But four days later in his Memorial Day remarks,
Obama said, “Our nation is still at war.”
Why did the earlier speech set off Republicans? He
acknowledged that terrorism can never be completely eliminated and that a
risk-free society is impossible. He conceded that U.S. military action breeds
enemies. He admitted that not every foreign violent organization is a threat to
Americans. He even quoted James Madison: “No nation could preserve its freedom
in the midst of continual warfare.”
Indeed, Obama said some things that need saying, but
will he do what needs doing? More precisely, will he stop doing what shouldn’t
be done?
The speech provides no reason for optimism. For one
thing, his premise is wrong: The U.S. government was on a perpetual war footing
before the attacks of 9/11, intervening one way or another in many places. The
“war on terror” has just been more visible.
Obama says he wants to understand the roots of
terrorism, but he just repeats bromides. “These threats don’t arise in a
vacuum,” he said. “Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by
a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with
the United States and the West.”
But this implies the “extremist ideology” arose in a
vacuum. Obama shows no understanding that Muslim violence has been a response
to generations of Western and most recently American efforts to maintain
hegemony in the Muslim world. These
efforts have consisted in direct overt and covert intervention, backing for
brutal and corrupt dictators and monarchs, and enabling of Israel’s repression
of the Palestinians. From Osama bin Laden on down, the perpetrators of
anti-American violence have consistently said so.
Despite Obama’s acknowledgement of the dangers, to
Americans and others, of perpetual U.S. warfare, one strains to find signs of
change in the speech. He says “our response to terrorism can’t depend on
military or law enforcement alone,” but he still envisions a large role for the
military: He says the first order of business is to “finish the work of
defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.” And, “Beyond the Afghan theater,
we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces.” But “its associated forces”
is a conveniently vague justification for continued U.S. militarism. It goes
beyond Congress’s 2001 authorization for military force.
While Obama promises only to narrow the use of
drones and shift responsibility from the CIA to the Pentagon, we can’t be sure
even this will happen – or matter. His “presidential policy guidance” is
classified, and he reserves the authority to target alleged militants who pose
a “continuing and imminent threat” when he decides that other alternatives are
unavailable or are too risky. Yet his administration has drained the word
“imminent” of meaning
“Before any strike is taken,” he added, “there must
be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest
standard we can set.” But he conceded that his administration has killed an
undisclosed number of noncombatants. Independent sources say several hundred
have been killed — while entire villages live in terror of the next strike.
This will not change.
Remember that administration targets are only
accused of planning attacks. There is no due process, and an oversight board
would not change that.
Obama defended his killing of American Anwar
al-Awlaki in Yemen on the grounds that al-Awlaki had helped plan attacks, but
Obama offered no proof, and investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill says the
first efforts to kill Awlaki preceded the terrorist plots he is allegedly
linked to. And what about the separate drone killings of al-Awlaki’s
16-year-old son and other Americans?
Obama also renewed his long-dormant call for closing
Guantanamo — but not before the mass hunger strike and force-feedings that the
whole world is watching.
This all looks more like legacy preparation than
real change in policy. Witness Syria and Iran.
So why are Republicans fussing? Obama said, “We
cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root.”
For Republicans, that’s un-American.
About the author: Sheldon Richman
is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax,
Va., and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Visit
his blog “Free Association” at http://www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.
This article was published by The Future of Freedom
Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment