How can Obama be just as wrong as Bush?

Last week, Barack Obama delivered a major speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Despite its virtues, it is overall an erroneous reading of the world's geo-political landscape; that his understanding of terrorism is deeply flawed and that his specifics on action in Pakistan should bring a smile to any fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The speech contains Obama's boilerplate mixture of poetic flourishes, declarative statements, and heavy-handed hypotheticals [binary positions only, please]. Here are his basic critiques of US foreign policy: Iraq was the wrong war; we did not finish the job in Afghanistan; we lacked international cooperation and diplomacy; we lost the battle for the hearts and minds. In response to these failures he provides a five-pronged policy for his presidency:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

I will largely restrict my comments to the first element - leaving Iraq for Pakistan. A couple of casual observation, first: This ‘getting out of Iraq' business is just not gonna happen as envisioned by many Democrats. Colin Powell told many deliberate lies to this world but he said one thing right: you break it, you own it. However, once Obama suggests that we get our troops out of Iraq only to send them to Pakistan, it makes an ill-advised proposition calamitous. Normally, I would also have cheered the idealism in his speech. For example, he was surely picking up on something I wrote here many moons ago when he stated that:

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with — and listen to — the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

But when read in the context of his whole speech, the idealism remains a plain contradiction. Which world will be receptive to America's Voice Corps after we would have invaded three countries in half a decade?

I have been a fan of Barack Obama's candidacy for a long while - I am his constituent - but I would have expected this speech to come from Charles Krauthammer. For seven years, millions have been hoping that a change in the White House will be a change in our policies at home and abroad. The hope being that a democratic administration will not start pre-emptive wars nor freeze the world out from our deliberations. Yet, here we stand. Clinton wants to invade Iran and Obama wants to invade Pakistan. It appears that there is unanimity in our political spectrum as far as global terrorism, and our reaction to it, is concerned. We clearly know and understand who our enemy is, what he wants and how will we combat him - no inquiry, no analysis, no knowledge of the local is needed nor required.

Point, if you can, to the difference between this spurious understanding of terrorism from Obama to anything you can find amid the neo-con library. Compare, as well, the blanket and generalized statements, the assertions of fallacies, and the monolithic construction of “their" narratives:

Al Qaeda's new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim — nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.

And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame — blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.

We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.

This theory of global Islamic terrorism - poverty, chaos and conflict, disjunctive communities, the charismatic whisperer - is the one that Bernard Lewis has told and retold millions of times - despite all scholarship and evidence to the contrary. Lewis' model - derived from the Hashashin of Syria aka the Old Man of the Mountain - has this narrative: Islamdom and Christendom are embroiled in a Crusade. The charismatic Old Man of the Mountain takes poor and abandoned young Muslims, spirits them away to the mountain hiding ground where he has built a paradise of beautiful girls and virginal waters. He feeds them, sends aid to their family, shows them tantalizing glimpses of “Paradise" and brain washes them - with the help of hashish. Eventually, they are given a suicide mission to go kill and gain access to that Paradise they briefly encountered - with virgins etc. Lewis had peddled this particular reading of Islamic terrorism as early as 1991 but it was only after September 2001 that this emerged as the definitive understanding of the “Why do they hate us?" mind-bender. Despite being completely ahistorical, it cleverly explained the appeal and command of someone like Usama b. Laden, confirmed the basic truth of the civilizational clash, and also negated any culpability in the American history.

Needless to say, there is no place for facts in this narrative and the underlining assumptions remain unshakeable. For example, our enemy cannot be rational nor modern - Muhammad Atta or Shahzad Tanveer or Kafeel Ahmed notwithstanding. Why not? Because Modernity and Enlightenment, are forces which, by definition, should have no space for such actions. Consider further, that in Obama's retelling Abu Ghraib is not an actual war crime but something extremists “say" - tripping on Hashish, no doubt. Similarly our occupation of Iraq is not an imperial reality but a mirage of elaborate lies. In effect the “whispers" of the extremists, devoid of any truth, remain the hypnosis of the Old Man of the Mountain. All we have to do is to proclaim them as such - call them out as Lies - and the spell will be broken. The unmistakable conclusion of that narrative, of course escapes Obama and others who still cling to such theories. We will have to end the incubators in London, in Amsterdam, in Madrid, and in Bali - surely by invading these countries which provide a safe haven to these terrorists.

This national discourse comes from a deep Orientalism that has been a staple of our political lives prior to and since that “bright and beautiful Tuesday morning”. It is what enables us to question the sanity and the patriotism of anyone who dares raise the long history of American involvement across the globe as a contributing factor. It enables us to collapse real geographies from Leeds and Glasgow to Karachi and Islamabad into “wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains”.

Pakistan, of course, is the main thrust of Obama's speech. Here is his declaration: Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan.. Note that the word “sanctuary" necessarily implies state protection and safety and that “Pakistan" indeed refers to the entire country. To reinforce his point, he states again, “[Al Qaeda is] training new recruits in Pakistan”. These could easily be the exact words used by Bush to describe Afghanistan right before the US invasion in 2001. And invasion is the only conclusion one can reach when Obama states that he wants to “deploy troops to the “right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. The only way I know of deploying troops to a sovereign nation is by invading said nation.

