratically leaders as Patrice Lumumba of the Congo]) upon the threat of communism has evolved to encompass the abstract entity that is terrorism. In other words, the US government has, in essence, brainwashed the American people to believe that, just like communism, terrorism is a constant and viable threat to homeland security. While actual events such as 9/11 are undeniably real, they stem more from a demographic’s unwillingness to submit to the continuation of American imperialism in the Middle East than from any real vendetta against the people of this country. While these actions may be backed by motives quoting Allah, jihad, and such, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assign the same identity to all perpetrators of terrorist activities when the parameters of terrorism have yet been properly defined. In what way are solitary men with bombs strapped to their shoelaces more “terrorist-y” than a United States Marine who willingly fires upon a group of civilians? This is definitely a grey area, but one which is not analyzed often enough. The United States has justification for being in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I sincerely doubt they are really so noble as Presidents W. and Obama would have us believe. I couldn’t tell you what they are, because I am, unfortunately, a lowly civilian.

President Obama, by announcing another troop surge, is not acting any differently than any president before him would. Rather, he is following a script that has been carefully laid out for him. America’s role in the world has been, by and large, that of poser-policeman. In reality, America is poised to defend her (mostly economic) interests at any cost, human or otherwise. Still virtually disabled by MAD (mutually assured destruction—the “cold” state of tensions between nations that both possess the equal capability to destroy one another), America has turned her head elsewhere, to the Middle East, so that we might wreak havoc there until the countries there, too, have nuclear power. This trend will, unfortunately, continue until there is a revolutionary upheaval in the international paradigm, until nations change the way they conduct business with one another, and until a nation’s power is not determined by its stockpile of nuclear weapons or the number of reluctant people it has under its (hard or soft) control.

Peace Prize or War Prize -- What Message Was the Nobel Committee Really Sending?

The Nobel Committee really ought to reconsider changing the name of the coveted prize. They have given the prize not only to President Obama, entrenched in two imperialistic wars, but also to Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Henry Kissinger who each had his own respective conflict(s).

As Howard Zinn notes, it's true that the Committee was giving recognition to Wilson for the League of Nations, to Roosevelt for brokering peace between Russia and Japan, and to Kissinger for signing his name to the paper that ended the Vietnam 'conflict.'

But what's also true is that there were other activists who were truly supporting international unity, who truly opposed the spread of imperialism, and who risked a hell of a lot more than carpal tunnel syndrome to end the Vietnam War. And the Committee ignored them. Just like it ignores Malalai Joya, Natalia Estemirova, and Akosua Adomako Ampofo.

Let's look beyond the fact that Obama was given the prize before he had 'done anything.' Let's look at where we are, now, today. Obama has made no significant progress on ending the war in Iraq, where more than 100,000 US troops are still deployed, and he recently approved 30,000 more troops for deployment to Afghanistan. Since they still ship those troops out with pretty heavy guns, I think it's safe to assume they're not going to be giving kittens to Afghan children while rebuilding a demolished infrastructure under the orders of the Afghan people. I think it's safe to assume they're going to escalate 'business as usual': that means killing suspected terrorists (or anyone who's not wearing an American flag and happens to be in the general area), that means using tactical defense strategies (like dropping landmines that look like toys so children will pick them up and be killed or maimed), that means yet again denying the Afghan people the right to self-determination. Obama's also spreading his wars into Pakistan, invading a sovereign nation that is supposed to be an American friend.

He still engages and aids the Israeli government in their Apartheid of the Palestinian people. You remember the Israeli government? The one that considers assassinating Palestinian activists legitimate strategy and bombed Gaza into oblivion?

At the same time, Obama responded to the police harassment of esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. by inviting everyone over for a pint. Way to confront the racial issues that still result in police brutality every day at home.

At least 2,000 Marines are helping with the other war (another?)--the war on drugs--and they're joining in on the killing sprees that stem from the administration's willingness to legalize and stabilize the market.

What's peaceful about any that?

So, Mr. Obama, let's cut to the chase. Either give the award back, or preferably, step up to the task. Look up peace. Next to that word is justice. Give it a try.


Posted by Trish