For the Record: Obama’s War or Obama’s Re-Election?
I do not have much time to write anything in-depth. However, I think that Vox-Nova (or at least, myself) should be on the record regarding Obama’s speech last night on Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan.
If I had the time, I would carefully show excerpts from his speech that range from unwise, untrue, to utterly stupid—and perhaps dishonest. For those of us who didn’t like George Bush’s war rhetoric: this speech was cut from the same imperial cloth.
Those who mistook Obama’s stance against Iraq as some kind of principled objection to the larger cancer of war are proven wrong with these words. Obama seems to have a war, and he owned it last night.
The question becomes: Why?
The reply to that question, for me, is simple: This is not about the war. It is about re-election.
There is a great deal of political precedent for this (see: JKF and LBJ on Vietnam). But, more than that, it shows a deep, dark truth about politics: political action has become a matter of electoral survival and is peddled as realism or vulgar pragmatism.
This is not Obama’s War. That is to say, Obama is not an anti- or pro- war candidate—neither was George Bush.
This is Obama’s Re-Election. Obama, like most of those who went before him (with, perhaps, a few notable exceptions, maybe G. Ford?), is a pro-re-election candidate. Then, he will likely become a pro-get-rich-giving-speeches-and-selling-books candidate.
This is not change we can believe in. Pray for real, good change. Pray for peace.
Comments are closed.
I agree with you Sam. Sad to say, but many politicians have the same philosophy.
Well, Obama has always campaigned on less war in Iraq, more war in Afghanistan. Of course, that doesn’t make it right. In fact, it is a fundamentally wrong and misguided strategy, influenced by the view that the USA can change the world through the barrel of a gun. And besides, the UN is the proper authority to make such decisions, not the US.
I disagree.
I don’t pretend to know exactly what needs to be done regarding either Iraq or Afghanistan (or Pakistan), but it does seem clear to me that precipitous withdrawal is not an option. I am willing to trust enough in Obama as Commander in Chief to believe that he is not doing something purely cynical.
Any first-term president is going to take his own reelection into account. If you believe you should be president, why shoot yourself in the foot and deny yourself a second term? The difference between people who want “peace at any price” and Obama is that he has to weigh an enormous number of factors (his own reelection included) into his decision.
Also, Bush was definitely pro-war. He was itching to invade Iraq before he seized (duplicitously) on 9/11 as a pretext.
I think before you impugn Obama’s character regarding his decisions about Afghanistan, you have to do an honest critique of the decisions themselves. Disengagement from the current conflicts is not a simple matter of deciding to bring the boys home. What is wrong with Obama’s plan. And what is your plan? Pacifism for individuals is perhaps defensible, but you can’t have a pacifist country. And certainly you can’t have a pacifist superpower.
It is very easy to say things like, “No more war! Never again war! If you wish to be brothers, drop your weapons.” But what about when one side would like to be brothers and the other side would like to build nuclear weapons and set them off in our cities?
And besides, the UN is the proper authority to make such decisions, not the US.
MM,
UN welcomes US plan for Afghanistan buildup
Yes, the U.N. is the proper place for peace keeping; they have such a strong record of making and keeping peace around the world.
This seems to have been pushed by the Brits. His actual campaign rhetoric was to have a significant increase in troops in Afghanistan. This is actually a deviation from that. An exit from Afghanistan can actually be perceived in this policy. Given events in Pakistan, there is a perceived need for troops to be ready to respond, and that is possible using Afghanistan as a staging ground. A nuclear Pakistan significantly changes the calculus in the region. Without us there and with further instability, you may see a flare up or outright invasion from India, another nuclear power. There is already heat there over Kashmir, and India blames Pakistan for the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. At this point, I’m inclined to believe that Obama has taken the most peaceful alternative practically available.
How is health care a “right”? Maybe a “duty” — i.e., an imperative imposed on us in service to others — but a “right”? I would challenge this as a misguided shift from a Christian moral theory, grounded in responsibility, to an Enlightenment moral theory, grounded in rights. And the former correlates quite nicely with Reformed (Calvinist) ethics, while the latter is just a distortion of Catholic natural law theory.
