Reading through the transcript of Obama’s speech in Oslo, it is startling to read how Obama attempted to make his hawkish beliefs and theories congeal with such respected pillars of non-violence as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. He seemed to be suggesting that the ‘Obamian’ view of international affairs was far superior to what these bulwarks of non-violence would seek to achieve, if only they were seeing things in the manner that this political ‘luminary’ and ‘rock star’ views them. And in an attempt to elucidate his bizarre and extremist point of view, Obama caricatured proponents of non-violence as “not facing the world as it is” and “standing idle in the face of threats.” Ultimately, Obama’s comments leave us with a similar conclusion as to what was told to the citizens of Oceania, in Orwell’s incomparable work of political science fiction 1984; tragically Obama seemed to be attempting to argue that war is peace.
At Oslo, very early on in his comments, Obama threw out the red herring (or perhaps it would be better to call it a non-sequitur?) of a just war? What war was he talking about exactly? Was he talking about when the United States didn’t intervene to stop the bloody massacre in Rwanda? Or could he have, perhaps, been talking about Israel’s most recent conflict in Gaza that he ‘monitored’, at the time; before officially becoming the 44th president of the United States? I ask these rhetorical questions because I don’t see any just wars that the U.S. is currently involved in, nor do I see any that are forthcoming on the horizon (except for perhaps the one that the ALBA nations are fighting against the imperialist U.S.). It’s clear as crystal in Obama’s imperialist, paternalistic Oslo remarks that the man feels that his military is entitled to ‘rule the roost’ over the whole of the planet; and not only that, but moreover, he seems to think that in his attempts to ‘wage peace’ and engage in neo-colonial efforts upon other sovereign nations that it is not only acceptable, but it is in the service of ‘peace and justice’ to interfere in the internal politics of all manner of independent countries all throughout this world!
In an apparent assault upon rational thinking and any sort of reasonable method or system of thought, Obama seems to arrive at the conclusion that what he believes, is in some incomprehensible way, superior to the eminently respectable beliefs of the unparalleled Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi! For those who are not familiar with realism in International Relations theory, that’s all Obama is doing in his Oslo remarks; he’s paying homage to realism, and how it is, in the imperial Obama’s ‘humble’ opinion; a higher understanding of international geopolitics, than presumably Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. would have chosen to pursue. I’m sure that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were more than familiar with all sorts of theories that imperialist countries have used to justify war, intervention, bellicosity, aggression, invasion, occupation, etc.; and dismissed them as more rudimentary, savage, and barbaric, rather than as a higher or ‘more perfect’ understanding of international conduct among the ‘great’ imperial regimes.
Obama’s suggestion that the idealistic (even utopian), and unsophisticated Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi; if only they could have come to know the ‘benevolent’ empire of the United States of Amnesia, would have seen what great wonders, that the napalming of countries all throughout the planet could achieve; is just patently and baldly absurd! It’s almost as if Obama’s peace prize comments were sponsored by Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman and/or General Dynamics! Of course, they were, in fact, sponsored by the U.S. military industrial complex; but one of its components in particular, I don’t think that that was the case. Obama is nothing if not discrete about these sorts of machinations, even if he is sold out and comprimised to the core.
Obama, on more than one occasion, in his Nobel prize remarks, made mention of international standards that must be applied, to military actions all throughout this world! Well then, if that is what our dear leader Obama is suggesting, then I must ask the venerable commander; why he has been giving the back of the hand to the leader of Tibet, since he was first elected to be the leader of the United States? If international norms and standards are something that Obama pays great respect to, then the Dalai Lama should be just the sort of person that he holds up and admires (Obama is to the right of George W. Bush on this by the way, who Bush gave an award to)!
What international standard were the Chinese abiding by when they subsumed the formerly sovereign nation of Tibet? What standard are the Israelis abiding by in their illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and their seemingly interminable expansion of illegal settlements in that land? What standard are the Israelis adhering to when they fail to acknowledge their possession of nuclear weapons; while Obama, of course, condemns Iran for its ostensible pursuit of those identical munitions (which there is little evidence and/or corroboration of anything other than for civilian uses)?
