Deciding Obama

NYT today has the story of Obama's decision to up the ante in Afghanistan. It's a pretty typical account of how the various factions made their case and how Obama processed information. If nothing else, it certainly proves that Obama is not CheneyBush when it comes to considering military action. The article, however, does show Obama to be well within America's military-centric mindset which, of course, should be no surprise to anyone who has studied this nation's post WWII history.

Still, I wish Obama had made this speech. He did not and I am sad. I do, however, find a small glimmer of hope in the NYT article. After announcing his decision to his national security team at the White House,

Mr. Obama then went to the Situation Room to call General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. The president made it clear that in the next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops. “It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we draw down,” he said.

That is a commitment Obama would do well to keep.

A Prize for All Seasons

Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was probably as much a surprise to him as it was to the rest of the world. It certainly surprised me. Unlike the president's perpetual critics, I am not too concerned about it. My perspective on the Peace Prize changed greatly when Henry Kissinger won it for brokering a peace in the war that he savagely waged against Vietnam. It's not that the prize doesn't represent some deeper striving for peace--it does--but rather the prize represents a particular judgment about what contributes to world peace at a given time.

In that regard, not being George W. Bush IS a step toward peace. Maybe Obama hasn't achieved any major breakthroughs in his short time in office but, if nothing else, he represents a willingness to consider America part of a community of nations. I personally would not have awarded the prize to him but I wasn't invited to sit on the committee, so my preferences are moot.

For his part, Obama handled the announcement well. He referred to the award as an award for America as a whole, not his own accomplishments. I think he is smart enough to know that the award will have little consequence for his legacy. His legacy will depend on what he actually does in the next four or eight years.

I would like very much to see him win the Peace Prize again, especially if the next award is for ending American militarism and chokehold that the military mindset has on American policy toward the rest of the world.

THAT would be a peace prize to brag about!

postscript

If nothing else, Obama's Nobel is worth it just to see all the wingnuts with their panties in a wad.

No Doubt It's the Heat

It's 104 degrees in Olympia today. Maybe that's why this makes sense. Hell, even in normal temperatures, it makes about as much sense as anything I hear from the birthers.

General Orders

Two Washington Post articles and one in Asia Times last week present a disturbing picture of military-civilian relations in America. We all know, of course, that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces; he is senior every general and admiral. What is less well understood is that the military leadership is not fully under his command, that the generals and admirals have their own bases of support which give them leverage that can challenge even a president’s authority or convince him that they have the answer he needs. The military brass are as adept at fighting for bureaucratic turf and influence as their front line subordinates are in real combat.

Exactly how the influence flows depends on the president. A fearful president like Lyndon Johnson will accede to the military demands lest he be seen as weak on national defense. He will not want to look like he is letting “our boys” down even as he does just that. A clever president like Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney will play to the military’s ambition and self-interest. No post-WWII president ever really challenged his military. Carter and Clinton made some isolated attempts but soon quickly surrendered to the combined forces of Congressional patrons, retired officers and bureaucratic warriors

James Carroll has thoroughly and eloquently documented the dominance of the American military in the American Constitutional system since WWII. The generals may not always win overseas but they’ve certainly done well in the corridors of power in Washington. All this was well-known when I was a political science major in the 60’s and nothing I’ve seen since gives me any reason to think otherwise.

So the efforts of Generals Ray Odierno and David Petreaus to work around their chain of command and play to CheneyBush’s desperate wish for a “victory” in Iraq shouldn’t surprise me at all. Like Lyndon Johnson, wanted something that could show success for a mission stalemated and far more chaotic than the “cakewalk” that would liberate Iraq. Odierno and Petreaus gave him what he needed. The conventional wisdom is that the surge succeeded (it’s right there in the 8th paragraph), that the additional troops and change in tactics pulled Iraq from teetering on the brink of civil war.

On its face the claim is plausible. Iraqis are no longer killing each other on a large scale, al Qaeda in Iraq has been marginalized and a nascent political process is slowly emerging. On further investigation, much of the change has more to do with the interests of the various Iraqi factions and the fact that the nation underwent extensive ethnic cleansing in the years prior to the surge—the bloodbath went on right under the noses of American troops that were supposedly in place to prevent a bloodbath. Odierno and Petreaus managed to pull off a tactical victory and laid the basis for continued and extended American involvement in Iraq despite a growing public desire to be done with that war.

What these two articles tell me is that generals will pursue the policies they believe in regardless of larger national interests. I won’t question their motives. They believe in their mission and the capabilities of their men. They are trained in the application of force in the national interest and are capable of employing that force. More than anything, they want to succeed. So it is natural for them to want to use their commands in service to the nation. That’s what they are there for.