Obama demands his pre-emptive strike both as justification for WTC attacks and also because Pakistan has not proven a good enough ally:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

Of course, President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

One should remind Barack Obama, and the US Congress which just passed such a conditional bill, that Pakistan is, in clear and evident fact, fighting a war in Waziristan - with scores of military casualties seemingly every day. One can also remind him that since the Lal Masjid stand off - July 3rd - there have been a dozen suicide bombings across Pakistan killing over 200 civilians - almost keeping pace with Baghdad. One can further remind him that Pakistan has indeed allowed US military strikes on its sovereign territory, even with questionable intelligence. On November 10, 2006, US missiles hit a madrasa in Bajaur aimed at killing the elusive No. 2 of Al Qaeda but managed mainly to kill children. They must all be casualties of Pakistan's soft focus in the war on terrorism.

To be crystal clear, Obama suggests that a country that is a sovereign nation and ally, that has full nuclear capability, has the ability to carry out nuclear attacks, has the ability to give nuclear technologies to the card-carrying-member-of-the-Axis-of-Evil-next-door Iran, has a unpopular dictator supported and maintained by the United States, has deployed 100,000 troops across its North Western borders, has suffered thousands of casualties - army and civilians - carrying out the Global War on Terror, has seen its cities and deserts flood with the detritus from the forgotten war going on in Afghanistan, but has nonetheless maintained complete compliance by killing and capturing many key members of the Al Qaeda … should be invaded.

Strategically, conceptually, operationally and politically, this is as bad a policy statement as was introduced in March 2003. It ought to be self-evident, according to Obama even, that if invading a country of 30 million, who were under severe sanctions for over a decade, at false pretense was a “wrong war”, then invading a country of 165 million, with nuclear power, could prove a slightly more egregious blunder.

I could plumb further depths of this inanity by showing how flawed Obama is on his reading of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran and how his diplomatically mature outlook fails to even mention India or China - two major powers of the region - but I will stop here.

Instead, let's go back and ask this simple question: How can Obama be just as wrong as Bush? Or more specifically, why is it that the world from Obama's or Bush's eyes appears no different?

There is no doubt that there are very real enemies intent on carrying out their own civilizational mission. But instead of focusing on the historical, cultural, religious, or political specificities of these enemies, our public discourse remains intent on reproducing imagined entities - and the aforementioned deep Orientalism surely plays a significant role in this. This discourse makes potent, global actors out of local thugs. More importantly, it obfuscates any distinction between the local thug and someone like Usama b. Laden. It keeps alive our prejudices and assumptions about Islam. The fact that Bush did not know of the presence of Shi'a and Sunni sects in Islam (in Iraq or in general) is not simply comment on him being dull. He is a sharp man. He has many, many advisors who know and can comprehend ‘difference'. That fact is actually a revelation of our systematic conceptualization of that uniform Other - the Muslim Terrorist. The thought that there may be differences and details and histories simply shouldn't have occurred to him. It is no surprise that the clash of civilization operates not on differences but on sameness - whether in Us or in Them. When Bush stated, “You are with us or you are against us”, he was not being brash and belligerent, he was being honest.

Similarly the hegemonized ‘imperialism' of America in the Islamist discourse cannot differentiate between actors near or far, nor can it understand any history, or geo-political narrative. In their discourses centuries of corruption and weakness in Islam will be swept away only by the cleansing power of their militant actions. The Muslim victims, Shi'a or Sunni or anything, are no different from the infidels because they really are no different in their eyes. The West is just as monolithic and undifferentiated. Usama b. Laden will surely flunk a basic history or cultural test of United States. He cannot tell you the difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic or between the imperialisms of the Ottoman empire, the British empire or the conceived American empire. Such distinctions are immaterial to his Occidentalism.

All this is no great insight. We cannot explain how we are able to systematically generate a comprehension of the world we inhabit without examining the ways in which we construct our knowledges. Why are we, four years after our indefensible invasion of Iraq and nearly six years after the attack on us, still unable to comprehend our enemies as capable, rational, modern agents? Every new instance of a new cell in our modern cosmopolitans, of a doctor or an engineer blowing himself is met either with universal bewilderment or universal condemnation of the very soul of Islam. Our terrorists, even when they are born in Bradford or housed in Hamburg remain in the wild frontier of our imagination. When terrorism happens in the domestic context, at Virginia Tech for example, we seek pathologies and sickness and material differences. When the same act is repeated in a crowded Baghdad market or a fruit stand in Islamabad, we summarily assign blame to an ever-lengthening chain of transmission that inevitably goes back to the whisperer in caves afar. Islam, we conclude, is still medieval, it needs rationality, science, a reformation.

When Obama refuses to even know the facts of Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia, he is not being careless, he is just re-affirming the dominant discourse of American imperialism. Our actions, pre-emptive or post-partum leave us with nothing more than empty platitudes of God-given Freedom or New Hope. We are reluctant to Know. We do not want to investigate, to learn, or to understand. We insist on our global, flat, and binary world no matter how many facts pile up proving us wrong.

Unless we decide to get local, to pay attention to local narratives, facts, histories, realities, languages, religions, ethnicities, cultures, etc. we will remain in this deeply flawed discourse. So the answer to my question, how can Obama be just as wrong as Bush, is simple enough: There is only one answer available at the moment.

Kudos to Manan Ahmad at his excellent op-ed piece on Senator Obama's foreign policy. I think you really nailed it right on the head. Obama, who I once thought was going to take a more practical "democratic" stance on world affairs, by not only withdrawing troops from Iraq, but trying to foster a tranquil hegemonic relationship between the United States and Muslim countries, reverted to the same ridiculous and abrasive tactics as our current hawkish administration. I don't understand this man---he thinks invading Iraq was the wrong endeavor to take. But launching military strikes in Pakistan to flush Al-Qaeda members seems more logical?

