“Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”
-The Who (“Won’t Get Fooled Again”)
President Obama displayed appropriate humility in accepting his Nobel Peace Prize last week, acknowledging that he had done comparatively little to deserve the honor when matched up against past recipients like Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and George Marshall. The rest of his speech put the humility to shame.
That obligatory paragraph out of the way, Mr. Obama proceeded to don his George W. Bush mask as he moved from peace president to war president without missing a beat.
“I am the Commander in Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars,” he declared with just a touch of defiance. But don’t blame me, he seemed to suggest, as he reminded everyone that war had been part of the human condition since “the first man.” He also could have laid some blame on his predecessor for those two wars, but he chose not to do so.
Instead, he claimed that some wars are “just” and others are “unjust.” It wasn’t a new distinction, but in embracing it, this president may have set a marker for what others may soon refer to as the “Obama Doctrine.” For what Mr. Obama then proceeded to do was make a veiled comparison of the U.S. war in Afghanistan to the Second World War (WW II) both of which, he would assert, fall into the category of “just wars.”
He didn’t specify those wars that would be deemed “unjust” in his view, but presumably the current war in Iraq might qualify, since he has never favored it and wants to get the United States out of it as quickly as he can (i.e. under the timetable for withdrawal negotiated by his predecessor).
But the Afghanistan/WW II comparison was one that he should not have made and should not have had to make, and therein lies the real story.
The Nobel speech followed, by less than two weeks, Obama’s West Point speech. In that one, he had told a contingent of Military Academy cadets that he was ordering the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total U.S. force in that war to approximately 100,000, or twice the number that was there when he took office.
Using Mr. Obama’s reasoning, only in the event of a “just war” could such an escalation be tolerable, let alone justified. But if escalating a war can be labeled as tolerable, or even justified, because the war itself is “just,” then understanding the difference between “just” and “unjust” wars becomes critically important.
For openers, let’s agree that, taken together, the two speeches could easily have been delivered by George W. Bush, who would have had no trouble adopting the “just” war reference, and who never met a troop increase he couldn’t embrace.
But if one president believes starting a war in Iraq was “just” and another doesn’t, how is “just” to be understood?
Obama cites the WW II example. There, war was waged against Hitler’s Germany and Hirohito’s Japan. Both countries were seeking global domination, and they were seeking to gain it through the use of military force. In the case of the United States, Japan had attacked its forces on a U.S. colony (as Hawaii was at the time). Germany had not attacked the United States, but it was at war with U.S. allies in Europe, where it was running roughshod over much of the western part of the continent.
Still – and here is where the comparison warrants close scrutiny – the United States did not join the fray against Japan until it was attacked by Japan and against Germany until Germany declared war against the United States. (Both events occurred within a matter of days.) Thus, if WW II is the paradigm for a “just” war, it stands for the following definition: A nation engages in a “just” war only when it has been attacked by a foreign power or when war has been declared against it by a foreign power.
Does Afghanistan qualify under either of those measurements? And the clear answer is no, it does not. Afghanistan did not attack the United States, and it has not declared war against the United States.
Ah, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama would respond, but we aren’t talking about that kind of war. This war is one against terrorism, or to be more precise, against a form of Islamic fundamentalism that has implicitly declared its intention to wage a war of terrorism against the United Stated and its interests.
And so the plot thickens, and we need to go back to 9/11/2001, when members of al Qaeda, then operating in Afghanistan (where the organization was receiving support from the Taliban government), commandeered commercial airlines and caused them to be flown into New York’s twin towers and the Pentagon.
Bush and Obama identify those acts as attacks by a foreign power, which then justifies the initiation of the Afghanistan war later in 2001.
But a closer view of the buildup to that war raises more questions. In fact, the war in Afghanistan was only begun when the Taliban government refused to rid itself of al Qaeda’s presence and turn over those responsible for the planning of the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the Afghanistan war was initiated against the then-ruling government of Afghanistan, not against the country itself. And the Taliban government was disposed of with remarkable alacrity, officially falling within months of the October, 2001 start of the war.
So much for the WW II comparison, and so much for a legitimate “Obama doctrine.”
The new guy has decided to embrace the same strategy to keep his country safe. It probably won’t work, because it will end up creating more terrorists than it kills, but that’s a separate issue.
I’m writing this column to unmask the chicanery of the current president’s rhetoric. He can deliver a whale of a speech, but on this critical issue he’s still “same as the old boss.”
Howdy Ed,
I can appreciate the your point of view, sort of. Ask your self this question, if you thought President Obama was something different, then what has changed. Let me save you time, it appears that campaign rhetoric has no place in the reality of being the President of the United States Of America.
As I have commented before, I don’t agree with President Obama on ANY level, but how does a Mandate President with opposing views of the previous administration turn into the previous administration? The answer is, as much as we would like to think that we know what our government is really doing there are somethings that just dont’ get passed along. Either President Obama is just a huge LIAR, or he learned some stark reality after entering the Office (I beleive the later).
