|
|
Vertaal:
              Waarom Obama de misdadige „oorlog op verschrikking“ zou moeten beëindigen
Woensdag, 26 November, 2008
Door Gary Kamiya | Barack Obama zal een ontmoedigende lijst van prioriteiten confronteren wanneer hij bureau op Januari neemt. 20. Het redden van de economie van de natie - als er om het even wat verlaten zijn om tegen die tijd te redden - zal duidelijk bij de bovenkant van de lijst zijn. Maar het is enkel belangrijk dat Obama onmiddellijk een eind aan de „oorlog op verschrikking,“ verklaart en alle beleid omkeert dat in zijn naam is uitgevoerd. George W. Oorlog van Bush de „op verschrikking is“ een unmitigated ramp geweest. Eerst, is het unwinnable. Het terrorisme is geen vijand. Het is a Het stille intelligentiewerk, de coördinatie met bondgenoten en de wetshandhaving zouden zoveel mogelijk moeten worden gebruikt. There may be times when military action is needed, but it should be minimized because of its negative effects. Obama should make it a top priority to address the conditions that fuel anti-American hatred. In Afghanistan, this means rebuilding the country; in Pakistan, not propping up unpopular despots like Musharraf; in Israel and the Palestinian territories, throwing the full weight of American diplomacy behind a two-state solution. When it comes to fighting terrorism, America’s most powerful weapon is not its army, it is its brain. Fortunately, we are about to get a president who has a brain and is not afraid to use it. Obama famously said that he didn’t just want to end the war in Iraq, he wanted to end “the mind-set that led to war.” And the ultimate expression of that mind-set is the “war on terror.” Unfortunately, Obama has given some mixed messages about whether he is going to end the “war on terror” and the wrongheaded policies that have resulted from it. His most troubling statements concern Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. In his debates with McCain, Obama consistently charged that the U.S. had “taken its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan and had failed to make capturing or killing bin Laden its top priority. These arguments, while not untrue, implicitly legitimize the “war on terror,” and simply critique Bush for fighting it in the wrong way. Obama’s proposal to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan, though qualified by his greater emphasis on rebuilding the country, seems to indicate that he believes the Taliban can be defeated militarily. This is a recipe for failure: As former British Foreign Service officer Rory Stewart noted in the New York Times, the U.S. military buildup in Afghanistan has inflamed the Taliban resistance and made the situation worse. In a recent interview on “60 Minutes,” Obama said he would make capturing or killing bin Laden a top priority, and he has threatened to strike terrorist targets inside Pakistan if the Pakistan government proved unwilling or unable to do so. Killing or capturing bin Laden is obviously desirable. But as Mideast expert and Salon contributor Juan Cole has pointed out, achieving that goal may come at too high a price. A major U.S. military campaign in the tribal agencies on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, would anger Pakistanis and weaken the Pakistan government. It’s not clear this is an acceptable trade-off. Further doubts about whether Obama intends to fundamentally change Bush’s foreign policy have been raised by his choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Clinton represents that sizable wing of the Democratic Party that went along with Bush’s “war on terror.” She voted to authorize force in Iraq, voted to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization — a vote widely seen as giving Bush a green light to attack Iran — and has been unswervingly “pro-Israel.” (In fact, as the progressive American Jewish organization J Street has pointed out, “pro-Israel” politicians, invariably ones who toe the Israel lobby’s line, are not actually acting in Israel’s best interests.) Despite these developments, there is still reason to believe that Obama’s approach to fighting terrorism will be radically different from Bush’s. He has consistently called for robust Mideast diplomacy, including talking with Iran. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for Obama to make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis a top priority. Scowcroft, an eminent member of the realist wing of America’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment, has advised Obama on national security issues. In general, Obama’s Mideast views seem to track closely with the realist, diplomacy-driven policies recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which Bush famously ignored. As for Obama’s hawkish remarks on Afghanistan, they were probably driven by political concerns. During the campaign, Obama needed to shore up his national-security credentials, and talking tough on Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaida gave him a free chance to do so. (In one of the odder ironies