Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Is Obama a Man of Peace?

 
When Barack Obama ran for office, he did so on a platform of ending the war in Iraq. The campaign promise, which can still be read on Obama’s own website, stated that:

Barack Obama will immediately give his military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. He will immediately begin to remove our combat brigades from Iraq. He will remove troops at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Like a breath of fresh air after the alleged “war mongering” of George W. Bush, thousands of Americans were inspired by Obama’s dreams of peace and international cooperation. "The burdens of global citizenship” Obama mused in 2008, “continue to bind us together. Partnership among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity."

Before he had even been in the White House for a year, Obama was awarded the highly prestigious 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. In his Nobel acceptance speech last December, Obama proposed that striving for peace comprises “the hope of all the world” and is our very “work here on Earth.” He added:

So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.... We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

It is nothing unusual for there to be a strong disconnect between a politicians’ words and his actions, so it should come as no surprise if Obama’s military policy has taken a rather different route than his earlier comments might lead us to expect. One might even argue that it took a certain level of maturity for the President to realize that his earlier ideals on withdrawal from Iraq were unrealistic.

Not Since 1946
 
It’s the United States’ best kept secret, but their new Commander and Chief has been quietly building up America’s military empire at an unprecedented speed.

On 1 February the White House submitted its Quadrennial Defense Review to Congress requesting a record-high $708 billion in Pentagon spending for fiscal 2011 – the highest in absolute and inflated-adjusted spending for any year since 1946? It’s actually worse than that. As Rick Rozoff points out, if non-Pentagon defence spending is factored in, the total figure may well exceed $1 trillion.

The last time we needed that kind of defence budget was during World War II and the year immediately following when America helped to stabilize Europe. Given America’s current military spending, you would think we were in the middle of a world war again. What is all this money paying for?

Two Wars? If Only!

In his State of the Union Address on 29 January, the president referred to the “two wars” America is prosecuting. The reality is again very different.

Four days after assuming the Presidency, Obama ordered missile attacks in Pakistan, and has significantly increased the Lethal Drone Attacks beyond what they were under Bush. He has also quietly opened a war against Yemen to hunt down Al Qaeda militants. More recently he has quietly enlarged America’s other military commitments. The war in Afghanistan has recently been expanded to the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean. At the same time, Obama has greatly expanded the activities of Africa Command (which Wikipedia describes as “a Unified Combatant Command of the United States Department of Defense that is responsible for U.S. military operations and military relations with 53 African nations, covering all of Africa except Egypt”).

But the Middle East and Africa are not the only area where American combat troops are deployed. As if intent on world dominance, the Pentagon is deploying 1,400 personnel to Colombia to man seven new bases under a 10-year military agreement signed last October.
Nor should it be overlooked that America is also involved by proxy on a number of other fronts. In January this year, America completed a $6.5 billion arms deal with Taiwan in what could quickly escalate into a proxy war against China.

Altogether, the American military is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,379,551 active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories. This doesn’t just include the troops we always hear about (around 128,100 troops in Iraq and around 48,250 troops in Afghanistan); it also includes 42 troops in Kenya, 29 troops in Egypt, 27,014 troops in South Korea, 32,803 troops in Japan, 95 troops in the Philippines, 311 troops in Diego Garcia, 27 troops in Indonesia, 125 troops in Singapore, 96 troops in Thailand, 15 troops in Malaysia, 140 troops in Australia, 17 troops in Marshall Islands, 5 troops in New Zealand, 57,080 troops in Germany, 386 troops in Greece, 9,855 troops in Italy, 9,825 troops in United Kingdom, 1,286 troops in Spain, 81 troops in Norway, 12 troops in Sweden, 1,594 troops in Turkey, 1,328 troops in Belgium, 826 troops in Portugal, 579 troops in the Netherlands, 363 troops in Greece, 126 troops in Greenland, 411 troops in Qatar, 1,495 troops in Bahrain, 10 troops in Kuwait, 36 troops in Oman, 96 troops in United Arab Emirates, 2 troops in Antigua, 123 troops in Colombia, 3 troops in Saint Helena, 932 troops in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and 36 troops in Ecuador.