The fact that he was awarded the Nobel prize it questionable in itself. As you point out, he had humility in accepting the award. Maybe he should have demonstrated more humility and NOT accepted the award.
On many responses I have questioned you on attacking conservatives. But why in this mad world do you have me questioning you about attacking a liberal? When political figures lead us to beleive that they will do one thing and then do some thing else should we fire them??? WAITE A MINUTE, are you sugesting that we FIRE President OBAMA???
Ed, are you losing your liberalism??? Ha HA ha. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Roshawn – I certainly agree that campaign rhetoric and governing decisions are often two very different things. In this case, however, I actually think Obama is doing pretty much what he said he would do during the campaign.
I happen to disagree strongly with his decision, and I hope I will always have the integrity to be able to speak out when I do.
If that means I’m losing my “liberalism,” so be it. I try not to associate myself with labels, and what you consider my attacks on conservatives, I view as disagreements on policy.
And, no, I definitely am not suggesting we fire the president. It might help to get him some better advice, however.
Thanks as always for your comments and your contribution to “Meals.”
-Ed
I agree with Roshawn that when campaign rhetoric meets stark reality… reality wins.
I recall a special network visit to the White House (NBC as I recall) and a reporter asked Obama about the news cable news and whether Obama actually watched any of the shows. Obama rolled his eyes and said “Well, their observations aren’t informed because they really don’t know what’s going on under the surface.”
I don’t think any one of us can sit here (unless we’re Sy Hersh) and know what’s really going on inside Afghanistan, or what further threats are likely to be posed to the United States. Obama said what he needed to say to get elected. We know that. But I frankly have no problem with revisions to those promises once further information is received. He is sworn to keep American citizens – you , me, our children, grandchildren – safe. I actually trust him to open dialog internationally at the same time he increases troop deployment in Afghanistan. While many would find that a contradiction I don’t. It’s the zone where hope and reality meet.
One other thing to consider. I always felt there was a possibility Obama was trading his troop buildup for healthcare votes. Although that is probably not true, it’s something to consider. The Republicans are remaining strident in opposition to healthcare reform so I’m probably completely wrong, but it’s something I imagined could be happening: “I’ll increase troops to Afghanistan in exchange for your vote on healthcare reform.”
Keep writing Ed!
Matt
Ed I’m sure you will always keep your integrity. What do you mean that you think it would help if we got the President some better advice??? Then maybe this is why we should fire him. The people that give him advice were appointed or picked by him and the fact that he is the President, the chief decision maker, means it is his responsibility to surround himself with people who know what they are talking about. If you are talking about anyone different than his staff, it is still the staffs jog to get him the best information possible. Maybe the current reality just doesn’t fit his and yours idiology and its forcing him to make contradictory actions. As Matt said the President can open talks while still sending troops, Hope and Reality, not contridiction.
Wait, another President disappoints? Hold on. . .SHOCKING! 😯
Never saw that one coming!
Not.
But is anyone really surprised about this? Talk is cheap, after all.
I always get a little suspicious when a politician starts making all kinds of noise about bringing “change” and “I’m going to immediately end this war and provide everyone with free healthcare and a puppy” primarily because nothing ever really changes. Politicians, on both sides, are usually just bobble-heads, they will tell you whatever you want to hear. They’re either lying or don’t know that there are so many forces at play that they’re really powerless to do anything.
Good for you for not giving Obama a free pass on this issue, Professor Telfeyan!
BUT, experience has taught me that there are at least two sides to every story (and usually it’s three or more).
Honestly, I can’t say whether his policy re Afghanistan is good or bad or somewhere in between. I don’t know what his administration knows. I think it’s important to consider that there is a lot of intelligence that we aren’t privy to– My parents are both federal agents and there is a whole lot of shit they simply cannot talk about. Information that you won’t hear on CNN and can’t find on Google.
Of course, his actions need to be based on the best evidence available. And he has to have credible advisors. If Obama’s policy is based on good intel, then I’m glad he isn’t afraid to make policy decisions or take action based on that, irrespective of what he may have said in his speeches or while on the campaign trail.
There’s no shame in changing direction based on new evidence, so long as it’s reliable.
Good discussion!
Ashley –
It just looks like the same pattern — get in a war, put your trust in the generals, find out they miscalculated and then try to figure out how to avoid losing, which leads to a greater military commitment with all the concomitant negatives escalating while the war continues unabated.
I’m afraid, regardless of intelligence he had available that the rest of us don’t, that he has just made a terrible decision that will lead to even tougher ones down the line.