It appears as if the Senator, like all the others, is providing for yet another four more melancholy years. I fear that all he's doing is obtaining liberal republican votes, who are accepting to a Democrat congress but resillient to any change in the way foreign politics are conducted by this country-- cheap and greedy.

While I respect the development of hypotheses as an intellectual pursuit in trying to understand the issues involved, I feel compelled to point out that such understanding by any number of highly educated, motivated authors will have zero effect on the future of this conflict. While interesting, studying the details on the leaves is a couple of levels deeper than seeing the forest for the trees.

World history will be determined by armed conflict, just as it always has. Mankind hasn't changed genetically in tens of thousands of years, and has only improved its lot by the development of a veneer of better cultures and governing restraints on its primitive nature. If everyone could be educated to understand all the factual minutiae and subscribe to a philosophy of relativism, I have no doubt this world filled with intellectuals would come to blows over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. I truly wish it were different, and that a thorough examination of all the issues could lead to peaceful compromise and tolerance, but anyone with a grain of common sense knows better.

Ultimately, the culture of Islamic fundamentalist radicals, to the extent they control functioning governments with a large enough budget (oil) to acquire devastating weapons (which don't even require a physical invasion to destroy a country and the world economy) will enter direct conflict with "western" culture. There's nothing that can be done about it. There will be a devastating conflict, or there will need to be preemptive wars to stop it. Given human nature and the mentality of leaders of backward societies, it will happen, just as it has happened throughout history.

I don't discount the value of rational discourse, but I think common sense dictates that any culture which feels its culture is worth saving (obviously, at least more so than the competing culture) needs to make a choice: control the situation, or, succumb to it while dithering neurotically over idealistic scenarios which have no chance of being realized. Idealism, like all human pursuits, has to be weighed with good judgment, and pursued when possible. When not possible, it has to be sidelined. World history discourages optimism.

The US, Europe, and the rest of westernized culture need to make a firm, measured stand, to the extent necessary, to stop the minority of Islamic fundamentalists and outlaw states who would wreck what civilization we currently enjoy. Iraq is a mess, but Saddam created serious messes in the past, and with oil revenues and a messiah complex, I believe the future would eventually have been even worse had he remained unchallenged for another ten years. Iran needs to be firmly dealt with, and cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and long range missiles as long as it is ruled by the current regime. It's only a short time until European and US cities could suffer millions of deaths at the whim of a fanatical leader.

So, while I regret that idealism has its limits, and applaud the desire to delineate causes and perspectives in an intellectual fashion, I suggest that there is some truly terrible destruction looming over the horizon, and that the only way to avoid it is to take hard, practical, preemptive measures now, at the cost of some idealism. Forced to choose, I'd rather our culture survived.

Whichever way it goes, there will be no way to look back and say with 100.0000% certainty that other means might have produced a better result (just as it will never be possible to know what might have happened in ten years if Saddam had not been overthrown); however, to delay, to continue to wage a battle of words within western culture, to take the "moral high ground" and do nothing--is simply a neurosis, a luxury that the culture of the western world permits, but which will lead to its destruction.

It is not coincidence that Obama's hawkish stance came after he got pilloried by Hilary Clinton for suggesting that he will talk with dictators from Iran and Syria. Obama was trying to be practical, and then realized he was inthe middle of a campaign for the president.

as time goes on and his deficit to clinton increases, he needs to create angles by which he can win back voters. sounding like he is tough on terror and has a plan for winning the war on terror is what is motivating this ridiculous attack on pakistan. its pure politics, it has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Bob-I completely disagree with comments. It seems as if you just want a new administration which is going to implement the same foreign policy as the previous one. A government which needs to strike at a so-called enemy so that they can end the attacks and the hostility towards America. Unfortuntately, this is a cyle that will never stop.

The attitude of defending our country by instigating attacks on foreign soil against an enemy that has no organized structure is just exacerbating the situation. You can't win against a campaign that has no direct leadership or ownership. Ironically, the United States understands this--but they will never accept it because it interferes with their self interests, i.e. military strongholds, oil, etc. Yet, let's look at a scenario in which they decided to withdraw troops from Iraq, released their military grip in the Persian Gulf, slashed funding to Israel by half (or showed some acceptance and endorsement of a Palestinian state) and actually offered a more diplomatic approach to Middle Eastern countries. Are you going to tell me that the attitude of the Muslim world is not going to change? That to show a sense of respect towards your alleged enemy is not going to change the landscape on how the world perceives you? Of course it will. But the first thing America needs to do is accept blame for the problems that they've created. And they've created a lot throughout history. Do you actually think the 9/11 attacks weren't provoked? Everyone gets angry for a reason. And those who were behind 9/11 were no different. The bottomline: If you leave those alone who bother you--they will reciprocate. I understand the U.S. has to think of its business ventures and all the money they're trying to make in Iraq. But its not worth it.

And a word of note: it doesn't help when you start making comments like, "So, while I regret that idealism has its limits, and applaud the desire to delineate causes and perspectives in an intellectual fashion, I suggest that there is some truly terrible destruction looming over the horizon, and that the only way to avoid it is to take hard, practical, preemptive measures now, at the cost of some idealism." I have no clue what you're trying to say. Try to be more simple in your choice of words. It'll help you express your thoughts better.

Soundgarden, you’re correct that I believe the new administration should (and probably will) continue the same policies in regard to these issues and I can’t dispute that the US will continue to lose popularity contests. I also added that Europe needs to do the same. Leaders who reach positions of power in despotic governments or fanatical organizations tend to be very aggressive (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, etc.) and if they had a grain of compromise and cooperation or even tolerance for differences (or an abhorrence of violence), they would never have attained their positions. When has trying to negotiate with any of these people ever succeeded? They consider any movement by their foes to be a sign of weakness and it just spurs them on. I can’t avoid referring once again to England’s Chamberlain’s dealings with Hitler and the failure of other European nations who failed to act before Germany re-armed to the point that nothing could be done.