This is most certainly Obama’s war. He could have chosen otherwise. He did not.
Here are some replies (I’m in a salty mood, so forgive me if I am too pointed or defensive):
First of all, the fact that this speech is consistent with his campaign, makes the whole Obama-fetish even more outrageous.
Second, I am not a pacifist. I wish I could be sometimes, but I know somewhere inside me that I am not.
Third, as a non-pacifist there are tons of reasons to still find this speech and its implications atrocious. I named one of them with a hefty amount of historical traction: First-term presidents don’t end wars because they want to get re-elected. American presidents need to look like Rambo, but not too much. If anyone wants to dispute that, then, that is fine—but they need to actually dispute it. I have no answers myself, but I do see a problem. We can’t cure cancer, but cancer is still cancer.
So, fourthly, if you think I am trying to say that Obama doesn’t have a war on his hands, then, you misread my point entirely. My point is even worse: Since this is not about the war, Obama is using the war like the other war-lords of our not-so-distant past. That makes “his war” even worse, because he seems to only want it instrumentally, i.e. to get re-elected.
And, finally, I have no idea what healthcare rights has to do with this thread.
The nature of the American state makes a decent president an impossibility. Perpetual war for perpetual peace. There’s always a threat and if there isn’t they’ll invent one. The war in Afghanistan is in its 9th year, how is that proportionate to two destroyed buildings ?
It’s good to see that Obama’s lost his lustre in many people’s eyes, the only scary thing is the possibility of a Republican win. His Pathetic speech has been skewered in Europe. Bush was a war pig, but Obama’s not much better, call him a war piglet. He is not essentially different, just another product of the American BS machinery.
Sam,
You have done a good job of expressing your anger, but you haven’t made a case against the actions Obama is taking or even given any specifics about why you are so incensed by his speech.
First-term presidents don’t end wars because they want to get re-elected.
I think I know your meaning here, but the sentence is ambiguous. Are you saying that the reason Obama is not ending the war in Afghanistan immediately is that he feels continuing the war will give him a better chance at being reelected? You seem to think that Obama’s speech was designed to make him more popular by appealing to the American people’s love of war. But this war is not popular.
Anyone who is surprised that Obama is taking this action wasn’t paying attention to him during the campaign or since he got elected. He has consistently said that the war in Iraq was a distraction, and that the United States should be focusing on Afghanistan.
Why is what Obama proposes for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) wrong? You haven’t said.
So it’s impugning Obama’s character to point out that his decision is transparently political and be unhappy about it, but it’s not impugning his character to point out that his decision is transparently political and be happy with it?
What “Obama-fetish” thing?
How can this decision be “transparently political” when it is exactly what he promised to do during the campaign?
I think this is the wrong decision, both from a “war is bad” perspective and from a purely realpolitik view. . . there is no way this ends well.
But you can’t accuse Obama of doing this to shore up his poll numbers or gain republican support.
And for the last time, democrats and liberals don’t worship Obama. I can find many examples of republican behavior towards Bush being MUCH worse than anything liberals have said about Obama.
There’s no winning in Afghanistan. Ask Alexander, the Brits and the Russians. A high percentage of educated, harmless Afghanis left a long time ago – quite a few of them live around here in No.California, my (female) chiropractor e.g.
What the endless U.S. presence does is recruit fighters for the Taliban. Shooting peace into the heart of men doesn’t really work. Sure, a country needs to protect itself, but with tens of thousands stationed abroad for close to a decade, a saying comes to mind, “Whosoever clings to his life shall lose it”.
For a German take: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html
How can this decision be “transparently political” when it is exactly what he promised to do during the campaign?
He promised to withdraw troops from Afghanistan as the 2012 presidential election cycle begins to heat up?
“And for the last time, democrats and liberals don’t worship Obama.”