Hankering After the Days of the Cold War

 Not content with being the only nation with troops and military bases astride all five continents, America is now engaging in a curious and unprovoked military build-up along the Russian border. This year America will be sending 4,000 troops to new bases in Bulgaria and Romania. In January the Polish defence minister announced that the U.S. Patriot missile battery being sent to his country, and the 100 Americans who will operate it, will be positioned, not on the outskirts of the capital of Warsaw as previously announced, but in the Baltic Sea city of Morag, just 35 miles from the Russian border. In his article, ‘Dangerous Crossroads: US Moves Missiles And Troops To Russian Border’, Rick Rozoff explains exactly what this will entail:

As part of the Obama administration’s new missile shield project, one which will be integrated with NATO to take in all of Europe and extend into the Middle East and the Caucasus, the Patriots will be followed by Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor deployments on warships in the Baltic Sea and, for the first time ever, a land-based version of the same. The Pentagon will deploy command posts of SM-3 missiles, which can intercept both short- and mid-range missiles. An SM-3 was used by the Pentagon to shoot a satellite out of orbit in February of 2008 to give an indication of its range.

Further deployments will follow.

The new, post-George W. Bush administration, interceptor missile system will employ “existing missile systems based on land and at sea... Deployment of the revised missile defense would extend through 2020. The first step is to put existing sea-based weapons systems on Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers....
In October, shortly after U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden visited Warsaw to finalize the plan, Polish Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski met with his opposite number from the U.S., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow, and announced that the American missiles “will be combat-ready, not dummy varieties as Washington earlier suggested.” The same report added that “Earlier, Ukrainian and American officials stated that Ukrainian territory may be used in some way in the new antimissile shield.” Poland borders Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave, but Ukraine has a 1,576-kilometer (979-mile) border with Russia.

The obvious symbolism of this military posturing was not missed by Russia, who has quickly realized that it needs to enter the arms race. "What is the problem?” said Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, to a reporter last year, “The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one." Putin went on to state that “In order to preserve balance ... we need to develop offensive weapons systems.”

Safety First?

In his Farewell address, George Washington warned future generations of Americans against becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations. He said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

In the early days of the American Republic, Washington’s advice was heeded. Thus, in 1821, America’s sixth president, John Quincy Adams, could reflect back and boast that

[America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.... Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy
When American Presidents first began pursuing interventionist foreign policies at the close of the 19th century, it was ostensibly to make America a safer place. The idea was a simple one: America will be safer if it is bigger and tougher. This was the idea that led America into the Spanish–American War and other wars of territorial expansion. At around the time of Woodrow Wilson, a new justification for international war began to emerge. No longer was the goal merely to make America a safer place: the goal was now to make the world a safer place. The result of this paradigm shift is that neither the world or America are actually safer. If anything, the opposite is the case: America’s military internationalism has been putting the American people at a greater risk than ever.

Consider that America’s expensive militaristic policies (financed almost entirely by debt) are threatening to destroy the very economic integrity of the nation – an integrity necessary for America’s safety in the most general sense. More directly, however, America’s interventionist politics have created unprecedented levels of what the CIA calls blowback. Blowback is the violent, unintended consequences for military action directed against the civil population of the aggressor government. The bombings of 9/11 were a classic case of blowback, since they came as a reaction to the long-time presence of the American military in the Middle East. As Philip Giraldi, former counterterrorism expert with the CIA put it,

I think anybody who knows anything about what’s been going on for the last 10 years would realize that cause and effect are operating here – that, essentially, al Qaeda has an agenda which very specifically says what its grievances are. And its grievances are basically that ‘we’re over there.’

Giraldi’s conclusion was confirmed by University of Chicago’s Robert Pape, who collected a database of 462 suicide terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2004. He found that the religious beliefs of suicide terrorists were less of a motivation for the attacks than has commonly been suspected. The primary motivation is a desire “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.” Commenting on this in his book The Revolution, Ron Paul points out that

Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the United States had troops stationed. While al Qaeda terrorists are twice as likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamic) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which U.S. troops are stationed. Until the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq had never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S. , France and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. ...the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the United States.
This does not, of course, mean that terrorists are justified in their attacks, but it should serve to caution those Americans who assume that an aggressive foreign policy is needed to make the United States or the world a safer place. As an American, I do not sleep easier at night because I know Obama has positioned active missiles next to the border of Russia, provoking our former enemy into an arms race. Nor I do not consider myself particularly safer because America is engaged in dozens of undeclared wars in Africa. Neither will I sleep better knowing that America is involved in a proxy arms race (via Taiwan) with China. And I am certainly not safer as a result of the United States’ military being stretched almost to breaking point with bases in 150 different countries across five continents. If anything, such policies are making America and the world less safe. Only time will tell how true this is.


A shorter version of this article will be appearing in the monthly magazine of Christian Voice (http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/). It is published here by permission of Christian Voice.

