I am admittedly confused by Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace prize so soon in his administration when so little has changed other than our rhetoric. Iraq wages on. Afghanistan is playing out like the movie Groundhog Day only the role of Bill Murray, previously played by the USSR, is now played by us.
Furthermore, we have radio reports today suggesting Barack Obama is not heeding the unanimous advice of his commanders on the ground in Afghanistan to increase troop levels there to stabilize the situation, which was a democratic leadership rallying cry under the Bush administration when it was declared we were focusing on the wrong country by taking on Iraq.
So why is it that the international community bestows a Nobel Peace Prize on our president for simply altering rhetoric?
My opinion, likely controversial, is simply this. For the first time, post 9/11 the United States was the one who felt their borders and national security threatened. We were now the ones seeking assistance FROM -- rather than giving assistance TO -- the international community.
We first played the role of global security giver in WWI. We delayed entry into WWII, gaining some harsh criticism along the way by showing half commitments in terms of Lend Lease before jumping in feet first after Pearl Harbor. Stationing US troops in Germany in the Post War Reconstruction was done to allay Europe's concerns about our reluctance to assist them in protecting their borders. Europe wanted to make sure some of the first troops killed in the event of aggression would be ours to get us off our backsides and into THEIR fray.
You know? They wanted to make sure WE were all in this TOGETHER?
Having oceans as natural borders allays fears of invasions. We had not been invaded since the War of 1812. September 11th brought this new, technology-enabled threat into OUR Sovereign Territory, and we realize it will never abate and can only be contained. Part of that containment will come from intelligence gathering in traditional spy ways moth balled in the late 1970s through the Torricelli amendment, and part of that containment will come from surgical strikes wherever those coteries of entities poorly defined in the current Geneva Convention rules exist to train and plan to attack us at home.
This is NOT to say W Bush handled it perfectly or even well. This IS to say that what has changed in the International community is that we were the ones seeking military and political support rather than being the ones providing it. In short we were not the ones giving anymore; we were the ones seeking help. In human relationships that is called reciprocity, just as it is in international diplomacy. We have received precious little reciprocity from the international community. Wealth has little to do with threat of harm. Wealthy PEOPLE contract serious illnesses, too, just like the indigent.
We can bestow our wealth through contributing our capital to weaponry to assist the less fortunate in defending themselves, but that does not take away from the fact that in the new rules of warfare that is religious-driven terrorism, that we are a main target now, not Europe from the threat of Soviet aggression. (That statement is not to imply ALL Islamic sects act this way, only the narrow, extremist ones under the justification of religion. Neither too, should this be construed as ignoring other threats within our sovereign borders, so McVeigh me no McVeigh. Duly noted.)
So Obama has been saying the right things TO the international community in general and to Old Europe in specific. Old Europe harbors resentment toward us for a variety of reasons, some of which are earned and some of which are simply jealousy at our ability to eclipse their influence on the international scene.
The young outcasts who left in the 1700 and 1800s made out well, and outshone their rejecting forebears in the 1900s. That may seem like light years ago to a country whose history is so short, but it is not for a collection of small, sovereign enclaves who have beat hell out of one another for a millennium, and who are now trying to replicate our State/Federal model through the European Union concept. (I did a 14 week long, one-on-one tutorial on this with a former Judge of the European Court of Justice while studying at the London School of Economics in 1979. That statement is not the result of some toilet-sitting epiphany this morning.)
It is in this way that our conduct on the international stage seems highly codependent and therefore extremely unhealthy. We gave our support and lives to protect Europe, primarily. (I say this to acknowledge how we have not assisted many LDCs where we have turned a blind eye to horrific genocides over the years.) When we came to the community to express our needs for their assistance, we were summarily renounced.
Appeasers applauded France, Germany, and Russia's stance against us on that as being compassionate, when the reality is that it all had to do with protecting their supply of cheap oil from the UN-managed, and highly corrupt, program of purchasing inexpensive Iraqi oil to provide humanitarian aid which rarely made it out of Hussein's vaults to his people.
Of course the international community will applaud our new demeanor. It is the same as the old demeanor, only this time we are doing so at the expense of our own well being, given we are putting their needs ahead of ours in figuring out how to combat this very new and very REAL threat to the continued safety of our citizens from direct attacks on them on our sovereign soil.
