by Kenny Brown
Many in 2008 voted for Barack Obama to be an anti-empire President, myself included. At the time many of us were looking for a light at the end of the Bush Interventionism tunnel and mostly anything looked like a nice change. We were hopeful and blind, throwing our support behind anyone that denounced George W. Bush and the last 8 years of costly wars. For many of us, a young beacon of hope, Barack Obama, seemed to be the light at the end of the tunnel. He had character. He had spunk. But most important of all was that he was not W. With blissful ignorance we went out in November and casted our vote for what we hoped and believed would be a much needed change in the realm of foreign policy. But, like most times in the game of politics, we the people were duped by a handsome smile, a calming voice and nicely timed pauses during important speeches.
Many in 2008 voted for Barack Obama to be an anti-empire President, myself included. At the time many of us were looking for a light at the end of the Bush Interventionism tunnel and mostly anything looked like a nice change. We were hopeful and blind, throwing our support behind anyone that denounced George W. Bush and the last 8 years of costly wars. For many of us, a young beacon of hope, Barack Obama, seemed to be the light at the end of the tunnel. He had character. He had spunk. But most important of all was that he was not W. With blissful ignorance we went out in November and casted our vote for what we hoped and believed would be a much needed change in the realm of foreign policy. But, like most times in the game of politics, we the people were duped by a handsome smile, a calming voice and nicely timed pauses during important speeches.
It has been almost a full first term for President Barack Obama and his actions speak much louder than his suavely spoken words. Under his administration there have been over 200 drone attacks in Pakistan alone. Many also seem to forget that before his popular pulling out of troops in Afghanistan he sent a troop surge of over 30,000. The short lived missile war in Libya is, by definition, interventionism. These are just a few of many examples of how the Obama Administration has continued Bush era style foreign policy. The President may be more accommodating and respectful to foreign leaders but he seems to treat their civilians along the lines of the status quo many of us voted against.
 | |||
| Drone attacks under President Obama are up 4x since former the Bush administration |
Barack Obama may not have started a brand new, decade long war. He may not be openly voicing ignorant comments against foreign leaders. His troop surge numbers may not equal all of the Bush era. But in this situation it still seems to be that the lesser of two evils is still just a little bit too evil. We have and will continue to have our apologists for the President, but opinion aside his actions are screaming at us in the face. It is obvious that one man or woman cannot completely reroute the decades long tirade of the American Empire in single shot, but to at least attempt some change should be the goal of a true supporter of peace. It also seems that many of the people who stood up strongly against Bush Jr. and his foreign policy are quick to write off Obama’s replicated tactics as something he cannot control.
The
role of President of the United States of America is supposed to be
Commander in Chief. If Obama were to take this role seriously and was
actually against the empirical ways of the American military complex he
should legislate in that way. These types of tactics could very well
lead to political martyrdom but at least he would stand by his
principles and be remembered as man who truly deserved the award of
Nobel Peace Prize.
To paraphrase an internet blogger…
At least one plus of Mitt Romney winning the election would be that the left will be anti-war again.
The public perceives each political party differently and expects them to act a certain way. However for foreign policy the reality is that both parties face the same challenges and even the United States, which generally acts pretty unilaterally, has limits on how it can act (at least publicly) . With the exception of a timeline in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't believe that a McCain presidency would look very different from President Obama's at this point.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ed. The problem is the general foreign policy of the U.S. is so deeply embedded within the State Department, that almost no matter how much an administration wants to affect change, it's chances are slim to none. Relatively speaking, the President has much more leeway when it comes to foreign affairs than he does in domestic affairs, and in that sense I do see where you are coming from. The fact of the matter is, the entrenched foreign policy of the U.S. doesn't give Obama or Bush or anyone else an excuse, but it should be considered when weighing in how effective a president is in administering his foreign policy goals.
ReplyDelete