What I question is these—and all—generals’ influence in directing national policy. It’s one thing for a president to reject popular will in the name of the greater good (theoretically, the president is directly accountable to the electorate). Abraham Lincoln certainly did that during the American Civil War. It’s quite another, however, for an unelected career officer to challenge that will. And that’s just what Odierno and Petreaus did. When the American people clearly demonstrated in 2006 their interest in ending a poorly-thought out policy that damages this nation both militarily and economically, the generals provided CheneyBush with the means to ignore that interest and to extend America’s deployment in Iraq indefinitely.

The Asia Times article demonstrates that the process is still going on, with Petreaus maneuvering to prevent Obama from keeping his promise to draw down US forces in Iraq. The story attributes Petreaus’ motives to presidential ambitions but it could easily be the general representing his institution. Either motive is dangerous to Constitutional government, which is why ending the 61 year military-corporate stranglehold on government and policy is a critical long-term issue facing this country.

Generals shouldn’t be in a position to direct policy. Advise, yes, but not decide. They are the instruments for policies chosen by elected representatives. The Framers knew that when they established civilian control of the military in the Constitution. A real commander-in-chief would know that.

I hope Obama learned that lesson when he studied Constitutional law and that he is strong enough to do something with it.

It Goes Both Ways

Digital TV is no big deal to me but I did take heart in the decision this week to delay the end of analog signals. The poor, the elderly and rural areas are apparently not ready for the conversion and would be disadvantaged by the change, according to proponents of the delay. Personally, I don't believe anyone is disadvantaged by not having television reception but that's a particularly iconoclastic view and wholly irrelevant in this culture. Previous efforts to delay were met with the objections that delay would harm business interests. For once (and maybe again sometime) the political system acted in favor of the powerless.

This same week also brought an interview with Chris Hedges on Free Speech Radio News. Hedges, author of War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning described Obama's first two weeks in office as disastrous: committing a crippled nation (think economic and military exhaustion) to a long-term war in Afghanistan while simultaneously supporting the "largest upward transfer of wealth in American history" in the form of economic stimulus.

Suddenly, keeping an analog TV signal for disadvantaged Americans isn't that big a deal.

The Man Deserves Credit

My expectations for President Obama are limited but I do see hope in actions such as opening America's public records once more. In the words of his newly signed executive order,

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.... In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act properly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

In his first few days, Obama has fulfilled my highest expectation: he is the anti-Bush. Now comes the hard part.

I wish him well.

Tuesday Night

An election almost fulfilling my wildest dreams! I may have doubts about President Obama, but I had no doubt about my enthusiasm at seeing him elected president. Not just elected, but winning by the biggest majority since LBJ. That a mixed race American could achieve that kind of victory reminds me of what is actually good and decent in this country. Of course, many tens of millions voted against Obama. That so many Americans could somehow think that John McCain would end CheneyBush’s policies of “borrow, spend, attach and kill” is disturbing. But at least they are on the wrong side of events these days, not the other way around as has been the case these past eight years.

Cynic that I am, even I felt a sense of hope Tuesday night watching the returns. Early on, there was some suspense; McCain actually had more electoral votes, Virginia was close. That didn’t last long, especially for us Left Coast viewers. Trends were moving toward Obama toward 8:00 pm but no sooner had polls closed in Washington, Oregon and California than all the networks called the election. In almost no time, John McCain was giving a concession speech. Parties broke out across the nation. Olympia closed several downtown streets for Democratic revelers. Fireworks. I’ve never seen anything like it.

From then on everything about the evening was hope and pride. Hope that this one man can actually salvage something from the wreckage of the past eight years. Perhaps he will reverse the past 30 years of social Darwinist, anti-government Republican ideology (abetted by Democrats all along the way, I will add). In my dream world, President Obama will dismantle the National Security State has ruled this nation for six decades. For all the blather about America’s strength and willingness to take on any foe, we live in fear of the world. A truly confident America would engage the world with the strength of her ideas and the dynamism of her people. On Tuesday night, I felt hope that this will come to pass.

The evening reminded me of John Kennedy’s election in many ways. I was barely into adolescence and only marginally aware of issues but the sense of change was palpable, especially to a Catholic, seeing his co-religionist break a longstanding electoral barrier. Eight years of Eisenhower left the nation ready for something dramatic. During the 50’s we feared the Commies, who not only wanted to invade our homes and shut our churches but now had more missiles (an early version of Iraq’s WMD’s) and whose satellites mocked us from outer space. Maybe adults took a more measured view of Kennedy who, after all, barely won the election (my nominally Protestant father and Catholic mother canceled each other’s vote) but for a young American, all things seemed possible.