That is what changed on 9/11 and that is why our demeanor had to change. We, indeed, have to "find our voice" to express this, which a change of administration facilitates to sand off the rough edges of a ones party's approach, and it will evolve. That Robert Gates stayed on in this party transition illustrates this. It should also be noted that Robert Gates is an HW -- or, in my view, good -- Bush protege. (I worked for Bush and respected his foreign policy views. Lack of objectivity here duly acknowledged.)
Right now it feels as though, in reaction, we have gone too far the other way. We cannot return to our old approach in face of this NEW problem. We have to adapt to the new problem for our sovereign security.
We return to that old approach at our own expense. Serving others at one's own expense is little more than a classic pattern of unhealthy codependence.
Here's hoping Obama's acceptance of this award does not become an historical book end to the grainy footage of Neville Chamberlain disembarking from a prop plane, waving an accord in his hand, and declaring that their was "peace in our time."
The threat remains out there, and a medal around our President's neck could be very small consolation should we be attacked as a result of putting the needs of other nation states ahead of our own.
We have given internationally for a century. It is not unreasonable to exert our rights to reciprocal assistance. It's worth the sacrifice of a Nobel Peace Prize.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Sharon Kay
Steve Katz
Fay Paxton
Kerry Lauerman
Bernadine Spitzsnogel
wendyo
Salon.com
Comments
R
As for your one-sided review of history – where do I begin? Let’s start with this: “given we are putting their needs ahead of ours in figuring out how to combat this very new and very REAL threat”.
Oh, how we love to see ourselves as the Defender of all that’s right and holy; the facts say otherwise starting with this inarguable one: We didn’t get into WWII until we were attacked.
And of course we stationed our troops in Germany afterward – who would you have put there to guard against the Red Menace, the French? And it was not at the urging of anyone else that we did so – we clearly saw it in our own interest given that we were the only country at that time capable of standing up to the Soviet challenge.
And I don’t recall any other country urging us to “protect” the despots who ruled South Vietnam like a personal fiefdom. Matter of fact, I recall the French warning us against it.
As for Islamo-fascist terrorism, again I don’t recall us doing much about that until we were attacked here. The sainted Reagan cut and run after the attack on our Marines in Beirut -- Grenada presented a much better target of opportunity. And rather than fight the Iranians, Reagan sold them arms under the table. And I seem to recall during the Reagan years we armed and financed the very same Afghani “freedom fighters” we now call “terrorists”. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Speaking of which, let’s not forget how cozy Bush the Elder and Rumsfeld were with Saddam Hussein – or that we embraced the Taliban not so long ago. Clinton ducked terrorists, too, but chose to fight them in the Balkans (yet again). But that had a lot less to do with protecting Europe (the public pose) than it did with protecting access to oil.
Oil was the reason our once good friend Saddam Hussein became our sworn enemy, and when he threatened to trade Iraqi oil for Euros instead of dollars, his fate was sealed -- and it had NOTHING to do with terrorism.
Long before 9-11, the target went on Saddam’s back. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Wolfowitz and the rest of the PNAC Neoconmen waxed noble about democracy, but anyone with half-a-brain knew what they really were up to: oil. If you won’t take that assessment from a liberal, maybe you’ll take it from Alan Greenspan.
My point? Yes, the world is a better place for our having spent our lives and treasure fighting against evil around the globe. But let’s not kid ourselves; our motives have been practical – and sometimes evil – as much as they’ve been noble.
So – by admitting the obvious, Obama is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize? Hardly. It’s a sad day when simply telling the truth is deemed so exceptional.
Several things:
1) The inarguable that we did not get into the WWII until attacked. Yes. But what do you call Lend Lease if not support through our CAPITAL as expressed.
2) Troops in Germany was a demand of the NATO pact. The EU jurist discussed this at great length with me. Sure, we should be there, but the salve it provided to Europe was knowing we'd lose lives along with them at the beginning such that our entry would be faster you and I both acknowledge it was in WWII. This does not take away from the fact that wars on foreign soils we help defend is still our nation GIVING as opposed to them giving to us to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks at home.
3) Vietnam was an offshoot of the notion of two superpowers at cross purposes. It no longer exists, with the diffused nature of terrorist cells the new threat. (Furthermore, I acknowledged this with the discussion around our turning a blind eye toward problems in the LDCs in the post.)