Your comment (“You can't win against a campaign that has no direct leadership or ownership”) is true, in the sense of “total victory” in a war, but we don’t need total victory and we don’t need everyone to love us, though we do care about it. We need to suppress the organizations and states that actively work toward harming us or destabilizing further the Middle East, and minimize their ability to strike. It’s a different kind of “war”, but the basic motives are familiar. One or more sides want to reshape the world in their image, even if mass killing and destruction is required. Throw religion into the politics and all remaining reason goes out the window.

If suppression fails, it’s a horrible ethical question to decide how much responsibility must be borne by the citizens under the thumb of a murderous regime. Ultimately, it depends on how much escalation occurs, and at some point, even an ethical country will destroy a country that threatens its own survival, even if most citizens aren’t active combatants. I suppose one could say that it’s the duty of the citizens of that country to change their own regime before it happens, but admittedly, that may not be realistic. What is the alternative?

I suggest that the leadership of Iran, Bin Laden, and others would wipe the US (as well as Israel, and probably Europe, too) off the face of the map if they could get away with it, and some would probably do it if they had the means even if they didn’t expect to get away with it. The US hasn’t wiped out (nuked) any troublesome middle eastern countries (or North Korea) even though we have the means. I have no doubt, however, that if one or more nuclear weapons proven to have originated in Iran ever detonate in Western cities, Iran would cease to exist very quickly even though we would all mourn the innocents. I honestly doubt that would be a deterrent to some of the fanatics, however, so the strategy of “mutually assured destruction”, or even “instigator-assured destruction” can’t be relied on. That doesn’t leave a lot of options other than preventing fanatics from obtaining the means of such destruction.

Regarding your suggestion that the US completely change its foreign policy, I agree that many in the Muslim world (moderates) would take a much kinder view of the US. I know that many who hate the US would not dislike us nearly so much if we had behaved like Sweden for the last fifty years (but then the USSR would currently rule the world). Yet I also know that many others have a global dream of a universal Muslim world and would continue their efforts, aided greatly by having the pressure of intervention taken off them. Some of these organizations, even if they were to consider the option of “live and let live”, are comprised of people whose whole lives are geared to a war of terror. What will Bin Laden and his top echelon going to do? Retire and become bakers or open an electronics kiosk? Will Iran’s leaders be happy to coexist with Jews and Christians? They will continue their plans, regardless. The most hard-core enemies the western world has, the ones who create the most turmoil, will continue to attack until they are destroyed or destroy us. It’s how they give meaning to their existence and make their livelihood.

Looking at it from the other side, if Saddam had simply continued to cooperate with inspections (and had avoided threatening to use the weapons, real or fictitious), he would still rule Iraq. If Iran agreed to suspend development of nuclear weapons (and only a fool would believe they aren’t), allow continuing inspections to verify the halt, quit planning to wipe Israel off the map, and disavow terrorism, you know as well as I that the US would let them be. Is there some mystery as to why we are focusing on Iran and not Pakistan (the government of Pakistan)? A Palestinian solution (at least the best realistic solution) is available anytime Israel’s security can be assured. And if anyone would step up and take care of Bin Laden’s organization, the US would gladly get back to focusing on business and living. You say you want us to stop working to protect ourselves, yet our enemies have vowed never to end their quests to destroy others. There’s a big difference in moral standing there, even if no one is blameless.

The US has failed to take action in the past, in part due to the perceived negative opinion that would have resulted, such as failing to kill Bin Laden the first time they had a chance. If the US becomes completely impotent in world affairs, other powers would simply fill the void, and in many locations, those powers would be terrorists and religious fanatics who would continue to wage war.

In general, I see no place in the major conflicts in world history where working to cultivate a better image in the eyes of the enemy has ever been anything but a disaster, such as the attempts in the prelude to World War II (the Treaty of Munich, handing Chekoslovakia to Germany, Chamberlain’s proclamation of “Peace in our Time”, the Russian/German non-aggression treaty, and negotiating with North Korea, for example). One hundred million people paid the price for not nipping Germany’s aggression in the bud. It astounds me that Europe appear ready to repeat their errors and not see that in the next ten years, if nothing is done, they’ll be able to be targeted by nuclear missiles from an Iran whose leadership is impossible to predict, yet gives every indication of wanting to wage war. Even if the missiles aren’t launched in that time, availability of transportable weapons of every kind from unstable regimes virtually guarantees that some of them will be used on European and American cities.

The US is no worse than other countries—it just stands out more because it has the means to have more of an impact on the world, in particular when we try to look ahead, as we must, to avoid two major catastrophes:

(1) The total destabilization of the middle eastern oil supply, which would plunge the entire world into global depression, a result which would, in actual impact, be more painful to the citizenry of the world than 9/11 was to the US (and would further indirectly result in millions of deaths from starvation, suicides, and desperate conflicts created by the depression). When people speak of the US wanting to “control the oil” of Iraq or other countries, they simply do so because it sounds good. No intelligent person could ever think that even the economic cost of an invasion of Iraq would be compensated for even if the US were to steal the entire Iraqi oil supply (which would never be tolerated by Americans, much less than the rest of the world), nor by any lucrative “business” contracts in the area. The US government and its citizens have shown for the past decades that they are resigned to pay whatever price the OPEC oil monopoly sets, as long as they keep the supply going and the oil-producing countries don’t get into stupid wars and risk shutting the entire supply down, having used the huge oil revenues to wage aggression instead of developing their countries’ economies; and

(2) The proliferation of terrifying weapons in the hands of financially flush unstable or aggressive regimes, which could not only result in the deaths of millions, but would also destroy the world economy, as globally linked as it is now. The world economy is more highly interdependent, and specialized technologically and logistically, than ever before and the destruction of several major world business centers could decimate the ability to produce goods and conduct business, leading to global depression.

