How ironic -- and fitting -- if Obama ends up "winning" his Peace Prize inadvertently by default.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Robert Naiman <[email protected] > wrote: > > http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/10/an-extraordinaryturnagainstmilitaryintervention.html > > An extraordinary turn against military intervention > by Stephen Kinzer September 10, 2013 4:30PM ET > Commentary: Americans usually embrace war. Their rejection of President > Obama's Syria plan is historic. > > Decisions about what action the United States should take against Syria > will decisively affect Syria and much of the Middle East. The biggest > impact, however, may be felt inside the US. > > The negative reaction in Congress and among the American people to > President Obama’s proposal of military intervention has been sharp. U.S. > receptiveness to Russia’s proposal to sequester Syria’s chemical weapons > shows how eager Washington is to avoid a military response. > > Neither this turn nor the potential “no” vote in Congress would represent > a full rejection of Obama’s plan. It would, however, be something > extraordinary — even historic. It would suggest that a substantial > percentage of Americans believe that a proposed war is a bad idea. In the > context of American history, this is almost unthinkable. > > War is woven into the fabric of American life, and Americans usually > embrace it. A century ago, this was because many considered war an > exuberant, cleansing, manly endeavor. Theodore Roosevelt, who famously > declared that he would “welcome almost any war,” exemplified this view. > “All the great masterful races have been fighting races,” Roosevelt > declared, “and the minute that a race loses the hard fighting virtues, > then, no matter what else it may retain, no matter how skilled in commerce > and finance, in science or art, it has lost its proud right to stand as the > equal of the best.” > > Advances in the technology of destruction and killing made it difficult to > sustain belief in war’s beauty or nobility. The idea of manifest destiny > gave way to something more sophisticated called liberal internationalism, > corporate globalism or, in Henry Cabot Lodge’s formulation, “the large > policy.” > > The first organization founded to promote this ideology, the Council on > Foreign Relations, emerged after World War I and took as its motto a Latin > word, ubique, which means “everywhere.” That word was intended as the > succinct answer to a host of great questions: Where does the U.S. have > vital interests? Where must it seek to shape the course of events? Where > does it have enemies? Where must it be ready to fight? > > Because the U.S. possesses such overwhelming military force, it naturally > seeks to use that force. This has led inexorably to the militarization of > U.S. foreign policy. American leaders have always acted on the assumption > that in the end, they have recourse to all the coercive power they need to > achieve any geopolitical goal. > > Castro is bad? Invade Cuba. The leader of a tiny Caribbean island is > executed? Invade Grenada. Noriega is defiant? Invade Panama. Don’t like > Milosevic? Bomb Yugoslavia. The Taliban collaborates with our enemies? Bomb > Afghanistan. Saddam is defiant? Invade Iraq. > > American reluctance to intervene in a faraway land suggests a retreat from > hubris toward reality. > Many Americans who supported these wars came to realize that they did not > fully understand the situations into which their country was plunging and > that there might be unexpected consequences. They assumed, however, that > whatever problems arose, the power of the United States was so overwhelming > that it would be able to resolve them. This conviction now seems to be > slipping away. > > Large numbers of Americans oppose bombing Syria to punish the Assad regime > for using chemical weapons. Newspapers are full of reports about members of > Congress whose constituents are begging them to oppose President Obama’s > proposed attack. Public opinion surveys show scant support for bombing. > Never in modern history have Americans been so doubtful about the wisdom of > bombing, invading or occupying another country. > > Part of this has to do with the weakness of Obama’s case. No vital > American interests are at stake in Syria, and bombing is unlikely to have > any substantial effect. Arguing against bombing Syria is easy. > > More is at stake than Syria, however. American reluctance to intervene in > a faraway land suggests a retreat from hubris toward reality — a creeping > fear that the United States, powerful as it is, may not be able to control > the effects of its foreign adventures. > > Generations of Americans once grew up believing not only that their > country was omnipotent, but that it was an essential force for good in the > world. One fictional product of the cold war, Rabbit Angstrom, the central > figure in a series of John Updike novels, perfectly expressed this view. > > “America is beyond power, it acts as in a dream, as a face of God,” > Angstrom reflects. “Wherever America is, there is freedom, and wherever > America is not, madness rules in chains and darkness strangles millions.” > > Response to the Syria crisis suggests that many Americans no longer > believe that. They have concluded that Syrians must work out their own > problems and that the U.S. has no business intervening. This is the start > of a new, more realistic approach to foreign policy. > > Part of congressional opposition to an attack on Syria is based on > mindless anti-Obama passion. Some is the result of Iraq fatigue. Much of > it, however, seems based on an emerging belief that the U.S. cannot be the > world’s policeman, that it should turn its attention to urgent challenges > at home and that it has neither the moral authority nor the military power > to impose its values on the rest of the world. > > This is an exciting moment for those who wish that the U.S. would finally > recognize the limits of its power, abandon its delusions of exceptionalism, > and realize that it does not have answers to all of the world’s problems. > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