I found Obamas speech, at Olso, to be a justification for U.S. hegemonism and military power, short and simple! The man loves his empire and he has a thirst for blood! Thank you for telling us that Barack! I’m sorry to say this though, dear one, but if it walks like a militarist and talks like a militarist, then I say that, a militarist it is! The bestowers of the Nobel Peace prize on to Barack H. Obama should be publicly shamed for their disreputable actions! They should wear a scarlet letter for bestowing this sort of commendation upon such a strong believer in imperialism, neocolonialism, and fiat rule via the barrel of a gun! If it was a man of peace they were looking for surely they couldn’t have found it in the life’s work of Barack H. Obama!!? If they were only trying to curry favor with a hawkish leader that could not otherwise be abated (without their callow attempt at a carrot); then I don’t think that they’ll succeed on that score either, but I suppose that at least it wasn’t for a lack of trying!

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 3, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Obama: When Empire + Militarism Equals Peace? by Sean Fenley « Dandelion Salad
[…] Sean Fenley Dandelion Salad The Anything and Everything Jan. 3, […]
January 3, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Daryl
I was actually redirected to this blog from another (academic and much more even-handed) site on international issues. Where to begin…
I wish I hadn’t spent the last fifty minutes reading and responding to this polemical rubbish, which could have come straight from the mouth of Hugo Chavez. And of course, I hope that you are intelligent enough not to take that as a compliment–it’s clearly not.
Ok, I concede, some of your points about US double-standards on what is deemed a just war are well deserved–the Palestinian case, and so on and so forth. Anything new?
That makes Obama an extremist? He talks like a militarist, a hawkish (by your description, right-wing) master of US hegemony; “paternalistic” and even “a strong believer in imperialism, neocolonialism, and fiat rule via the barrel of a gun!” Wow… So Obama is the extremist? Forgive my centrist scepticism of your ideological rant, but I just think that you deserved to be told to come back down to earth. Theories of dialectical-materialism and class war, etc. ad nauseam (in case you hadn’t heard) were decidedly discredited by the history of the Soviet experiment.
It is ironic that right-wing pundits (the actual militarists, like Rush Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) accuse President Obama of being a closet socialist; whereas the Left’s criticism of that very same figure paint him as a closet militarist, imperialist scum, and on and on it goes–as you aptly demonstrated. I guess that ideology can make you see whatever it is that you are looking for in the world, no matter how remote from reality.
So the ALBA nations represent the only just struggle against the US hegemon? Again, ironic due to the fact that Chavez has just issued a call to arms against neighbouring Colombia… but in the name of defending the gains of the progressive revolution at home, of course.
Are you narrow-minded, or just plain lazy to open up a history book and observe that nation-states and other political units are predominantly driven by self-interest, not ideology? Yes, Realpolitik is that ugly Germanic word I am alluding to. And all states/governments/’imperialists’ and ‘revolutionaries’ alike make foreign policy based on (arguably) rational calculations of interests–i.e. is a distant war to (at least attempt to) rebuild a miserable country worth it if it saves lives at home? (It is along this line of reasoning that even the arch-anti-imperialist and peace-loving, anti-militaristic Soviets wound up fighting the very same Afghans between 1979 and 1989).
Obama is a Realpolitician in foreign affairs, and has made what is probably one of the most difficult decisions of his life not out of evil, capitalist, military-industrial complex, imperialistic thirst for empire and oil, but out of perceived political self-interest. And face up to it mate, even such dubious regimes as Chavist Venezuela, communist North Korea and the PRC make decisions based on the same premises of Realpolitik, whether you like it or not. It is only the rhetoric that changes. And if socialist rhetoric alone is all that your worldview consists of, then that is your own tragic problem.
