Did I Just Get the President I Voted For?
[Update: OK, this is just wrong.]
The award of a Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was as good a reason as any to ridicule Europeans, but I can’t help thinking, with malicious delight, how much the shallow, vapid, cynical pacifists in attendance must have hated his acceptance speech — for the award itself was a cynical act, as Obama probably knows.
I’ve made no secret of my skepticism that President Obama was prepared for the office he has since assumed, and there are certainly aspects of his agenda — economic, mostly — that I believe could do our country lasting harm. But I also believe that in a democratic society, patriotic citizens owe their elected leaders the presumption of good faith whenever that’s appropriate. It has given me some unease that President Obama has felt the need to apologize for every perceived slight or grievance of the last century, and his lack of confidence in our ideals has led to some missed opportunities to support the protesters in Tehran, or dissidents in China (much less the ajummas of North Korea).
With Obama’s Nobel speech, he has finally done something to earn that prize by pushing back against the moral retardation that saps the will of free societies to persist, and which equates terrorists with the greatest force for peace and freedom in world history:
To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism ““ it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions ““ not just treaties and declarations ““ that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.
The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest ““ because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another ““ that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
For the first time in his adult lifetime, he actually seems proud of his country. A wartime president needs that understanding of what we are defending. I hope he meant it. I hope we will hear more like this. It needed saying, and it’s sad that it did.
I hate to burst your bubble, but I think he the irony in the prize. Nothing more. His agenda is clear; the war is an albatross and is more interested in the domestic spending spree.
I admire Joshua for his good intent and open mindedness. However, I do not share the embarrassing hubris of those in the MSM who are heaping accolades upon Obama simply because he has suddenly realized that the psychotic desire of Islamic extremists bent on destroying the United States is evil.
This speech is a justification of his (force-fed by events) policy in Afghanistan. He does not believe in American power and is merely mouthing the words rolling down his teleprompter that are no doubt penned by his speech writers and are not his own.
Anyone who would stand before thousands of Arab Muslims in Cairo last spring (and millions more by TV) and tell them “Iraq was a war of choice” has spit in the face of every OIF vet, every patriotic American, and every Iraqi oppressed, tortured, raped and killed by Saddam and the extremists who tried to wreck the infant government in Baghdad.
Don’t fall for this cardboard cut out display of faux patriotism, Joshua. This same Obama is trying to sell out American sovereignty in Copenhagen and is shoving government run health care that most Americans do not want down our unwilling throats.
This is the best Nobel Peace Prize for irony since Henry Kissinger and Lê Ãức Thá» won it in 1973. But the prize has been denigrated a lot in the last twenty years by some rather outrageous nominations.
I am just worried that the surge will not work, and will cost a lot of money. It seems far too small (in troop numbers) for an effective counter-insurgency, and what are we fighting for? A bunch of Narco-kleptocrats? Much of the Taliban use North-western Pakistan for a safe haven; and the real menace is the radical cosmopolitan Islamists they harbor. Maybe it would be better to wage a war in North-west Pakistan at least from a Security point of view…
Peter, People attacked and killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil from there. Yes, it really is that simple. We’re there to defend our own country, and a punitive expedition won’t prevent Bin Laden from reestablishing his control there. Any end state that leaves Afghanistan in chaos (see 1993) means al Qaeda will dominate enough of Afghanistan to claim victory, impunity, and a colossal psychological boost in the Muslim world. We can’t prevent that without plenty of nation building.
Too few in the West realize that, while Afghanistan has never been a truly unitary state — and we should not try to change that — Afghanistan was also a relatively peaceful, prosperous confederation of tribes in the 1960’s and 70’s. It was the Soviet invasion from 1979-89 that thoroughly destroyed the country, killed 2 million Afghans, drove 5 million out of the country, and internally displaced millions more (out of a pre-war population of 15 million). Soviet “tactics” successfully depopulated large parts of the country — they used chemical weapons, destroyed villages and irrigation systems, strafed caravans of refugees, carpet-combed cities, and seeded the country with 8 million land mines. Some of those mines were disguised to look like toys. They’re still killing and maiming people to this day, and they still have large areas of arable land out of production. So much of the challenge is undoing the reversible portions of what a U.N. Special Rapporteur called “migratory genocide.”
Now, I know that for some people, there’s grave disappointment at having failed to secure our defeat in Iraq. I realize there are people in this world, and even in this country, who beat off to pictures of the fall of Saigon (not that I’m suggesting you’re one of them, but those people certainly have an influence beyond their actual numbers). Maybe the recognition of this explains why Afghanistan went from being the “good war” of necessity and consensus to being the graveyard of empires the moment the election ended.