Definitely less so, if this Jon Stewart skewering is an indicator. He really lets him have it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/112608/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-30000#s-p1-sr-i1
EDITED PER PHOSPHORIUS’ CORRECTION BELOW
First off, sorry for my prickly tone in my previous comment. I do get a bit defensive and even angry when it comes to these current issues mostly because I get battered on both sides of the aisle for what I say and that may have more to do with my occasional beligerance than the actual thing in question. But don’t cry for me, I still think I have an argument here. Let me try to put it with a bit more sobriety:
A. I buy into the Kantian imperative (persons only as ends, never means…)
B. Going into war for instrumental reasons (e.g. to get elected) violates that imperative, among other things.
C. I think this largely because two other so-called anti-war presidents (JFK and LBJ) did so despite revealing in phone correspondance that they didn’t believe in it, but knew it would spell disaster for re-election.
I could be wrong. But only if my intuition on linking Obama to the JFK/LBJ line of reasoning is wrong or if the public sentiment is different.
It may vary by historical degrees, but it is cut from the same cloth then through the Republican war-lords of more recent times, to this one. While the war is unpopular, as was the Vietnam War, there seems to be an overarching default mode for presidential, commander-in-chief, politics: go to war, but not too much (if your a democrat, if your a republican, then, you can actually run and win on the back of a war).
Here is the differance between Bush and Obama: I suspect that Bush still, at the end of the day, saw the war as political strategy, but even he seemed to advocate for it–stupidly, of course–with a sense of
teleologyDEONTOLOGY (sorry!). Obama, on the other hand, has done brilliantly (meaning he will probably get re-elected) but done so as a vulgar pragmatist/utilitarian. And knowing about it in advance does nothing to make it ok. If anything it shows the indiscretion to let him be “just” option.Here is the real risk involved in not going to war, and it has little to do with public sentiment (after all, since when did popular opinion matter so much?): The risk of not engaging and then suffering an attack is a death sentence to re-election. So, going to war is a political insurance policy. Yes, you pay price in lives and dissent, but you don’t have to worry about losing the pot.
Some may say this form of gambling is okay and even admirable. I disagree.
As for the Obama-fetish: In the circles I run in academia, there is a huge love-affair still going on–even as he proposes some the worst ideas on education since Bush. Attend any conference and you will see the speeches and the coffee chats saying “stop being so mean. Give him a chance.” Hell, even look at Michael Moore’s interview with Tavis Smiley while promoting his newest mediocre movie. Tavis tried to get him to say something real about Obama and Moore could only give platitudes about how wonderful Obama is and how warm he feel inside after the Bush Ice Age. The love-affair is not right wing conspiracy, its real. And it comes from the fact that most need a partisan lover to feel complete in this State.
“He promised to withdraw troops from Afghanistan as the 2012 presidential election cycle begins to heat up?”
He promised to redirect our attention back to Afghanistan. This “surge” is exactly what he promised.
Is your objection to the escalation or the withdrawal?
“Here is the difference between Bush and Obama: I suspect that Bush still, at the end of the day, saw the war as political strategy, but even he seemed to advocate for it–stupidly, of course–with a sense of teleology.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “teleology” here. It’s pretty clear that Bush had no idea how these wars would end. They were open ended obligations, and to even speak of withdrawal was to show weakness to the enemy. If you mean that he had some idea that these wars would somehow result in a stable mid-east, it’s pretty clear that there was no clear idea of how that end would be reached by these means.
As I say, I think Obama’s surge is a stupid idea. . . but at the very least, his plan comes with a timeline for withdrawal. Not enough? Too far off? Probably. But for the first time, we have a commander in chief who sees war as a finite thing, not as a permanent state of affairs.
(As for the Obama-worship: I don’t want to hijack the thread, but most of the academics I know are very unhappy with Obama on any number of issues, from the bailouts to Guantanamo, to DADT. . . and they are not shy about saying so.)
Is your objection to the escalation or the withdrawal?
My objection is to the claim that his Afghanistan policy is not transparently political.
You can’t have a war against terrorism. Obama’s war should be condemned just as Bush’s were.
“My objection is to the claim that his Afghanistan policy is not transparently political.”
