Seems a black man can win the presidency of the United States, change the course of racial history in the process, and still get no respect.
It’s unfortunate, a little sad really, that Barack Obama’s now taking heat for being awarded the Nobel peace prize, as if it was his idea.
The naysayers point to Obama’s plan to send more troops to Afghanistan as proof he’s undeserving of the label of peacemaker, which of course completely ignores the fact he’s committed to a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ll put aside for the moment his efforts to engage Iran, despite huge resistance at home, put to rest missile defence in Europe and renewed push for nuclear disarmament with Russia.
Not good enough, say Middle East-ophiles. What about the Palestinian crisis? Hmm. I always thought undoing Iran’s nuke ambitions was part of that equation, but what do I know?
Barely a year in and Obama’s expected to undo centuries-old hostilities. I find it a small miracle that he got that hawk of all Israeli hawks Netanyahu in the same room with Palestinian head Mahmoud Abbas.
Which brings us back to Afghanistan, arguably the biggest albatross around Obama’s neck, given the destabilizing effect the war there is having in neighbouring Pakistan and what that means for the planet’s future nuclear security.
The Toronto Coalition to Stop The War held a candlelight vigil in front of the U.S. consulate on University Avenue Wednesday (October 7) to mark the 8-year anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan.
Seems like only yesterday a madman named Bush sent in the warplanes to catch a terrorist named bin Laden. At least, that was the stated intention after the Twin Towers came crumbling down.
Was Afghanistan merely a pretext for a much larger Middle East strategy for the former Bush administration? Seems clear today.
If the goal was to capture bin Laden, why did the Americans wait almost a full month after 9/11 to send in the troops, thereby giving bin Laden time to plot his escape?
And just how did bin Laden slip through the noose at The Battle of Tora Bora after anti-Taliban militias, and U.S. and British special forces had him cornered? The question has been asked before by others better positioned than I to know the truth, former U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry, even Obama.
Higher ups in the U.S. military command may not have wanted bin Laden dead at all. (See the Pentagon’s earlier denials that Obama was ever at Tora Bora.)
Certainly, it was in the Bush administration’s wider political interests at the time to keep public enemy number one alive and at large.
The supposed “hunt” for bin Laden would be used to justify the vast military mobilization that followed and ultimately, the war in Iraq. Pure CIA.
Fast forward to 2009 and conditions in Afghanistan are getting worse.
Corruption in the Afghan government is widespread, opium production fuelling Taliban insurgents is at record levels, poverty and unemployment are on the rise, reconstruction efforts stalled and NATO bombs are continuing to kill Afghan civilians.
How did the Afghan mission go so wrong?
Obama wants to send more troops. But more troops will mean more violence, peace groups say.
The real tragedy is there may not be a choice if we want to salvage something for peace-loving Afghanis.
That recently leaked 66-page report penned by U.S. commander Stanley McChrystal, the one calling for even more boots on the ground than Obama’s already committed, is a real eye opener.
The report has been widely seen as calling for an Iraq-like troop surge for the sake of putting down the enemy, and nothing more.
But McChrystal’s plan is more nuanced than that. It’s aim: to reverse the collateral damage, civilian and political, caused by what he calls the total failure of NATO forces to engage the Afghan people.
“Pre-occupied with the protection of our own forces,” writes McChrystal, “we have operated in a manner that distances us – physically and psychologically – from the people we seek to protect.”
McChrystal continues, “We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage.”
Then this bomb: “Security may not come from the barrel of a gun. Better force protection may be counterintuitive it might come from less armour and less distance from the population.”
McChrystal’s conclusion: more firepower’s not the answer. A radically new approach that emphasizes face-to-face relationships, rather than close combat. And takes troops out of armoured vehicles, and from behind the walls of forward operating bases.
Once, Afghanistan was a “just” war, if one accepts there’s such a thing. Most of the world agreed. No longer.
But leaving may no longer be the most prudent option. Across the border in Pakistan, where insurgent leaders are based, the fight now is to keep nukes out of the hands of extremists. This past week’s attacks bring that point clearly home.
Bush is the one who caused this mess. Obama’s been left with the delicate task of cleaning it up. No one said peace was going to be easy.[rssbreak]