Yes, there was tremendous tension in Obama’s speech at Oslo; but he directly addressed that question. If you had listened to that whole speech, which you presumably didn’t, then you might appreciate his logical and political conundrum. According to most sober-minded commentators though, he pulled it off very well. How could you argue–especially someone of your political views–that Obama was wrong on the note that, despite their moral valour, such non-violent movements as Martin Luther King’s could not have triumphed over an empire (which actually was militaristic, expansionist and quite convincingly ‘evil’)
such as Nazi Germany? Even the Red behemoth that was Soviet Russia took up arms to defend itself against Nazi aggression in the ‘Great Patriotic War’. Presumably, even communists realised the folly of abandoning the state’s final arbiter of security–the threat of the coercive use of military force in world affairs
Anyway, I wouldn’t want to waste too much time on trying to convince you that war can ever be just. It is an argument that is frail and full of moral pitfalls; and I’m not sure that I believe it myself. It is more likely that some wars, as Obama pointed out, are less ‘just’ than ‘necessary’. But I have enough respect for your freedom of expression to not really care what it is that you preach. War is a terribl business; the worst that human beings engage in (notwithstanding genocide). But in calling upon Orwellian double-think to try to explain the complexity of Obama’s Oslo conundrum, you made a big mistake.
Remember that 1984 was actually written as an anti-totalitarian treatise, not a merely anti-imperialistic one. In fact, George Orwell was most likely alluding to the contradictions inherent in the Soviet Union: a political entity that preached friendly relations among nations, anti-imperialism, decolonisation and perpetual peace in the world–but on the other hand, armed itself to the teeth in conventional and nuclear weapons, ‘purged’ its internal opposition, killed millions of its own peasants and workers (which were theoretically the population base of the proletariat), as well as placing the best and brightest of its citizens in Gulags for the purposes of ‘political reeducation’ (death camps by another name). Not to forget that it was the ruthless strategist Mao Zedong who coined the phrase that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Yes, the United States has done some terrible things in Vietnam and elsewhere around the world. Yes, Obama has defended his support for the (NATO-led, international and UN-sanctioned) war in Afghanistan on the moral grounds of “enlightened self-interest”. Yes, you are doubly right. Well done! But at least he had the strength of character to openly say it to the world, not dress up his (realist, self-interest) pro-war stance in heavily misleading, Orwellian self-justifications of ideology–be it capitalist, socialist or any other. Maybe next time you listen to Obama speak you can try to be a little less ideological, and try to place yourself in the shoes of a human being who is forced to make far-reaching decisions of life and death, peace and war, with options only ranging from bad to worse.
I am not apologising for indiscriminate war-mongering. I am simply trying to demonstrate to you (perhaps in vain) that human beings are much more complex creatures than the black-and-white, or Red-and-White stereotypes of ideology presuppose. If colour-coded, our actions would be in shades of grey. Different moral and political contexts determine how just (or tolerable) a war can be. The complexity of foreign affairs (in the real, empirical world) shatters your rigid and obsolete cliches about imperialism, war and so on. If only the world were still as simple as Lenin and Che evangelised (who were both tyrants by the way; and the latter was a literal killer)… But it is not.
Maybe you will take in some of what I say. Then again, maybe this counter-argument is a bridge too far for those who would prefer the comforting warmth of reductionist, ideological guidance over even-handed, and pragmatic analysis.
Regards,
Daryl (Australia)
January 3, 2010 at 3:21 pm
anythingandeverythingblog
Daryl,
I posted your comment in the interest of free speech and letting others decide.
I’m sorry if I’m a utopian dreamer, but I think the ideal for international conduct is that all powers great and small follow the same standards. I’m for the U.S. signing on to the International Criminal Court and things like that. I basically agree with realists that the international system is anarchic, but I think we should strive for a system where everyone follows the rules of the road.
I think you have gotten some wrong information on Venezuela, nearly everything I’ve seen in the Western media is horribly biased against Chavez/Venezuela. I’d recommend a good website to you Venezuela Analysis, run by the sociologist Gregory Wilpert, maybe you can balance some of the coverage you are getting with IMO a fairer view of situation there (that site is possibly is a little too pro-Chavez, but I do not believe they are apologists for him).
Anyway, with so many points I don’t think I can really respond to (all of them). I’d say thank you for the comment; but your comments are not written as constructive criticism (just to be insulting).