Click here to read my political column in the Spokane Libertarian Examiner
.
To join my mailing list, send a blank email to phillips7440 (at sign) roadrunner.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.

6 comments:

Born Conservative said...

By Mike Foil

That is an interesting article. Some items caught my attention, such as the budget amount for the military for the coming year - $708 billion. That is a lot of money, but when you think about what is being spent on our military in general, buying planes, operating aircraft carriers, fighting two wars, training, guarding, etc.; there is a lot being spent each day. This helps put something else in a little perspective. We, as a country, have had 2 1/2 times that amount given away in bailouts and stimulus bills in the past year and a half.

The writer seems to jump to some "guided conclusions" that I am not sure I would agree with. "Guided" as he leads the reader to that conclusion without presenting other possibilities. Some may be right, or they might not; but they are presented, at least to some degree, as if they are correct.

1. "(W)hat could quickly escalate into a proxy war against China." This, he concludes, is a result of the US selling arms to Taiwan. Just possibly, could it be that the US sold arms to Taiwan because China was already making aggressive actions toward Taiwan? China, for years, has claimed that Taiwan belongs to them, but Taiwan, claims to be an independent country. The US has a treaty with Taiwan. The US is in business to sell arms to friendly nations so they can defend themselves, to some extent, against an aggressor nation, such as China. China has been building a massive military might. They have threatened to physically take Taiwan. So, does the US honor the treaty or turn-tail and run due to a threat?

2. "Not content with being the only nation with troops and military bases astride all five continents..." If the US is not defending freedom and liberty in other countries, who would? Who would be the deterrent to keep North Korea out of the south, if not US? Who would support Israel, if not US? It was not our idea to start WWII, but when it was US who was instrumental in victory, should we not have remained in the area providing some stabilization? If US had not supported West Berlin and West Germany, who would have? Russia or China may not have troops in as many locations as we do, but there probably are communist troops in as many places. Add to the communists, Taliban, al Qaeda, other radical Islam groups, etc.; and there are numerous fronts to guard.

3. "America is now engaging in a curious and unprovoked military build-up along the Russian border." He mentions that the US is sending 4,000 troops to Eastern Europe and 100 more to operate the "Patriot missile battery". He mentions that this is not just a US move, but is "integrated with NATO". He does not mention that the Eastern European countries want the US to deploy a missile defense shield to protect them. Also, could this desire for protection and the need for missile defense capabilities have anything to do with Russian actions? Russia has not only been militarily aggressive against the break-off states from the former USSR (remember Georgia - which is probably still occupied by Russian troops), of which some border these Eastern European countries, but these same countries still remember the aggression by the USSR against them. Russia has been aiding Iran in their missile program and nuclear program, but has also been selling arms to Iran. Iran, in turn, has been developing the capability to launch missiles that can reach Europe. So, what is this "unprovoked military build-up"? It is defensive in nature and designed for protection against Russia, who is already a strong military might, and against Iran who wants to be.

Born Conservative said...

4. The writer mentions, "interceptor", "missile defense", "missile shield", and "anitmissile shield" as all referring to what the US is participating in with NATO. Then he proceeds to equate this with Vladimir Putin's comment, "In order to preserve balance... we need to develop offensive weapons systems." First of all, Russia already has offensive missiles, in fact, they have more than any other country and more than the US. It is partly because of their offensive missile capability that protection is necessary. Second, no one should accept what Putin says as pure truth. He makes is sound like Russia is the poor, innocent, by-stander and the mean US is forcing them into developing missiles. The US does not sell arms to other countries in order to give them offensive capabilities to invade and take over another nation. We sell to nations who feel the need to protect themselves. Taiwan has no plans to invade China. Poland has no plans to invade Russia. So, why do then feel the need for weapons? It is for self-protection. But, Russia has no problem in selling arms to aggressor nations.

5. "The idea was a simple one: America will be safer if it is bigger and tougher." Is this statement a summary of official foreign or military policy around the beginning of the 20th century, or is this an opinion of the writer? Either way, I have no problem with America being safer if it is tougher. "Tough" does not necessarily mean a bully or the aggressor. "Tough" can just be the perception due to being a "super-power" who has been willing to demonstrate that we will use that power for good in the rest of the world and we will act in order to protect our own interests. What is wrong with that? Surely, the writer does not believe that we would be safer if we were small and weak. It is the small and weak countries that we are helping to protect by having our troops spread around the world.

6. "Other wars of territorial expansion." You may have to help me here, but I cannot think of 20th century wars that the US has gone into in order to expand our territory.