You expected Sweden? Look, if Afghanistan weren’t a basket case, it wouldn’t have become a launching pad for al Qaeda to begin with. Afghanistan has always been a loose confederation of tribes, and with many of them deprived of other means to survive (see above) they’ve turned to growing opium, which happens to be a hardy plant that grows in dry places. I don’t excuse it, but put yourself in the place of people who can either grow poppies or starve on principle. Darwin tends to favor corruption in those circumstances.
Afghanistan will only change when it’s secure enough for the tribal regions to re-grow their orchards and rebuild their irrigation systems, and for industry to take hold and grow in the cities. The cities will then draw off young, unemployed men, who will take root in new neighborhoods (initially slums) away from their tribal villages, next to men from other tribes. That process will take generations, but will eventually result in some kind of national assimilation and a gradual reduction in the influence of tribes. The central government will be enriched by this, too, as long as it maintains good relations with the tribal leaders (some of whom are, face it, warlords) until it’s strong enough to impose its values. Our function is to secure the population sufficiently for that process to begin and build some momentum. I will state with confidence that it this will not happen by 2011. It will take 20 years, though that will not mean 20 years of heavy casualties. Most of the hard fighting will be within the next 5 years. It can be done, because fundamentally, the Afghan people despise the Taliban.
Well, that’s what Obama once said during the campaign. It’s an easy thing to say, though I don’t doubt that a Pakistan surrender chorus would form soon afterward (there is always a surrender chorus, and it’s surprisingly good at picking a target and staying on message). There would be comparisons to Cambodia in 1970, though Pakistan today does let our drones operate to keep the core AQ in its caves. Pakistan is fighting some of the Taliban elements, though without much spirit, determination, or persistence. But on balance, I suppose that beats invading and further destabilizing a nation with nuclear weapons.
I do understand what your saying, and I do agree; Afghanistan was and still remains (much less so thanks to the invasion) a terrorist training camp. The war was necessary certainly, and the surge is justified to a certain extent. I also agree about the tribal nature of the country, I have talked to Afghans about it, and they say exactly as you do.
I am not someone who tosses off over the fall of Saigon, I hope you don’t get that impression, nor do I want Afghanistan or the surge to fail. I am just less optimistic, and worried. The fact is the Taliban are indigenous, and they will take a long time to root out, if we stay there long enough, they will disappear as a meaningful force. But someone has to clear up North-western Pakistan as well, otherwise the terrorist problem in that area will certainly not go away.
“Peter, People attacked and killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil from there.”
I always thought that a majority of Saudi Arabian born attacked us on 9/11.
You’re intentionally obfuscating the fact that such an attack could not have been planned in or launched from Saudi Arabia.* A U.S. invasion of Saudi Arabia can’t accomplish anything that can’t be better accomplished with diplomatic and political pressure.
*This is no way defends that sphincter of the Earth and all humanity known as Saudi Arabia.
I don’t have time to look for the article now, but I had read that the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan were mostly composed of Pakistanis and not people from within Afghanistan. However, the Taliban coming from Pakistan are of Pashtun origin which is the same ethnic group in southern Afghanistan that comprises the largest percentage of the population.
OK I am very weary of becoming involved in what appears to be a somewhat sprawling and generalised debate in which few are likely to change their opinions. I am curious though, Mr Stanton, as to why you believe the attack couldn’t have been planned in or launched from Saudi Arabia? Regardless, the existence of Al Qaeda simply cannot be separated from the political situation in S.A. — I know of an extremely interesting piece of academic work regarding this subject but unfortunately can’t hunt it down online at the moment — and this is often overlooked in western anti-terrorist discourse*.
*I’m not defending them; I can’t stand the sons of bitches, etc.
Saudi Arabia’s rulers may be passive aggressive and contemptible, but they’re not stupid. Sure, they indoctrinate their kids in the ideology of medieval theocracy, but they know where their bread is buttered. Saudi Arabia in 2001 was terrified of Iran and Iraq, and the the last thing its ruling family wanted was to lose America as a benefactor and military ally.
On a related note, I found this article in the L.A. Times fascinatin’ (if I may channel Ross Perot for a moment):
I knew this would happen. Eventually, President Obama had to choose between pleasing the Angry Left and the majority of voters who will decide whether to reelect him. And guess what?
The Angry Left is so far up its own ass with self-righteous masochism that it just can’t bring itself to concede the possibility that last year’s war of necessity might still be a war of necessity. What’s always missing from their calculus is the security of the United States. As a result of their uncompromising devotion to capitulation, the Democratic Party could be heading for a big break with the Democratic mainstream in a way we haven’t seen since 1968. Except in 1968, the Democrats held a much broader, more enduring majority in Congress.