January 4, 2010 at 4:40 am
Daryl
Thanks for posting my comment (and replying). Cheers, I’ll check out the link you provided. I will endeavour to read a bit more on Chavez; I am no expert on the country. But you have to admit that his whacky rhetoric puts him on a par with other anti-American regimes which speak of ‘the Empire’ and ‘the Great Satan’. It just seems to me that blaming Uncle Sam for one’s internal problems is a favourite past time of such dubious regimes as Teheran, which has targeted Western and foreign media (such as the BBC) with inciting popular hatred against the leadership.
I apologise if I came across as insulting. It was not my intention in any way, honestly. I admit that some of what I wrote was a bit heated (especially the ‘narrow-minded’ comment- I recant that, it was a stupid thing to write). If it’s any excuse, I was tired and a bit trigger-happy on the ‘Submit Comment’ box.
But on our actual debate, we obviously have major differences of opinion. On my part, I was just a bit shocked by your comment that Obama “loves his empire and he has a thirst for blood!” My main point, I guess, was my final one that foreign affairs are much more complex than the all-too-familiar good versus evil narrative which many imbue it with–not least of all George W. Bush. Human beings are multi-faceted, and so is Obama.
Furthermore, he is widely praised (in and outside the US) for governing by consensus and more democratically than many previous US presidents. His decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan took such a long time due to the administration’s internal deliberations (just under ten of them, I think), which culminated in his decision announced at West Point. He has taken a huge burden on his shoulders, which has been attacked from both his political left and right–as many expected.
I just thought that your post was a little too stereotypical–by which I mean that you presented the President, and his decision, in a reductionist way (by saying that he was essentially a stooge of US imperialism). I have just read Immanuel Wallerstein’s article about Democrats and foreign conflicts; it is interesting indeed. To be fair, though, it was the Republican and not so isolationist Bush administration which intervened in Afghanistan to begin with.
Hence, isn’t it the case that the Democrats have just been left to pick up the pieces by (slowly) withdrawing from Iraq, and even more slowly (beginning in 2011 or so) from Afghanistan? And isn’t it also plausible that the current Afghan War, if not exactly ‘good’, is more legitimate than Iraq due to the multilateral support and UN approval which it benefits from. That is a major normative and legal distinction, in my mind at least. But I’d be happy if you could tell me what you think about these two questions. Thanks for being civil,
Daryl
January 3, 2010 at 3:41 pm
anythingandeverythingblog
U.S. Internal Politics and its Military Interventions
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/265en.htm
You might find this article interesting Daryl. It talks about the psychology of why Democrats have been involved in so many foreign conflicts. They are labeled as the party of the doves, but it is a label they are typically trying to get away from.
January 4, 2010 at 4:39 pm
anythingandeverythingblog
No problem Daryl,
I try to post just about every comment (no matter what problems I have with it), I have posted comments places that never showed up; it’s annoying. I did kind of suggest I might not have posted your comment, but I think the only thing that would make me not post a comment is hate speech.
When I’ve seen Chavez interviewed (even on CNN, I don’t know if it’s online I think he made some great points in an interview I saw with him and Larry King) he’s intelligent and thoughtful. He may have put his foot in his mouth a few times, I don’t think though that’s he’s a maniac or anything like that. There may be some truth to a depiction of him as not the most calm, sober person, but I think he’s generally with it (he has probably engaged in hyperbole at times also).
This idea that the United States controls vast areas of the world (probably the whole world according to Obama’s advisory people, and that’s possibly accurate although more and more I hear rumblings about us being in a multipolar world), it just seems to be a throwback to me at this point (most realists would probably agree that the global hegemon should control all regions of the world); as we recognize all the peoples of the world, and give them their full human rights that they are entitled to (no matter what race, color, creed, etc.) why are we still engaging in paternalistic practices with them?
It is probably too idealistic to think the U.S. will not defend its so-called national interest and use aggression and even use force for resources at times, but theoretically, at least, I’m for like Latin Americans taking care of Latin America, Africans having responsibility for Africa, Asians for Asia, etc… I guess part of the problem is that if you have areas descend into like failed states, then who takes responsibility for that? But I don’t think there are that many failed states in the world (maybe I need to learn something), also I’m not an expert on Somalia but I think U.S. intervention (and meddling in the internal politics of the country) there actually had a hand into much of that country descending into failed state status.