These are the reasons the US meddles. Everything else is insignificant.

In reference to the statement you quoted, I’m just trying to say that, regretfully, I don’t believe any amount of discussion or understanding of the issues can slow the momentum of the current events, and it’s going to be bad for everyone. I absolutely believe nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons will be used by fanatics against western cities in the next decade unless a much more aggressive, unified effort is made by the West, and I don’t see that happening. The West will probably continue its neurotic, squabbling approach until the unthinkable happens, and then return the unthinkable in kind. Instead, we should ultimately do what we must to preserve what we have gained over the past few hundred years, even if it lessens our popularity. In doing so, millions in the middle east might also be spared from a horrific conflict.

Let me conclude by saying that I don’t believe any human culture can be proven to be right one or the wrong one, and I believe that all human beings are comprised of the same qualities. It’s no shock to me that someone from another culture can genuinely hate Americans for reasons that are perfectly rational in their world view, and that fighting us is, in their feelings, a noble cause. It’s just that if/when it all boils over, Americans also have every right to choose to protect their culture and live as they choose. They also have the right to look into the future, to see which way the wind is blowing now, and not be constrained to impotency until millions die before they act. They say “the good die young”, and I agree, because in time, everyone faces having to act or not act in a terrible situation in which neither choice is good.

I respect your attempts to further understanding, but I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree. I think the responsibility to end hostilities lies in the Middle East. Like most people, I wish we could solve these problems diplomatically, but in this situation, I’m a pessimist. I doubt what you and I think will make any difference. All governments have a mob mentality to a greater or lesser extent, and once in motion, tend to continue over the precipice. My sympathies lie with both sides, but I don’t believe we can afford not to act

Obama's words come as no surprise to those familiar with the nature of the American establishment. A Republican candidate recently called for the "nuking" of Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest cities. The fact that these criminals can casually speak and pontificate on the merits of killing millions of people should be a wakeup call for the rest of the planet.
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. After all, it was a liberal Democratic president, LBJ, who launched the major escalation of the merciless war against the Vietnamese. The napalming, carpet bombing, "strategic hamlet" prison camps, "Tiger Force" killers, and Operation Phoenix all took place on the watches of the more liberal of the two parties. Yet, many clueless American liberals keep themselves happy in the belief that they're any better than their awful right-wing blood brothers.

BobE wrote,

"No intelligent person could ever think that even the economic cost of an invasion of Iraq would be compensated for even if the US were to steal the entire Iraqi oil supply (which would never be tolerated by Americans, much less than the rest of the world), nor by any lucrative “business” contracts in the area. The US government and its citizens have shown for the past decades that they are resigned to pay whatever price the OPEC oil monopoly sets, as long as they keep the supply going and the oil-producing countries don’t get into stupid wars and risk shutting the entire supply down, having used the huge oil revenues to wage aggression instead of developing their countries’ economies"

The United States buys more oil from Mexico and Canada each than it does from Saudia Arabia. But the United States helps keep the Saudi family in power because the U.S. get hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars of investment money from Saudi Arabia. The Untied States had planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11. THe story about the WMD is bullsh*t, because the U.S. and its allies had sold Saddam most of the weapons he had. The U.S. invaded Iraq at the behest of Israel and and it is staying in Iraq until it gains control of the oil wealth.

BobE wrote,

"2) The proliferation of terrifying weapons in the hands of financially flush unstable or aggressive regimes, which could not only result in the deaths of millions, but would also destroy the world economy, as globally linked as it is now. The world economy is more highly interdependent, and specialized technologically and logistically, than ever before and the destruction of several major world business centers could decimate the ability to produce goods and conduct business, leading to global depression.

These are the reasons the US meddles. Everything else is insignificant."

The United States helped bring Saddam Hussein into power ( see http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html ) and supported him, financially and strategically, when he was commmitting his worst atrocites. See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17891.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeY05iS5iv0

Here is an article about how the United States sold weapons and gave false intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2292

The Untied States just doesn't do this sort of thing in the Middle East. It also does it in Africa, South America and Asia.

Manan Ahmed,

Everybody keeps on saying that the Usama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, but how many people are aware that the FBI webpage about Usama Ben Laden makes no mention of 9/11? See the FBI’s webpage on Osama Ben Laden here http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Why wouldn’t an attack which killed 3,000 people be specifically mentioned?
Journalist Ed Haas’s investigates this,

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

See Ed Haas’s complete article at http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Also, how come no politician want to discuss Israel's role in 9/11? See
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=575834042418696847
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nVkN983fU

The comments listed herein are very articulate and well written. I enjoyed perusing them.

Obama is a first term Senator with little knowledge of the political system, either locally or globally. It comes as no surprise that he has little understanding of foreign policy or international politics. Obama's staements are politcal rhetoric to get him elected and should not be considered as future U.S. policy, even if the hype holds and he gets elected.

Anyone who thinks they have an answer to Muslim Extremism is naive. Military action will not stop extremism and will only encourage it.

The voices of devout Muslims is the only answer to extremism.

