[Peace-discuss] Obama the Interventionist

[C. G. Estabrook]

Living in Illinois we've watched the resistible rise of Barack Obama and 
noted his two-facedness on the war.  Although he now dines out on being 
"against the war" -- given the poll numbers -- it's always been clear 
that his criticism of the occupation of Iraq is that it's been 
unsuccessful, not that it was a crime.

Obama is a supporter of the long-term American policy -- military 
control of Mideast energy resources -- in aid of which the war was 
launched.  And he has from the beginning of his senatorial campaign 
approved "surgical strikes" (his phrase) against Iran if it looks like 
developing a nuclear bomb (the excuse, you'll remember, for the invasion 
of Iraq).
	
Now we have some testimony on the falseness of Obama's anti-war position 
from, as it were, the other side. Robert Kagan is a hardcore neocon, a 
co-founder of the Project for the New American Century; he was in the 
Reagan State Department and wrote speeches for Reagan's Secretary of 
State, George P. Shultz; his wife is the current U.S. ambassador to NATO.
	
In the piece below from the Washington Post, Kagan points out (with 
praise) that Obama's foreign policy views are quite in line with "the 
past six years" (= the policies of the Bush administration), despite the 
anti-war talk, which he rightly brushes aside.  Obama's recent foreign 
policy statement "will confirm suspicions about America's inherent 
hegemonism." Goody, says Kagan: the policies that made us responsible 
for well over a million dead Iraqis in the Clinton-Bush administrations 
will continue around the world, in an Obama administration.  "His 
critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled 
enough ... He wants the American military to 'stay on the offense, from 
Djibouti to Kandahar'" [= Somalia to Afghanistan].
	
So Obama's OK with the neocons.  Are we surprised?  --CGE

=================================

	Obama the Interventionist
	By Robert Kagan, The Washington Post
	Sunday, April 29, 2007; B07

America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting 
the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the 
idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris 
of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more 
limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and 
responsibilities.

Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was 
pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a 
deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references ("we 
were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United States 
is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the "free world" 
these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of 
leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to 
many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the bullying 
"hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about 
America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama believes the world yearns to 
follow us, if only we restore our worthiness to lead. Personally, I like it.

All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by example, 
not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in 
America's image. When he said, "We have heard much over the last six 
years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the 
spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from 
this allegedly discredited idealism.

Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too 
much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building 
democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We 
must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent 
judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and 
an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's 
weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, 
build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate 
wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly 
weapons" and fight disease. Obama proposes to double annual expenditures 
on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.

It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and 
everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We 
cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless 
we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to 
destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to 
the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.

Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like 
activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or 
at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely 
he understands there is no military answer to terrorism.

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 
65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight 
terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to 
Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground 
will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now 
face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, 
best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last 
resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to 
use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves 
. . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" 
when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive 
military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry 
about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is 
and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations 
other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear 
support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are 
four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular 
alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about 
how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world 
anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

Of course, it's just a speech. At the Democrats' debate on Thursday, 
when asked how he would respond to another terrorist attack on the 
United States, Obama at first did not say a word about military action. 
So maybe his speech only reflects what he and his advisers think 
Americans want to hear. But that is revealing, too. When it comes to 
America's role in the world, apparently they don't think there's much of 
an argument.

	###