7. "No longer was the goal merely to make America a safer place: the goal was now to make the world a safer place. The result of this paradigm shift is that neither the world or (sic) America are actually safer. If anything, the opposite is the case: America's military internationalism has been putting the American people at a greater risk than ever." The writer appears to believe that if America would have just stayed home during the 20th century that everyone would be at peace and in perfect harmony. It was those darn Americans that started WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cold War, First Gulf War, and the war with radical Islam. Oh, wait; it was the Germans, the Japanese, the Communists, Saddam, and al Qaeda. The ugly Americans just responded and came to the rescue in many of those cases, spilling American blood, yes, in order for the world to be a safer place. If the rest of the world is in turmoil and war, we will not be immune from conflict by just staying out of it all. "Neither the world or America are actually safer." What! How could he actually write that statement? America and the rest of the world are safer directly because the US did leave our safe borders and go into the rest of the world with our military and fight and defend and conquer. "America's military internationalism has been putting the American people at a greater risk than ever." If the US had stayed out of WWII, the readers of his articles in England would be speaking German. The world is less safe, not due to the US fighting for freedom, but due to the bad guys. He needs to stop being one of those who "blame America first."

Born Conservative said...

8. "Al Qaeda has an agenda...its grievances are basically that 'we're over there'." Does he really believe that if the US military were not in the middle east or any of the rest of that part of the world, that al Qaeda would not be in existence. If their agenda centers around American presence, to some degree, in that area; does he believe that the radical Muslims would be at peace with the rest of the world (oh, of course, except Israel)? The writer appears to assume that all of the unrest in the world is a direct result of American influence. I guess that I see it just the opposite, we are in the rest of the world due to the unrest that existed prior to our arrival.

9. I also have a problem with just accepting the findings by the Chicago professor as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth. "He found that the religious beliefs of suicide terrorists were less of a motivation for the attacks... The primary motivation is the desire 'to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland." If that were the whole truth, why is it that these same suicide bombers are recruited, to a large degree, from religious gatherings? Why is it that they are promised that they and their families will go to heaven if they carry out the attack? Why do they all shout some religious saying prior to blowing themselves up? For them, it is religious. If it were all about America, they would be shouting something negative about the USA. Also, it is not just democracies that are attacked by these terrorists. They also attack other tribes of Arabs and other sects of the Muslim religion. How is that about America? In order to further prove his point, he quotes Ron Paul. "Two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the United States had troops stationed." If the problem the terrorists had was just that we were in their country, what about the other 1/3 of the attacks made by terrorists where we were not in their country? "Iraq had never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history." First of all, I do not believe that anyone actually knows whether or not that is a fact. Second, there were plenty of attacks in Iraq prior to our presence, they probably were not by someone who was labeled as a terrorist. "Once the U.S., France and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks." Again, who would actually know if this were a fact? Second, when these countries withdrew, did that mean peace followed? No, there continues to be unrest, they just refocused on Israel and made suicide attacks on their soil.

10. "It should serve to caution those Americans who assume that an aggressive foreign policy is needed to make the United States or the world a safer place." "Active missiles next to the border of Russia, provoking our former enemy into an arms race." If not America, then who will go and do the dirty work? Again, it is not a fresh idea for the Russians that they should make weapons due to others taking a defensive position on their border. What kind of logic is that, if my neighbor feels it necessary to have the ability to defend himself against me, then I should be aggressive and make an offensive weapon to use against him.

He ends with, "Only time will tell how true this is." That, I can agree with, but I believe that time will tell why America still needs to be out there guarding and protecting and pursuing an enemy sworn to destroy us and our way of life.

Unknown said...

Mike, I have given up blogging for the season of Lent, but once Easter has arrived I would be happy to answer you point by point.

Unknown said...

These replies to Robin´s article can be easily debunked. Just to take a few points, Russia didn´t invade Georgia. Georgia invaded South Ossetta and then asked for Russia´s help. The United States doesn´t have so many military bases around the world for the sake of keeping the peace. Quite the opposite. If it were for keeping the peace, the U.S military and CIA wouldn´t go on killing sprees throughout every continent. The U.S did help to provoke world war II, how about all the years we supported Hitler and Mussolini as good leaders who would protect Europe from communism. There is no such thing as terrorism, as born conservative seems to think. It is all stuff we have done to ourselves as an excuse that people like him buy into.

Unknown said...

Mike, I have replied to your comments at http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-promised-that-after-lent-was-over-i.html

Buy Essential Oils at Discounted Prices!