Muslims have shown recently that they can quickly mobilize demonstrations around the world. When the Pope stated that Islam was rooted in violence, there were demonstrations accross the globe. When a cartoon of Mohammed was publish, Muslims took to the streets in protest.

Anytime anyone murders himself or anyone else in the name of Islam, the demonstrations should begin. All Muslims around the world need to stand up and shout that Islam is not based on violence and justifying your violence, or condoning violence in the name of Islam is an attack on Islam that taints a very proud religion.

American policy has become a justification for the misinterpretation of a noble religion. The Barbary States in the 1700s were kidnapping and enslaving every non-Muslim they could get ahold of and holding them for ransom in the name if Islam. Terrorism in the name of Islam has been going on for hundreds of years and American policy has nothing to do with that. The hatred for anyone and everyone that does not bow down to their version of Islam is a distortion of a religion that speaks more of orphans and the poor than it does of killing. Even Muslims can not get along. Shia and Sunni Muslims adhere to the same Quron and will kill and torture each other in the name of Allah. Where does the deep seeded hatred come from. Not American Policy...they're killing fellow Muslims. Why?

This will not stop until all Muslims stand together and demand that terrorists stop using Islam for their own purposes and treat them as the real threat to Islam.

BushTerrorWar...etc.

While the ideas expressed by the Republican you referenced were not defensible, neither is your inflammatory tactic of leaving out that he suggested this idea as a deterrent. He advocated "warning" terrorist groups that a nuclear attack on a US city would result in such retaliation. You implied, intentionally, I'm sure, that he just wanted to go ahead and "nuke" them. I wonder about your reasons for clearly trying to overstate things and inflame people. Maybe you want both sides to hate each other even more. Your statement is just as reprehensible as his when you consider your intent.

Re: Vietnam. After World War II, the US was among those who wanted France to decolonize Vietnam and leave it to its own self-determination, but couldn't gain this concession from France early on because it would have lost their support in NATO to stabilize Europe against the USSR, a more serious concern. Staying until they had to surrender and leave, France bears the major responsibility for the partition of Vietnam and setting the stage for this small country to be the battleground between the (generally accepted) quest for worldwide communist domination and the US efforts to counter it. It's impossible to say what would have happened if Vietnam had been left to settle its own conflicts. It might still have led to China and/or the USSR on one side and democratic regimes on the other each supporting different factions, and an equally bloody "civil" war; or, maybe not. Maybe I'd be living in the USSR of America. No one knows. Even in hindsight, alternative histories are too complex to imagine, and theoretical analyses are only worthwhile for the future--they can't change anything in the past. In any case, by the time the Vietnam war was over, the "domino theory" was no longer relevant. It's revisionism to pretend, however, that the "domino theory" wasn't relevant at the time the US involvement of the war began.

My point is that the US didn't make decisions in a vacuum (Let's see, whose country will we start a war in today?), but made them in the aftermath of a World War and genuine threats of "we will bury you" communism or worldwide nuclear annihilation. The breakup of the Soviet Union and its withdrawal as a world power ended, for the most part, the deadly serious struggle between the West supporting the governments/organizations who would oppose the Soviet's expansion of power and the Soviets likewise supporting those who would align with them. I grew up in this era. I never met anyone in those days who felt that if the US just did nothing, that the Soviets would leave the world alone and all would be perfection. They advanced into countries to the extent permitted.

It was a different time and a different world, and the Soviets wanted communism to cover the earth. That was their long-term goal. There's always someone who will take advantage of a vacuum. The US had to act, to take sides, in that era, and the decisions that were made were made out of necessity, usually having to decide which of several bad choices to make. Those decisions can all be criticized for their negative results, but any choice would have had bad results, even doing nothing. That's life.

If the world situation at the time is taken into account, there's no mystery about the US' decisions about Vietnam, covert aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, aiding anyone fighting leftists in Central and South America, aid to rebels in Iraq in overthrowing Qasim, helping Saddam avoid an Iranian victory over Iraq, etc. Anyone can accuse the US of meddling and conveniently overlook the bigger picture, the context in which they took place. To constantly dredge up US actions of the past, pick out the bad parts, ignore the context, and present them as indictments of the US is the height of hypocrisy or just plain ignorance. Even if the context is analyzed, and with hindsight, glaring errors are found, and can be learned from, that is not automatically a valid indictment of those who had to make the decision at the time without the benefit of hindsight. The US is not the savior of the world, but neither is it the devil.

These days, the primary threats to the world are (1) nuclear/biological/chemical weapons being used by terrorist organizations; and (2) chaos in the Middle East interrupting oil production which would wreck the world economy and lead to equal chaos. Without the luxury of only supporting fair, democratic, benevolent, peaceful governments, the US still chooses who it will support based on the long term security of the US and, secondarily, of the world. A distant third, but still significant, is humanitarian reasons, and US soldiers have given their lives many times in such efforts which have no material goal for the US. Criticizing the US for currently supporting the Saudis, or Israel, for example is just taking the easy shot. The alternatives don't seem to be any better. Regarding Iraq, Saddam would still be in power if he abided by his surrender terms after invading Kuwait and allowed unrestricted inspections. What choice does the US have? Europe, for the most part, is doing little to deal with the threats because they also see that all decisions have a bad side (even more thoroughly painted in black by their media than ours) and, most importantly, they have the luxury of letting the US spend its resources and take the criticism. How can they lose?