of the campaign, McCain came across as more measured and diplomatic on Pakistan than Obama.) To a lesser degree, the same thing is probably true of Clinton. Following the traditional Democratic playbook, she felt she had to lean to the right on national security issues, and some of her “pro-Israel” and anti-Iranian tilt can be explained by her perceived need to cater to her New York constituents. In any case, Obama likely realized the more hawkish Clinton will make a more effective, bulletproof emissary of change. Who better to get tough with Israel in negotiations than the woman who threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on the Jewish state? Nixon in China, meet Hillary in Jerusalem. Finally, beyond political tea-leaf reading, there’s the simple matter of effectiveness. Everything we know about Obama indicates that he is driven above all by pragmatism. His nuanced approach to America’s economic crisis and his choices of highly experienced Washington insiders as his top advisors make it clear that he wants results. And the “war on terror” is simply not working. There are dozens of reasons why it is not working, but the most important one is brutally simple: It is not in America’s interests to have U.S. troops in Arab/Muslim countries. Whatever good they do — and the U.S. troops in Iraq have done a lot of good — is outweighed by the inadvertent harm they do, the ill will they engender and the insupportable burden they place on the U.S. economy. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld who acknowledged this problem, when he famously asked, “Are we creating more terrorists than we’re killing?” It has become increasingly apparent that we are. Declaring that the “war on terror” was over would have immediate positive effects. Our European allies would rejoice. Al-Qaida, already so worried about the PR fallout from Obama’s election that its number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, ludicrously accused him of being a “house slave,” would be further discredited in the Arab/Muslim world. It would be easier to begin negotiations with the Taliban and Iran. It would send a strong signal to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that America’s new president is unequivocally committed to a two-state solution and is breaking with Bush’s approach. It would make clear to the entire world, still reeling from the high-handed Bush years, that the real America is back — an America strong and confident enough not to feel the need to swagger through the world smashing things. Domestically, it would reenergize Obama’s core supporters, who are growing slightly uneasy as he makes one efficient-but-Establishment move after another. At the same time, Obama faces serious institutional and ideological obstacles to ending Bush’s approach. The powers that be are loathe to admit that there are problems for which there are no military solutions — especially with troops in the field. Patriotism, politicians’ need to appear “tough,” an unwillingness to admit that American lives were wasted and delusional hopes that victory is just around the corner make it hard for Obama to end the “war on terror” and the mind-set that led to it. In a larger sense, ending the “war on terror” means reappraising the entire vast American military empire, and the strategic and economic consequences of our role as global policeman. This is not just a change of tactics, it’s a paradigm shift. It won’t be easy for Obama to make this fundamental change. But until he does, we will continue to thrash about — and find ourselves sinking deeper into the Middle East quicksand. Have Your Say: Why Obama should end the criminal “war on terror” Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. 2 Responses to “Why Obama should end the criminal “war on terror””
Related News
|
Blairwatch: The Blair Years and the war crimes tribunal - UPDATED Last post by Regina @ 10:29 PM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Press TV - Tony Blair under investigation for war crimes Last post by Unregistered @ 10:00 PM Afghanistan war an ?8bn disaster Last post by Unregistered @ 09:20 PM Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan Sacrifice Last post by Unregistered @ 09:16 PM Woolworths enters administration Last post by Unregistered @ 09:02 PM Chinese workers Rebel Last post by Unregistered @ 09:01 PM Law Lords block "Fasicst Pig Filth" bid to stop critical mass cyclists Last post by Unregistered @ 08:46 PM Beacon of hope Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 08:18 PM Larry Silverstein LOST MONEY on 911 Last post by Unregistered @ 08:13 PM An American Eviction Story Last post by Thinking Man's Idiot @ 08:12 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More World News  Archive
|
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
I have to ponder where you people think the war on terror is illegal. If a masked clad jihadist broke into your home with the intent of wiping you and your family out do you fight back or just lie down and allow him to kill you all? Pathetic