As has been mentioned, this was his stated policy during the campaign. It has earned no friends on the right and only criticism on the left. He has had ample opportunity to change his mind if what he wanted to do was pander to the American people. It is simply possible that he thinks the surge to be the best available option. I disagree, but to accuse him of politicizing this is to ignore the known facts.
“You can’t have a war against terrorism. Obama’s war should be condemned just as Bush’s were.”
Yes, condemn it. I do. As does most of the left.
But what’s the best way to end it?
sam,
You still seem to me to be criticizing Obama based on some abstract principles rather than based on whether or not his proposals deal with the situation at hand. You talk as if “going to war” and “not going to war” can be evaluated without looking at the particular circumstances. You talk as if we can judge FDR for becoming involved in World War II by the same criteria we judge George Bush for invading Iraq. You have completely avoided questions about reality! Can we he just end our military involvement in Afghanistan and walk away? What about the Taliban? What about the Taliban in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons? What about Al-Qaeda?
The questions at hand aren’t primarily philosophical. They are practical questions about how to get out of a war, how to assure our safety, and how to deal with Islamic militants, real war lords, and weak and corrupt governments (some of whom have nuclear weapons.
It has earned no friends on the right and only criticism on the left.
It has earned Karl Rove’s approval. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571852549048542.html
David,
There is nothing un-philosophical about your own reply. The idea that questions of reality are important is hardly passe in philosophy. So, this is not about me being in the clouds while you have your feet on the ground. You are right: I am objecting to this out of principle. I happen to think that everything we object to should be grounded in principle. In fact, that is the reason why I am so unhappy about Obama’s decision—it is not based on principle, but instead on electoral whim. Now, I think my historical point is compelling but, to go further, lets look at those who have been in Afghanistan and failed (Russia, et al). Why do they fail? Well it begins with the fact that Afghanistan doesn’t exist. It is not a modern nation-state, it doesn’t even have roads. So, this is a fools war that began with the notion that the best way to make America safe after 9-11 was to engage in places we think the people who did it are. As M.I. said you cannot wage a war against terrorism, especially when their is no formal state to engage with. The Russians learned this the hard way, I suspect we will too. We learned it in Vietnam. And with every surge, the commander-in-chief is on the record knowing in-advance that it was a fools game but needed to make the bet I described earlier, just in case.
So it’s impugning Obama’s character to point out that his decision is transparently political and be unhappy about it, but it’s not impugning his character to point out that his decision is transparently political and be happy with it?
Tom,
Obama’s decision is not “transparently” political. It is political by necessity. How can there possibly be anything other than a political decision under the circumstances? Politics is not –or should not be — a dirty word.
Apparently some think that Obama’s sole consideration in crafting a strategy to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan was not what was in the best interests of the United States, but what was in his own personal best interest in terms of winning reelection and getting a big advance for his memoirs in 2017. If some believe that Obama is utterly and completely selfish, that he doesn’t really care about the soldiers who will fight in Afghanistan, that he doesn’t really care about the American people or the good of the United States, I doubt that anyone can convince them otherwise. But I certainly don’t believe it, and it is utterly and completely cynical to maintain such a thing, not to mention utterly without charity. It is to say that Obama is not merely misguided or mistaken, but evil.
So, this is not about me being in the clouds while you have your feet on the ground.
It is about you being in the clouds to the extent you don’t deal with actual current events and criticize Obama for making a decision that is wrong for these particular circumstances. That Afghanistan has been the “graveyard of empires” (or the Roach Motel of empires) in the past is certainly a point that defenders of Obama have to address.
As M.I. said you cannot wage a war against terrorism, especially when their is no formal state to engage with.
Obama and his administration do not use the phrases “war on terror” or “war on terrorism.”
You didn’t bring this up, but just as an observation on the whole affair I will note that conservatives are critical of Obama for setting an end date (or at least a date for beginning an end) whereas liberals are critical because they believe the date will simply be ignored and the war will continue for years more. So conservatives seem to believe Obama is serious about his timetable, and liberals believe he is not.
Obama’s war is NOT about “winning”; it’s instrumental, as has been said above–in other words, about facilitating his re-election.