So, if one has critical comments about actions of the US, or, for that matter, Iran or any other country, he or she should at least voice the criticisms in the overall context and offer ideas of how the alternatives neatly address the situation. I don't see any point in dredging up half-truths, or even full truths with which to hurl insults unless one explains the probable motivations for the decisions (if they're contested, which they usually are, even when they're obvious), then counters the logic. If one's explanation for the decision is a wild conspiracy theory, or that this or that country is "evil" or "the great Satan" and just wants to make mankind miserable, they're tilting at windmills, not reality (e.g., also see RandallJones' posts, above).

BobE, I don't know whether to laugh or dismiss your attempts to distort history and spin the facts. America wanted "self-determination" for Vietnam? You sir, are deluded and living in a fools paradise. Tancredo made a clear nuclear threat, and no, I don't need you to interpret what that means. Only an utter idiot would insist that nuking Islam's two holiest cities would be a "deterrent," not only would it prove to the world what you Americans are about, it would justify any and all nuclear attacks on you. The utter stupidity and criminality of American politicians, and sadly much of the public is a testament to this murderous, primitive mindset.
Nothing is "hotly debated" any longer, no self-respecting scholar believes in the fairy tales you stump for Bob. It is only "hotly debated" in the American looney bin, where men who pose as scholars pull the wool over the eyes of ignorant people - and try to sell them snake oil on the side.
The biggest threat to global peace and security is the US and its allies, who in the final analysis are the true and worst terrorists of this world. I'm not a religious man, but I know evil when I see it.

BushTerror...etc

It's you who distorts history, apparently doesn't know history, and doesn't want to know history. From Roosevelt onward until

the time of the partition of Vietnam, the US pressured France as much as they could, without alienating them, to leave

Vietnam to self determination. It's historical fact. It doesn't take a scholar to know this, just a desire to separate fact

from fantasy.

I also made clear that Tancredo's remarks were not defensible, so why preach to me about them? It's also clear that your

intentionally inaccurate, even more inflammatory restatement of them was intended to fan the flames even more. One can only

assume that's what you want--more conflict.

You finished with "I'm not a religious man, but I know evil when I see it." That's the only comment you made which is true.

You see unspeakable evil intent in others, but not in yourself. We're all a mix of the darker and lighter natures, but those

who can't or won't see their own "evil" unconsciously project it on others and are unable to see those others' actions

rationally. They become passionate fanatics and love to find conspiracies. From reading your posts, I imagine you're fully

capable of pushing a button which could magically kill those you hate in the US government, oblivious to the fact that most

of those people are no more evil than you. That capability spurts from the same fountain from which all wars spring. Mankind

will never eliminate wars, but we could do better if we were more rational in our criticism of others.

Bob, what revisionist history book are you reading from? Does the fact that Franco-US relations were at their lowest at the time have something to do with this? Does the Gulf of Tonkin incident ring a bell? You do NOT want to debate Vietnam, but speaking of American foreign policy, its killed over 100 million people in the last 60 years.
So no sir, its apparent that you Americans are the ones liberally pulling triggers, and starting wars all over the globe. So when your politicians aiming to become President make threats of using nuclear weapons and attacking entire nations, its not going to go unnoticed, or uncondemned. What did hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis do to you?
Stop projecting your insecurities and faults on others, and realize that unless you people start behaving responsibly the world will unite against you and take action.

Bush...etc

Actually, I'd like to debate the reasons why the US entered the war in Vietnam, but it's hard when you simply reply with 3 questions (and a lot of extraneous hyperbole and a threat) on the subject. I've already exressed my argument, so I have some questions for you? Do you have your own explanation for specifically why the US fought in Vietnam which differs from what I posted? If so, tell us what you think the motive was? Is it different from the reasons the US aided the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Russians? Or, tell me you accept that the obvious motives are just what I said and offer your hindsight advice on what, if anything, the US should have done differently.

If you believe that, at the time, the US should have sat back and let the Soviets trundle along unhindered, then tell us that. If so, it would behoove you to convince us they would have all gone home and left the world alone, or that you wouldn't mind if they didn't. What would you have done, specifically if you had controlled the US government at these times?

I don't expect agreement from you, but it will be a debate only if you actually take a position on the specific subject--offering an alternative motive (or why the response to the motive at the time was wrong) and explain why. Unless you do, we can only assume that you believe the US is Satan incarnate and has no motives, being driven by its purely evil nature to wreak havoc on the world for the pleasure of doing so without any other goal in mind.

You're wasting your time, Bob. Vietnam was never a threat or of "strategic importance" to the US, you lost the war, killed millions of Vietnamese, and displaced millions more. End of discussion. This is the pattern of all your misadventures around the globe for decades.
You have an administration, led by blood thirsty murderers, that accuse and than preemptively attack an almost defenseless nation (Iraq) that has been brought to its knees by murderous sanctions. You have two bodies of supposed representatives that do not listen to the people, but clamor for the attention of multi-billion dollar corporations. The powers that be have built extra-constitutional entities like the national Security State, where millions have been murdered all over the world, and there are over 700 military bases and growing. Enough is enough.

BushTerror...etc

Apparently, it's you who doesn't want to debate the question of specifically why the US got involved in Vietnam ("end of discussion"). When you accuse a criminal in court, normally you bolster your case with presenting a motive. Based on your responses, you've made it pretty clear you can assign no motive other than pure evil ("bloodthirsty murderers").

In this case (Vietnam), the US' motive was well known, and if you had simply acknowledged it, we could move on to discuss how it could have possibly been avoided. Was the decision based on that motive inadvisable or justified (either from the view with the information available at the time or in hindsight)? Did China's and the USSR's admitted goal of spreading the communist revolution throughout the world, and China's specific hope of seeing all of eastern Asia replaced with communist regimes offer enough reason to try and stop them? This isn't a sarcasm veiled in a question. It's just a sincere question which deserves some thought.