I have not been reading much to suggest that Obama will succeed in Afghanistan. It’s nickname is the Graveyard of Empires. There may be a military component to the War on Terrorism, the right-wing here in the U.S. if fond of threatening that the War on Terrorism will return back to a ‘police action’ type approach; but I think that would be better than what they’re doing now. They are fighting non-national actors through wars in particular nation states. Iraq and now Afghanistan were supposedly so important, but now we are hearing Yemen is a hotbed of terrorism. I’m not sure I have the correct strategy to fight terrorists/terrorism, but I don’t think the strategy of attacking non-national actors through wars in nation-states works (minimally that has to be coupled with another approach, which I don’t see).
A problem I have with the Democrats is they hold to this idea of a bipartisan foreign policy (they have been nearly as hawkish as the Republicans IMO so maybe there is some truth to it), perhaps it doesn’t look that great, but the Democrats seem timid about entirely breaking with what the Republicans have done on Foreign Policy a lot of the time (Bush essentially did this with Clinton’s foreign policy, broke with a lot of it). Like I said I don’t think I have the strategy to fight the War on Terrorism (I think a lot more can be done through essentially PR, and the U.S. having humility, and not standing so resolutely with Israel, being more flexible and listening to the other side on all sorts of things, there are all sorts of non-military strategies that could be pursued, which I haven’t observed a lot of).
But my answer to your question is the Democrats should point that out (that they’ve been left to pick up the pieces) and they should say so we have to go in a wholly different direction, b/c the Republican administration pretty much failed at just about everything that it did. Perhaps if I saw some movement (a visionary strategy) in what Obama is doing on terrorism I would be a little more understanding about what he’s doing in Afghanistan. I think I’m closer to the idea of declaring victory and pulling out in Afghanistan (maybe not 100% but closer to that than escalating the war there).
p.s. I’m not sure this is in response to anything in particular. Probably the global superpower is left to at times being the only one to intervene somewhere, or be the global cop or whatever. I think strengthening the U.N.’s role in this type of thing would be a good thing. The right-wing here would talk about a global government (which I see some pitfalls of), but I don’t think the U.S. is an altruistic actor so I can’t foresee the U.N. being worse (if that turned out to be the case, maybe I’d have to reassess the United States, or whoever is the superpower’s role in the world).
January 5, 2010 at 6:08 am
Daryl
Hello again, and thanks for taking the time to reply once more. I’m finding it very worthwhile to exchange views and try to find consensus on some issues of world affairs, even if we got off on the wrong foot (my fault for jumping the gun a bit). Yes I agree that it’s annoying, and not very democratic when organisations or individuals censor comments in discussions. (The NATO website has done it to me once!)
I was reading the November/December 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs on the way home today, and found some articles pertinent to our discussion. On the questions of failed states and Somalia in particular, Bronwyn Bruton essentially argues what you do: that “doing less helps more” in that country, and the US should adopt a more hands-off approach.
Somalia is only an ocean away from Australia, where my view of that former country is shaped, and a recent attempted terrorist plot by several would-be-terrorists (including Somalis with links to the radical al-Shabab) has stirred some public fears of that country’s continuing civil war, which has made the Horn of Africa a terrorist-magnet. As you rightly point out, if the US and allies aim to ‘eradicate’ terrorism, then where does it end? In fact, the 9/11 attacks were at least partly concocted in Hamburg, Germany.
The porosity of modern borders (through illegal immigration or just bad airport security) means that terrorists have no territorial base at which to strike. Therefore, we can ask, will a new anti-terror campaign in Yemen increase or endanger the security of countries waging that endless war? I’m not sure. But I think the basic US/Transatlantic approach has been fairly coherent and maybe even successful. The US government has exerted tough behind-the-scenes pressures on key states to crack down on home-grown Islamists in countries ranging from Egypt to Pakistan, and from the Arabian peninsula to Indonesia. This police action, when necessary, has been followed by armed intervention.
On your point of allowing Africans to look after themselves, etc., I think that is terribly difficult in practice. I’m not sure about the Latin American scene, but in Africa their Union is in no way as functional as the EU for example. Corruption and nepotism, as well as inter-state rivalries (as well as blatant campaigns of ‘ethnic cleansing’, as in southern Sudan) too often get in the road of regional peace efforts. African Union peace-keeping missions in DR Congo, for example, have been widely condemned for both doing not enough, and for getting involved in partisan fighting (usually for the central government, no matter how illegitimate).