He has caved to the right-wing blowhards that he’s convinced can deprive him of re-election. However, in so doing, he deprives himself of his “base,” i.e. all of us who thought that he’d reverse the idiot foreign policy of the “war on terror,” which is, of course, un-winnable, and INTENDED to be un-winnable, so that it might go on forever, feeding the military-industrial complex, which now has ANOTHER American President in thrall to it.
Vladimir Putin has begun to call America the “Nazi State” of the 21st century, and many here in Europe are beginning to give Mr. Putin a hearing.
Now, mark my words, those of you who’ve never met a true jihadist and don’t understand the strength of their idealism (similar, I agree, to a Nazi’s or a communist’s “idealism”): the jihadis are now going to flock from all over the world–from Chechnya, from Somalia, from Saudi Arabia, from Palestine, from Yemen–to do battle with the American “infidel” in the morass that Afghanistan is going to become for the “National Security Empire,” as it was for the old Soviet Union.
GET THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS, American imperialists, what your messianic moron of a President obviously can’t: the jihadis DON’T WANT YOU TO LEAVE in a year and a half. They DON’T PRIMARILY WANT an Afghanistan they’ve “liberated” for the “caliphate.” They want to DRAIN you, and you’re falling for it, and, under Obama, you’re going to be there LONG past his meaningless “deadline.”
This is tangential to Sam’s overall point, but:
And with every surge, the commander-in-chief is on the record knowing in-advance that it was a fools game but needed to make the bet I described earlier, just in case.
It seems like to prove out your claim here you’d have to look at presidents other than JFK and LBJ.
Did Did Lincoln leading up to 1864 think the continuing to pursue the Civil War was doomed to failure, but resolve to do so anyway because he knew that people liked wars?
Did FDR leading up to 1944 make a similar calculatin that WW2 was unlikely to be won, but continue because it he thought it was the politically popular approach?
Did Eisenhower in 1952 run on bringing the Korean War to a successful conclusion while in fact being convinced this would not work?
And in all honesty, did Bush invade Iraq while convinced that he would not be able to achieve a stable and peaceful replacement for the Hussein regime, simply because he thought opening up another war would be popular? Did he support the “surge” with the conviction that it wouldn’t stablize the region (which, in fact, it did overwhelingly succeed in doing) but would be popular electorally? (Which if true, would be odd, since that was a second term decision.)
Even if one grants your analysis of JFK and LBJ’s motivations (which I’m not sure is entirely accurate) I don’t see how we could draw an overall rule about presidential behavior.
Darwin: Wow, I was almost about to concede the entire point because your argument is compelling. However, I found this sentence right before the place you starting to quote: “We learned it in Vietnam.”
So, I would grant your historical points here, but since I have only dealt with the analogy to Vietnam, that is all I can be guilty of. Now, Bush is in the running too. But I even said earlier that Bush’s convictions for the war and the surge, while still very much political, were much more pure in terms of not being purely instrumental, compared to Obama’s here. The Republican Party has to surge, its been their platform since at least Goldwater. But the Democrats don’t, but they do it anyway for some strange, or not so strange, reason.
Bill Moyers did a nice compilation of phone call recordings and meetings during the Vietnam escalation that were quite revealing to me and sold me on this argument. That’s my source: LBJ.
As has been mentioned, this was his stated policy during the campaign.
As has been asked, was it his stated policy during the campaign that US forces would begin drawing down a year before the 2012 elections?
Personally I don’t see what would be so bad about just pulling the troops out of Afghanistan now (we went in to get bin Laden; bin Laden’s not there any more; so why are we?) I must say, though, that I’m a little surprised by the reaction to Obama’s decision by some on the Left. During the campaign Obama repeatedly said that he would 1) close Gitmo, 2) pull us out of Iraq, and 3) send more troops to Afghanistan. He hasn’t done 1 or 2, and with a few honorable exceptions the Left has been pretty quiet about it. Now he is doing 3, and somehow this is considered a betrayal.
