December 10, 2009 by Marc Lamont Hill
Today, President Obama will land in Norway, where he will officially accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Now that the President has committed 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, my mild annoyance and amusement about the Norwegian gag gift has sprouted into full-fledged outrage. How can a president who is not only managing but escalating unnecessary wars receive an award as an agent of peace? Even more absurd is the reaction from the Left, which has failed to call Obama on the carpet for the very policies and practices for which we lambasted President Bush.
Like George W. Bush, Barack Obamaâ€™s Afghanistan policy is rooted in a belief that military escalation and indefinite occupation are the keys to global security and the expansion of democracy. Like Bush, Obama has refused to substantively invest in Afghani jobs, housing, and education, all of which are traditional keys to an effective counter-insurgency strategy. Like Bush, Obama has dipped into the reservoir of fear, scaring Americans into thinking that military aggression, even the pre-emptive sort, is the only thing that will keep Americans safe. Yet somehow, despite these and other eerie similarities to President Bush, the anti-war Left has sat on its hands while President Obama operates.
Even more disturbing than Obamaâ€™s warmongering is the blatant calculation behind it. Unlike Bush, whose wrongheadedness was at least borne out of a coherent (though perverted) set of principles, Obama appears willing to act out of pure political expediency. After getting public pressure from his generals and bloodthirsty Republicans for his â€œditheringâ€ (a Bushian term used to mock the Presidentâ€™s audacious use of facts, evidence, and wise council) Obama finally caved to his rivals and sent troops. Then, in order to satisfy the anxious anti-war left, Obama promises a withdrawal date. Sound good? Sure, except for one catch: He never promised a completion of the withdrawal, which hinges upon the ability of a severely compromised Karzai government and woefully underprepared Afghani troops to take over the military reigns. In short, Obama, like Bush, has American troops and innocent Afghani citizens in harms way without a clear or reasonable exit strategy.
In fairness, Obama has never lied about his desire to go into Afghanistan. Despite what many Obamaphiles want to believe, the President was not â€œanti-warâ€, but rather â€œanti-Iraq war.â€ Now that Obama has fulfilled his hawkish promise, the ball is in our court. Were we against President Bush or were we against his policies? Were we against the war in Iraq or all unnecessary wars? When we elected Obama, were we looking for a new driver or a new direction? Based on what Iâ€™ve seen so far, the answer isnâ€™t pretty.
- Categories: MLH
Leave a Reply
- WPD on Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement More Racist Than The Tea Party? said "Dr" Hill is pathetic.
- Esty on Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement More Racist Than The Tea Party? said Occupy Wall St. is just straight stupid. I work on ...
- F Mize on OPEN POST said Marc, I saw your interview on O'reilly tonight and ...
- View More Comments
January 17, 2011
Cameron University (Lawton, OK)
January 18, 2011
Farris State University (Big Rapids, MI)
January 20, 2011
Ripon College (Ripon, WI)
January 25, 2011
William Patterson University (Wayne, NJ)
February 2, 2011
Central State University (Wilberforce, OH)
February 5, 2011
University of Tennessee-Knoxville (Knoxville, TN)