In this vacuum, the US jumps in, whether rightly or wrongly. The Mogadishu government (just like Kabul), even if feeble and hardly popularly-backed, is unfortunately the main actor with which the US can do business–obviously to protect its own interests. Whether centralised states are the correct model for such socially-fragmented and war-torn countries is another question altogether.
Finally (I will try to keep this comment under essay length), I think your point about the ‘multipolar world’ is very interesting. It is echoed from re-emerging powers such as Russia and China to Brazil and other states wanting a chair at the great power table. American unipolarity was a mirage of the 1990s, I believe, partly resulting from the triumphalist feeling that the other super-power (the ‘Evil Empire’) had been defeated. However, a genuine multipolar world is only starting to emerge. Some argue that it will make the world more stable and prone to international cooperation, and others believe the exact opposite.
I am rather for the latter. From where I sit and write this, the Australian view (published in a 2009 Defence White Paper) is that real multipolarity will mean a return to geopolitical rivalries in the different regions of the world we have been discussing. As unfashionable as it might be to say it, great power politics could well and truly be back (if it ever disappeared). Canberra has warned of potential power clashes in the Indian Ocean-Southeast Asian region (presumably arising from Indo-Chinese strategic rivalry for control over the Malacca straits and access to African natural resources, as such people as Robert Kagan argue). Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has explicitly linked this grim prospect to the gradual decline of the United States’ security (and nuclear) umbrella in the region.
Foreign policy-makers worldwide are not only keeping an eytu on China’s ‘peaceful rise’ (at the same time that Beijing is modernising and expanding its deep water fleet), but also on Moscow’s resurgence in Europe’s security neighbourhood and–even more worryingly–the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the greater Middle East; topped off by an (alleged) Iranian-Saudi tussle over regional hegemony. My contention is that, if the world seems unstable now, things could get a whole lot worse within our lifetime–especially if the US retracts into an isolationist shell, perhaps reeling from failed foreign interventions (in Afghanistan or elsewhere).
If the picture I present is slightly exaggerated in your view, and a bit too pessimistic, it is for the purpose of making my point painfully obvious. If I am a classical realist in this regard, I am also a closet idealist–maybe even Utopian. I wish that the world would not be so security-obsessed and irrational in almost all powerful actors (perhaps with the exception of the “post-Hobbesian EU”) talk about their self-defence, nuclear deterrence doctrines, etc (for an example of the latter, see ‘The Nukes We Need’ in that same edition of Foreign Affairs. In mind-numbingly grim details, the authors argue that nuclear weapons are needed as a deterrent threat against potential enemies. What is most terrifying, though, is how convincing and logically-demonstrated their arguments are, to me anyway). If a vast segment of most governments around the world (especially in the military, intelligence and security departments; it is well known that these tend to be more hawkish then, say, the Department of Agriculture) think in such a realist light, then how can such entrenched views be shed overnight?
It just seems to me that, as humans, we are more prone to remembering our suffering and humiliation at the hands of others, as opposed to the humanitarian feeling which animates most (I stress ‘most’) of us on a daily basis. The instinct for justice can quickly become one for retribution and revenge–doing everyone a disservice in the long run. But this is a philosophical question on human nature, to which people are entitled their own views. Translated onto the world stage, though, this would suggest that fear, cynicism, and distrust of the Other’s perceived intentions (which realists call the ‘insecurity dilemma’)–however much we may abhor that fact–would tend to trump international cooperation and peace, most of the time. It takes a shared sense of threat among nation-states–for example, from transnational terrorism–to unite them, or at least their interests .
I wish that the UN could become the institution to truly regulate such potentially dangerous trends. But as long as the Security Council remains the privileged nuclear-armed and WWII-victors’ club, in my opinion, the UN risks becoming more and more irrelevant. Genuine reform is what is needed to reinvigorate that institution’s importance in world affairs, as well as its aura of international legitimacy. Easier said than done, I know. As we have seen, multilateralism failed at Copenhagen, where a bitter (and petty) dispute along rich-poor lines may have dashed our hopes of a binding political solution to climate change. Could it be that smaller, more decisive but still representative institutions such as the G20 are beginning to cut the UN’s grass?