How all that turned out serves as my cautionary tale for this week’s events. All the good intentions and lofty ideals, all the brains and all of the power at America’s command at the zenith of her power crashed and burned in the jungles of South Vietnam. The wound was hardly a fatal one but it has festered ever since, with many Americans still wanting to avenge a stolen victory. The vengeance has poisoned our politics with divisive rhetoric, wedge issues and scorched earth campaigns while it also distorts our foreign policy toward some redeeming “victory”. The first Bush president thought he accomplished that mission when he claimed to have “kicked the Vietnam syndrome”. Apparently, premature declarations of accomplishment run in the family). That’s a long way to say that for all the hope and joy on Tuesday night, actual results may vary.

That’s where we—anyone who believes that America should be a nation the uses its wealth and resources to promote social justice and peace—come in. If we ever hope to accomplish that, we need to keep on speaking out. We need to make it impossible for President Obama and the Democratic congress to continue the policies of the past. Franklin Roosevelt said something to that effect; if you want it, make me do it. For now I have the hope that we might just be able to pull it off. The battle is already joined. Today’s Washington Post carries an article about the foreign policy choices President Obama must make, choices between continuing or abandoning CheneyBush’s policies. That the latter option even exists tells me that the possibilities for change are already contracting. So too do photos of Obama surrounded by the Democratic version of the Usual Suspects on economic and foreign policies. The Owning Class and National Security Democrats are well organized and connected. We must do no less.

The increased turnout, especially among voters under 30, also gives me great hope. These new voters must live with the world we leave them so It’s heartening to see them passionately involved. I saw them in person at the February caucuses and was impressed with their enthusiasm. I’m damn happy to see that continue. Last night, turnout for our weekly vigil was 30 to 40 (compared to our usual 10-15; this on a dark, wet evening, no less). The increase was mostly young people. More reason to hope.

Seeing Virginia go for Obama was especially pleasing. I felt proud of my former home state, if for no other reason than I know many people who made that happen. Virginia may also be rid of one of the most odious Republican congressmen—Virgil Goode from my old congressional district—in favor of an intelligent representative. Last I saw was the challenger leading by 700 votes. My current home state, Washington went big time Obama and handily re-elected a well-regarded Democratic governor when all the polls showed a too-close-to-call election.

Possibilities? Hope? Change? Yes. But only if we make it happen. One election does not alone do anything other than open the door. But at least the door did not slam shut in my face.

More Fair and Balanced

Since my last post slammed John McCain for his plan for a multi-decade surge in Iraq, I should make it clear that Barack Obama is, at best, marginally better which means there is virtually no difference between them when it comes to foreign policy. They represent slightly different variations in the bipartisan consensus that that has dominated American foreign policy for the past half century.

Barack Obama certainly offers me no hope for change. Just more of the same, but not batshit crazy like John McCain.

General Talk

John McCain on Barack Obama:

"I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said, adding that "fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

That's fine, John, if you're plotting military strategy. It's always good to talk to generals about plans and operations. Barack Obama (I hope) plans to end the war in Iraq, if not the occupation. He doesn't need a general to tell him that. He just needs to listen to the American people.

Obama can talk to the generals about operations and the military consequences of policy choices but in the end disengagement is a political, not military, decision. Generals are supposed to serve the national policy established by civilian political leaders, not vice-versa. By training and experience they tend toward violence, never a good first policy option and best used judiciously.

Barack Obama will travel to Iraq. I hope he learns more than John McCain did during his famous stroll through a Baghdad market.

Fair and Balanced in '08

Fellow blogger Jim Yeager is opting out of the political process this year. “Call me disabled”, he says. I call him sane, realistic and balanced. No doubt because he thinks like me. I, too, am alienated from the political process in this country. I still sign some petitions and make noise but less and less these days. I rarely call Congressional offices despite the cascade of email alerts from groups I support. I called Dennis Kucinich’s office last week to thank him for reading the articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, for being one Democrat willing to call this administration on its lies, manipulations and perversions of government and policy. But otherwise, I don’t have much faith in Constitutional government or democracy in the United States these days.

So why bother to excite myself about a political campaign that has already disappointed me?. The mantra from all sides is “Change” but that’s just a word that means pretty much more of the same. Continued domination by the corporate-military state in the United States and in the global economy. Rampant capitalism rapaciously exploiting the planet. Leaving behind a second hand world to future generations.

Jim’s disability will serve him well, especially if it frees him to explore his musical interests. He’ll find more purpose and satisfaction in that than spending time worrying about who wins another choreographed election filled with meaningless words and pseudo-issues that come nowhere near dealing with the challenges facing America in the coming years. He can still care about his country and the world. He doesn’t have to obsess about a meaningless horse race. He can smell the roses. And like me, he will vote, most likely for Obama. Certainly not McCain. So why waste time trying to make sense or purpose from something whose only sense and purpose is perpetuating the power elite?