Joshua I was supposed to be exhibiting snarky sarcasm with my post. I know that Afghanistan is basically a large boot camp for training terrorists, especially the royal Saudi family’s rejects.
Alrighty, then.
Just to clarify my point earlier, I wasn’t saying that the Saudi government were behind the attacks, just that Al Qaeda is a predominantly Saudi organisation whose existence is strongly linked to Saudi politics.
Anyway, someone above attacked Obama for saying Iraq was a “war of choice” or somesuch. I wonder what people make, then, of Tony Blair’s recent admission that the main reason given for the war — WMD — was actually more or less irrelevant and that he would have gone to war regardless… that is to say, that it was a choice, rather than a reaction to an urgent threat, as we were told.
You mischaracterize of Mr. Blair’s statements now and in 2003 (a sin you can be forgiven in light of the BBC’s patently biased efforts to twist his words). Mr. Blair did not say that the WMD issue was irrelevant. What he said was that WMD stockpiles or not, Saddam’s history of attacking his neighbors, using WMD, and committing genocide were other, independent reasons that justified the invasion.
How quickly we forget all of the embarrassment the BBC has suffered because of its reporting on this issue. I can hear the scraping sounds of an axe being ground. Hans Blix seems to be quoted more extensively than Mr. Blair itself, which not only helps the BBC deny us the full context of Blair’s words, but helps to present the BBC’s own view by proxy. Indeed, I don’t know when I’ve ever seen a more selective collection of shrill quotations.
Which is why we owe it to ourselves to examine just how different this really is from what Blair said in 2003:
What we’ll never know, of course, is how events would have unfolded without the invasion. Whether Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda or not, he was clearly supporting, harboring, and financing terrorists. It was only a matter of time before his next genocidal purge of the Kurds or Shiites. It was only a matter of time before he invaded another neighbor to secure more oil wealth. It was only a matter of time before he used chemical weapons again, or developed biologicial or nuclear weapons.
Financially, the invasion was costly, but so was the permanent military presence we had to maintain throughout the region to deter Saddam. We also know that the “alternative” of keeping sanctions in place was falling apart under the strain of Russian, French, Chinese, and Turkish cheating. And of course, we know that the U.N. itself was bought off by Saddam, thanks to Claudia Rosett’s exposure of the Oil-for-Food Scandal.
And as for the prevention of genocide, if you acknowledge the legitimacy of that goal, compare Iraq today to how the “multilateralist,” UN-based approach has worked in the Sudan or North Korea. Would you seriously compare the humanitarian accomplishments of Ban Ki Moon to those of the U.S. Army in Iraq, even with all of the inevitable tragic errors rolled into the equation? Show me the last time a genocide was stopped without force. Yes, sometimes you can stop a genocide by aiding and perhaps even arming indigenous forces. I happen to see that as the ultimate solution in North Korea, if I may bring us back on topic for a moment. But no such force was capable of challenging Saddam in the indeterminate amount of time we had left before he brought disaster upon the world again.
“and which equates terrorists with the greatest force for peace and freedom in world history:”
I continue to be fascinated by how seemingly reasonable, intelligent, well-informed people can say lines like this with an absolutely straight face. Or at least I’m assuming you had a straight face as you typed it. We don’t give a rat’s ass about ‘peace and freedom’ or saving people from wicked tyrants unless it directly impacts our own political or financial interests, as the attitude of the U.S. government toward…say, the pre-Gulf War Hussein regime, or the Second Congo War, attested. And, in fact, I would question how wise it would be if we did: the U.S. military is funded by the tax dollars of American citizens for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign invaders. Right now, it has stretched that definition rather questionably to ‘protecting the United States from people who could conceivably pose a major threat to our interests in some region at some time in the future’, with a corresponding leap in spending and military presence in pretty much every corner of the planet. Would you really want to stretch it’s mission to, ‘saving the world in the name of Democracy, no matter the cost’?
No. I have no love for the Roh-style Korean left, or those like them elsewhere, who immediately blame the United States for anything or everything while showing astonishingly indifference or even out-and-out support for the truly vicious, nasty governments of the world. But neither will I ever be able to understand those with your mentality, who can only see the United States with the white hat valiantly riding off to battle the black-hatted evil terrorists without accepting the quite human possibility that on some level all parties involved are primarily self-interested assholes. Is that possibility really so painful to admit? That the U.S. is mainly looking out for itself, like every other nation on the planet?
Ever heard of “enlightened self interest?”
Sorry, are you suggesting I’ve overlooked Hans Blix, or do you wish to offer some other suggestion?