I leave you on that question, because I have written far, far too much (once more). Apologies, and I hope that it’s not too long to read. Feel free to reply only to what you want. I have to stop writing essays on your blog! Haha. But thanks for taking the time to keep this going.
Regards,
January 6, 2010 at 1:46 am
anythingandeverythingblog
Yes, good talking to you Daryl (my name is Sean btw, I guess I’m anonymous here at my blog, lol)… I assume one of us will not respond at some point, this is how it seems to be on the internet, haha.
That’s funny you mention where the 9/11 attacks were concocted. Maybe you already knew that, I just read that (I think it was today or yesterday) on Stephen Walt’s blog (I didn’t even know he had a blog until recently). He’s one of the people who got me interested in Obama’s peace prize speech btw, I read a commentary that he wrote on it.
On one of the talking head shows, I don’t even know who this ‘expert’ was, was saying terrorism is something that will never be eliminated (it will only be tamped down), that makes me wonder if the people running the war on terror ever even thought if the nation-state strategy will be successful at all (I think Rumsfeld admitted something like this once, he was saying he was essentially running a war without end, but I don’t recall ever seeing anyone make much out of Rumsfeld’s comment). Of course, there has been a lot of criticism of the War on Terror that it is a war on a concept anyway, not an easy target to eradicate.
I don’t know how much you’ve read Wallerstein (I’d recommend his books After Liberalism and The Decline of American Power, I actually took a course with him in college) but he has been talking for a long time about the decline of American power (military and otherwise). Of course, I think there is more talk, maybe than ever in recent history about that; but I’m pretty sure he was talking about it before many others were. I can’t remember if it was Wallerstein that said this, but I can remember reading something early on in Bush’s term where the author was arguing that part of what Bush was doing was putting off the inevitable (with his wars and [military] spending).
I’ve more than once heard Wallerstein described as a Marxist btw, I think you mentioned not liking Marxist rhetoric. Wallerstein is a Marxist in a strange way though IMO, his analysis is very influenced by Marxism, but he is very pragmatic at the same time (I’ve see many of his articles posted on socialist websites, including the Monthly Review, which is probably the major socialist publication in the U.S.). I’ve read a number of positive things he’s said about Obama (although I have no idea it he voted for him, or at all), although I’m pretty sure he considers Obama to be a centrist (even center-right). Most of the Latin American leftists I think Wallerstein is a supporter of, though I don’t know about Chavez.
You raise a lot of good points at the end of your comment. I probably don’t have all the answers about what the U.S. national military strategy should be (even setting aside the war on terror), lol. IMO, however, U.S. presidents have not and do not do enough to avoid war. You are an Australian, I’m an American I would like my country to be known for something other than warring, and killing innocents in drone attacks and things like that (of course this doesn’t happen everyday, but I take the killing of innocent civilians very seriously).
I’ve seen Obama to be pretty close to Bush on far too many issues. He’s a PR genius and a very good speaker (though I’ll take others word for it, I must be missing something he is a good speaker but not a sublime one IMO); a lot of his ‘change’ has been cosmetic, too much so for me. I don’t think Obama’s going to have a populist epiphany (or anything) and I’ll see him be the president I’d like him to be (he’s not listening to me anyway, of course), but what can a poor boy do, haha? I’m just writing on my meager blog to try and influence policy. I think I believe that the truth will set me free more than anything, even though the truth as I see it will more than likely not reach the grand Obama, lol.
January 6, 2010 at 1:53 am
anythingandeverythingblog
Daryl,
I don’t know if you’ve seen this, an interesting perspective on Afghanistan from Stephen Walt: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/18/the_safe_haven_myth
January 6, 2010 at 2:08 am
anythingandeverythingblog
Daryl,
Maybe e-IR will become an important website (for me I’m saying, it probably already is for others, lol), actually I think this piece is really worth reading; I’m not familiar with the author at all: http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2644