-Ed
I guess those of us who distrusted your guy Obama maybe weren’t so “naive” and “unrealistic” as you thought, eh? Health care, Afghanistan, financial regulation, Palestinian rights, … fooled again. And again. And again…
Thanks for your editorial, Ed. I agree. I was at first elated that the president would receive the Nobel Peace Prize because of what I felt he “stood for.” In retrospect, I feel, as a president waging two wars, the act with the most integrity would have been for him to decline the offer, as did the North Vietnamese foreign minister when he and Mr.Kissinger were awarded the honor. I think he is doing a credible job managing this incredibly complex and chaotic thing that is named the United States. However, he completely lost me with the troop buildup. War begets more war, and more war, and more war. I oppose all war.
Please, no comments about there has to be war. If you believe that, you believe that. I believe there will always be war; it’s the human condition.
Mr. Roth,
Disagreement ≠ Distrust
Boy am i glad i came back to check and see what was new. It seems pretty obvious to me that every one agrees that what is said on the trail and what happens in the office maybe totally different and usually are. And it seems everyone agrees that the president should have not accepted the award.
Ed your response to ashley i think is just another excuse for the president. but lets be clear, the president is the commander in chief, and although this president didn’t start the war i’m sure he was apprised of the situation.
Modern warefare has become a horribly misused tool. as per jim, war begets more war, unless you completely destroy your opponent. this is where the misuse tradegy starts, because some politician thinks he can be smart enough to have our military beat up another military and that will fix the problem or at least open channels of communication, he doesn’t realize that it in most cases it is a temporary fix. because they were trying to “strategically” attack someone and not completely destroy the enimy (humanity says that would not be right) , many of the enimy remain and waite until they can attack again.
You can’t blame the millitary or anyone in it. the military is tool for use by the Presiden and use, nonuse, or even misuse is the sole responsibility of the President. Jim I don’t like war either but you do have to have a military that is capable of waging war even if it is only used for defense. jim in this case the troop build up is the only thing that can be done. we can’t afford to lose the war and we certainly can’t just turn the place into a glass bowl.
Bottom line Ed, you are starting to disagree more and more with the President, is there a point were you will decide that you don’t want him to be your President any more?
I oppose Obama’s decision on Afghanistan. That is what I intended to express in my column — nothing less, and certainly nothing more.
But, Roshawn, you may want to clarify you last post. On the one hand, you seem to agree with Jim (and me) that war begets war and that more war begets more war, while on the other you clearly express support for Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
I’ll leave aside the fact that you thereby seem to be supportive of him even as you continue to imply that you’d far rather have someone else in the office he holds.
But inconsistencies aside, thanks as always for your contribution.
-Ed
Dear Ed:
Interesting post. I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over what your guy said–he really doesn’t believe it. He was backed into his own surge by his campaign position on the Afghan conflict, the success of the Iraq surge, and McCrystal’s leaking of the troops numbers he believed he needed to replicate that result. His Oslo speach, soon to be forgotten, was a niffty way of tamping down a delicious story for Fox News while still being able to accept his seven-figure prize (at least the North Vietnamese stood by their communist vow of poverty).
Having taken my obligatory jab, what really peaked my interest was your analysis and ultimate conclusion regarding the comparison of the Afghan conflict with World War II–as you put it, “the real story.” You conclude that we did not go to war with the country of Afghanistan, only its government. Therefore, the WWII comparison fails and the Afghan war is unjust.
This begs the question, “just how does one go to war against a whole country and not just its government?” Presumably, we did so in WWII, making that conflict “just” or at least tolerable. The attack on Pearl Harbor was sanctioned by the Japanese government and executed by its military, an organization it harbored and supported. Shortly thereafter, war was declared upon the U.S. by the government of Germany. As a result, we engaged in armed conflicts with both nations, vanquished their militaries, dismantled the offending governments, killed a lot of people (both combatants and noncombatants) and occupied both countries for years (we’re still present in both).
At what point and/or on what basis did we go to war with the countries of Japan and Germany and fail to do so with the country of Afghanistan?
Tom –
In World War II, the countries at war sent their military forces to battle. In this sense, whether the result of democratically-elected governments or other forms of national decision-making, the wars were between countries.
In Afghanistan, our fight was with al Qaeda, a wholly separate entity (from the Afghan military). That point may have been lost in the initial fighting, when the Taliban government probably did send its troops to battle. But once the Taliban government was overthrown (very quickly as you’ll recall), we continued to do battle in that country, and since that time (for eight years now) we have not been fighting the Afghan military but are, in fact, allied with them.
My point is that we went to war in Afghanistan, not against Afghanistan.
It may not be a meaningful distinction to those killed or whose lives are destroyed by the conflict, but it does serve to put the lie to Obama’s preposterous attempt to legitimize his actions.
-Ed
A distinction without a difference. Regardless, how about a piece on Obama’s less-than-presidential behavior towards the Supreme Court during the State of the Union Address? What a remarkable display of disrespect for the institutions of American government in general and the separation of powers in particular–all from a Harvard-trained lawyer. Disgusting.