Amusing to read the armchair generals muse about this or that. Sure history frequently repeats itself – sure cite Alexander the Great et al. if you must – there is more to human societal progress in my view -not that hard to imagine perhaps that our many good fine guys will leave a lasting positive impression on the population until they are scheduled to leave in a couple of years.
We will all know more in 2012 . Lets wait and see.
I put my money on Obamas strategy – not that I would know.
I also think that they will be smart enough to keep a couple of balls int the air – including one in Somalia.
All will be fine IMHO
So, I would grant your historical points here, but since I have only dealt with the analogy to Vietnam, that is all I can be guilty of.
What is the analogy to JFK and LBJ regarding Vietnam? Are you saying that they both fought the war in Vietnam to increase their chances of reelection? How did it work out for them?
I thought the lesson of Vietnam was “don’t get involved.” And also, JFK, LBJ, and the Vietnam war don’t add up to “a great deal of political precedent.” I don’t get your historical argument.
As has been asked, was it his stated policy during the campaign that US forces would begin drawing down a year before the 2012 elections?
Tom,
Is this your complaint about Obama’s plans for Afghanistan? That he isn’t making an open-ended commitment?
It’s not what he says now that will determine his chances for reelection. It’s what happens between now and 2012. If he can accomplish the very limited goals he set for Afghanistan before the 2012 election, he will be in good shape for another term. If not, a speech he made at the end of 2009 promising withdrawal from Afghanistan to begin in 2011 will not help him in the least.
he jihadis are now going to flock from all over the world–from Chechnya, from Somalia, from Saudi Arabia, from Palestine, from Yemen–to do battle with the American “infidel” in the morass that Afghanistan is going to become for the “National Security Empire,” as it was for the old Soviet Union.
Digby,
How do you square this with the other objection that if you give a deadline, as Obama has done, the enemy will lie low the US leaves and then take control of Afghanistan? They can’t both be correct.
There seem to be two equally angry groups denouncing Obama. One believes the United States will start pulling out of Afghanistan in 2011, and the other believe the United States won’t start pulling out of Afghanistan in 2011. They can’t both be right.
GET THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS, American imperialists, what your messianic moron of a President obviously can’t: the jihadis DON’T WANT YOU TO LEAVE in a year and a half. They DON’T PRIMARILY WANT an Afghanistan they’ve “liberated” for the “caliphate.” They want to DRAIN you, and you’re falling for it, and, under Obama, you’re going to be there LONG past his meaningless “deadline.”
If Putin is right, as you seem to believe, why should you be bothered if we thick-headed American imperialist Nazis are drained?
Is this your complaint about Obama’s plans for Afghanistan?
My complaint isn’t about Obama’s plans for Afghanistan.
…and the other believe the United States won’t start pulling out of Afghanistan in 2011. They can’t both be right
Well, it’s very simple: I’m of the second group. Obama’s Secretary of State has just stated herself that the promise to pull out by 2012 is “conditional.”
Also, I myself don’t believe that Putin is right. What I’m saying is that the worst elements in American politics are pulling together to prove him right. The majority of the American population want peace right now, but they have no say. The military-industrial complex rules America now.
This is now totally tangential to Sam’s point, but if Obama is, as he has always claimed to be, a “realist” and “pragmatist” in regards to foreign policy, I would imagine that his reponse to Digby’s point above would be, “And if jihadists really are flocking from around the world to Afghanistan to fight the US, and if they really are determined to fight the US, then wouldn’t it be better to continue to fight them in Afghanistan indefinitely than to pull out and cause them to come fight us somewhere else?”
DarwinCatholic, if you and Obama are of that persuasion, you can be assured that you’ll be fighting in Afghanistan for much longer past Obama’s “deadline” than you suspect.
In wars it is essential to have the support of the “home front.” As Americans increasingly see that the majority of the indigenous populations of Muslim countries support the jihadists and don’t object to becoming “collateral damage” in their religious crusade, I think that Afghanistan and the other “occupations” will wear upon the consciences of the Americans to the degree that they’re wearing on the consciences of us here in Europe, whereas a “crusading” retaliatory strike, such as the one that wasn’t persisted in at Tora Bora, would have the necessary popular support for “victory.”