For example, Mao believed, mistakenly, that the US wouldn't intervene in Kim Il-sung's Chinese-backed invasion of South Korea. It's clear from historical notes that he wouldn't have sent his soldiers otherwise. He was wavering back and forth on his decision as it was. The USSR promised bomber and other air support over Korea to Mao, but reneged at the last minute (except for air support restricted to Chinese territory). Both Stalin and Mao only hesitated because of fear of the US' intervention. Saddam probably guessed (correctly) that he could dance around the provisions of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement and that the UN would never act. He probably gambled the US would never act unilaterally and he was wrong.

Vietnam was clearly a disaster, but it's impossible know to what extent the US' persistence in intervening in Sino-Soviet
"liberations" dampened their enthusiasm for further expansion, causing the decision makers' "wavering" to land on the side of caution. In this world, deterrence and following through on your threats does keep others in check. Empty threats don't do squat. This whole "intervention and credible threat" topic is the crux of the arguments for/against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and under what circumstances a nation can justify or not justify such actions in general.

If the US had been purely neutral isolationists, the Soviet Union would have probably subjugated the entire Middle East long ago. Instead, US didn't have to fight a war to stop them. The threat of a Soviet-US confrontation was enough because it was credible. The US didn't have a history of backing away from their attempts at expansionism.

I think most people would agree that there is some point at which a nation must be willing to initiate action in the face of developing situations where inaction portends far greater eventual harm. I will admit that sometimes the result is also disastrous. Sometimes the result is for the better--I'm sure most South Koreans are extremely relieved to not be living under the conditions of their countrymen to the north. I also have to admit it's never possible to be certain if those future catastrophes would have occurred or if they were more paranoia than fact. History has plenty of examples in of miscalculations on both sides of the action/inaction decision.

I expect the US (under any administration, and in spite of the terrible situation in Iraq) will see no alternative but to keep pressure on any aggressive or fanatical state which has the capability to develop devastating weapons for their own use or by proxy through terrorists (even if they could inadvertently be allowed into their hands, i.e., stolen). The prime directive of the office of the US president is to defend the US. It was, and probably still is, just a matter of time before one or more major Western cities are annihilated by such weapons. Just sitting on our hands to find out if or when this comes to pass first before acting isn't an option. Inspections are the preferred avenue over military intervention, but they have to be enforced with a credible threat or they fail, as they did in Iraq. What's the alternative? The situation leads to probable disaster no matter how you look at it. It's imbecilic to pretend it's a one-sided issue and that the US goes around murdering" people without cause because it's just "evil".

Vietnam isn't what the article is about, Bob, its about the criminals who run your country. Your romantizied revisionism of the Cold war is laughable. The US has been in the Middle East longer then the former USSR, and the main destabilizing force in the region. The rest of your commentary is a testament to the paraniod mindset of American fear mongers.
Why should we believe you liars and your wild proclamations? You haven't found a single WMD in nearly 5 years in Iraq, and now expect us to believe the Iranians have them? There are terrorists who already have nuclear weaponry in the Middle East, the Israelis, armed by you and the western nations which have been carving the region up for decades. There are 200000 American terrorists in Iraq who have destroyed a nation which never attacked them. If the Iranians don't have nukes, I hope they get them, because we all know you don't attack countries which can defend themselves.
You are a sick man, bob. Your arrogance is only matched by your sheer contempt for facts. You are a cog in a bankrupt system, and the only time you will awaken at this point is when you face the last challenge in life (if then). Aren't a million dead Iraqis enough to quench you blood lust? Rest assured, the rest of the world will not tolerate your lunacy for long. You should be worried, if your selective standards were applied to you, your country would be bombed back to the stone age multiple times over.

BushTerror...etc.
I'm actually starting to become very concerned for you. I' not sure whether you have an attention deficit disorder (which would be the least of your disorders, personality and otherwise) or you're just using a badly written computer program to randomly generate your posts from a database of internet rants.

Assuming you really are as simpleminded as you appear, actually believe all the things you write, and feel as much hate as you imply, I'm surprised you don't join a terrorist group. Instead of floundering around on internet sites, I think you'd express your logic more effectively if you just went around blowing things up (unless you just don't have the cojones). Don't worry, it's inconceivable that you'd be any worse at being a terrorist than you are trying to make a point on the internet. May I suggest a suicide attack to destroy the North Pole? I just laughed out loud to myself imagining you trying to assemble a bomb the way you assemble your posts. Please be very, very careful... :)

You've become a nuisance, Bob. With your silly, outdated cold war cliches and ego-ridden attempts to reconstruct and sanitize your history. If the subject matter wasn't so serious you would be laughed out the room. You are good at projecting your fantasies on other people, a legend in your own mind you are - small mind, hard heart, totally bereft of any honesty. In the meantime stop trying to be something you are not, you are not given to an ounce of sound reasoning, and cling to a joke of a world view. It wont do you any good. Like the typical American lying coward unable to back up your conspracy theories, you suggest that I "go blow myself up." Why in the world would I do that, simply because I don't share your fascist and militrist world view? I'd much rather watch the Iraqi resistance destroy your occupation of their country. You need to stock up on food, a bible, and make sure you get a high powered rifle, and head to the mountains while your paranoia lasts.
American's didn't deserve to die on 911, but they sure as hell deserve to die in Iraq. And bury the lies that go along with them. I have zero sympathy for a country that rapes and slaughters children and carries on like nothings wrong. Its over, bob, you lost. Thats why you're here picking up the pieces. You're going the way of the USSR, and fast.