Four years ago, I supported John Kerry enough to stand on a corner for a half hour during morning rush hour once a week waving signs at the passing traffic. It was fun and little effort. I phone banked, too. Arizona was not really in play but it had some potential. My support for Kerry was primarily that he was Not Bush. I still respected for him from 1971 but after 20 years in the Senate, I knew he was a cautious, conventional politician. I had no illusions. And, of course, he lost. That sucked. I phone banked a lot for Harry Mitchell two years later. He won as part of the Democratic surge but that turned out to suck, too.

This year I’ll vote. Washington has an August primary and my district has a progressive activist candidate challenging an entrenched Democratic Representative in Congress. The primary is a single primary where the top two candidates (regardless of party) advance to the general election so there’s some interesting possibility there. I’m pretty sure I’ll give some money to progressive candidates. But that’s about it. Not wasting time on pointless exercises will also allow me to take time to explore and experience this wonderful place where I live and spend time with people I love.

If that is disabled, I’ll take it.

The First Time

Rethuglican shills are attacking Michelle Obama for just discovering her pride in America, unlike the rest of us who have always been proud of America. Of course, the Obama campaign quickly rephrased her remark to erase the image that the wife of a very presidential candidate does not worship at the alter of the American national image.

Since I am not Michelle Obama, I won't even try to say what she was thinking. I can say that I believe she was mostly correct in her view of American history. She erred in not recognizing the many proud moments in our history (Declaration of Independence, Abolition, New Deal, Marshall Plan, etc) but in thinking of her own lifetime (beginning in the mid -1960's) about an issue that affects her and her family very personally, she may well have felt for the first time that the nation was rising above its inherent racism.

Of course,to the Rethuglican and wingnut mind, America has no flaws and anyone failing to recognize that fact, or worse, call attention to any flaws is clearly someone who hates America. Look for more of the same as the campaign progresses.

In my fantasy world, Michelle Obama would have said why she felt this pride for the first time, expressing here belief that America is changing in a profoundly positive way. (Remember, this is my fantasy so I can write her dialog here.) She needn't go on about why she has not always been proud of America but it would be wonderful to hear her remind the nation about the dangers of racism and her hopes for overcoming racism.

For my own part, I have not always been proud of America in my lifetime. I am not proud of Vietnam or my own part in it. I am not proud of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor am I proud of American support for totalitarian and repressive governments that steal from own their people and attack others. I am not proud of the Central American wars in the 1980's. I am not proud of the our lingering racism. Looking at our history, I am not proud of the genocide that removed indigenous Americans from their land. I am not proud of slavery. I am not proud of Manifest Destiny. I am not proud of the America's brutal war against Philippine in surgents in the early 1900's.

It's easy enough to recite a litany of America's failures. (EEK! He used the "F-word"!). My pride in America tends to be more from history than my own lifetime. The Marshall Plan and I came into the world about the same time, so it counts although it's always felt like history to me. Same with the Berlin Airlift. I am proud of the nation's progress toward civil rights and am especially proud of the many Americans who risked their lives to end racial discrimination. I am proud of the many Americans who demanded an end to the Vietnam war and the (finally) courageous Congress members who ended the money that kept the war going. I am proud that Congress members of both parties forced Richard Nixon to resign because of his abuse of power. (Conversely, I am not proud of the current Congress that refuses to impeach CheneyBush for far, far more grievous offenses.) Closer to the present I find fewer points of pride but then I could just be myopic.

By now you should get the picture that my pride in America is not unadulterated. It's a mixed bag of hope, achievement and imperfection. This mixed pride does not equal disdain and hatred for America. I consider it to be realism, the understanding that human institutions will be as flawed as their creators, and the recognition that patriotism includes working to eliminate those flaws.

From my perspective, Michelle Obama spoke the truth. This is a good time, too, to remind my proud fellow Americans, that pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Back to the Future

Is it just me or does John McCain look like Warren G. Harding? Except that the latter looks better for being 16 years younger in the portrait than St. John is now, sitting in that SUV with Cindy who these days is just shy of Gamaliel's age when he posed for the portrait.

Warren Harding is an ominous portent for a 71 year old man, especially since Harding was dead before he was 60. I think that to the extent that John McCain ever offered anything to this nation, it was eight years ago, before he signed on to the CheneyBush Shipwreck of State. Now he just wants to "never surrender", to "let America win it this time." And he is a handmaiden of corporate-military special interests. Nothing that's likely to be the change that America needs.

For what it's worth, I think Obama is the best of the Final Three. B He is of the coming generation who should have the opportunity to shape its future. McCain or Clinton is just passing generations hanging on to power well after it has become obvious that they have no real answers to the problems they leave behind. I would very much like to see a campaign that energizes young people. Obama has that potential. In a Democratic year, he could really blow the Republicans out of the water. Maybe even put to rest the "America won't vote for a non-white candidate". Even if he disappoints as president, just dismantling the Republican stranglehold on government would be a grand achievement.