4) Bush the elder followed the rules of international law in dealing with Iraq in classic fashion. A sovereign nation had its borders over-run. Sought assistance, and the international community complied to push one sovereign nation, an aggressor, out of another. Real Politick means shifting alliances, to boot.
5) I am aware of self interest driving our actions, with oil principal among them. I was focusing more on our European relationship as we are still wedded to the Western international political system at times to our detriment.
6) Nowhere did you address how 9/11 -- like Pearl Harbor -- was a defining moment driving our need to rethink our involvement in the international community. That was the centerpiece of the entire blog post to which you replied. It's the elephant in the room, Tom, and why, at least in my opinion, a return to our old demeanor simply cannot happen. Too much change about our sovereign security on that day to continue diplomatically with a "business as usual approach." That's what we're figuring out, and it will not come to clarity until there's a couple more changes of power between the two parties to get it worked out. It remains a work in progress. My fear is simply the penduluum swing at the moment. Moderation is the answer, not wholesale denunciation of attempts to face new threats.
As for your post, Gwool, it's thought-provoking. I agree that the threat of attacks has not been eliminated, no matter how much we wish that were so and that the Euros are a bit too unwilling to take responsibility for any heavy lifting. I hope you're right that Gates will help the admin develop a balanced, and successful, policy. So far, not so sure. As for your work: well argued!
Agreed, and moderation begins with the understanding that nations always operate in what they perceive to be in their own interest. Unfortunately, that truth gets corrupted when nations are ruled by despots -- or by men who believe the path they chose was chosen by God.
For the record, I supported Bush the Lesser when he set out to take down Al Queda and the Taliban, but I protested loudly -- as I have the right and duty to do -- when he chose to divert us from our just cause and use that just cause to pursue a private agenda for reasons we have yet to fully understand.
As a consequence we are mired in two intractable conflicts in a far-flung corner of the world, conflicts in which the Muslim world has watched us kill tens of thousands of Muslims -- good and bad -- for much of the last decade -- just as tens of thousands of Muslims were killed during the 80's at the hands of another superpower.
Muslims may be forgiven if they are having a hard time making the distinction between the two. And for my money, Obama should be not only forgiven, but encouraged in his attempt to ameliorate the situation through moderation.
We teach our children that it takes great courage to walk away from a fight when that is the wisest thing to do, but we treat our leaders as cowards if they do the same thing.
There is, to my way of thinking, huge differences between the economic self interests to which you are, with good merit, pointing. Yes, enlightened economic self interests leads to various actions on the international scene. To deny that is to deny the sun rises and sets.
My thinking through this whole thing has NOT been about that, which should be a profound statement given you know my economic background. I have been thinking of it solely in terms of protecting the lives of the citizens. Protection from being killed rather than from being hungrier and colder, but still safe from death at the hands of a foreign entity.
Hence looking more at the West where we jumped in to protect them from death, as it were. And, in the old ways that threat came from uniformed forces invading en masse. That is tough to do with two borders are with vast oceans.
It is a far different threat when such threat of death comes from 20 or so folks in civilian clothes entering your open borders, aggregating and killing your citizenry in targeted attacks enabled by new technologies.
You can operate from enlightened economic self interest when your citizens are comforted in the knowledge they are free from death at foreign hands. Protecting from death trumps protecting from hunger or cold.
So, I acknowledge your point, but can you also see how this new threat of death on our shores is the game changer that has to be accommodated in the way we address the international community. That threat is what is new to us as a nation. That is the threat we GAVE our support to ameliorate in the West, and that is the threat the west has yet to acknowledge or agree to give support to us in ameliorating in OUR sovereign state.
It's our turn for the world to say, WTF?
But instead of in the instance of a Nobel Prize going to some Swedish researcher who found a genetic link between cross-polinated bee jizz and salmon eggs, it's Obama for at least WANTING world peace, and more so than Carrie Prejean, her party's best beauty pageant contestant and world peace for straight people seeker - though I can't think of any beauty queens (and that's who I think of when I think of world peace) that have actually won.
So here's a prediction ~ for every oddball that you've mocked for winning one of those prizes, so go the Americans. Who knows, Wooly ... maybe you'll win one someday. Or maybe the Jonas Brothers.
Rated!
Simply changing the tenor and tone of how we deal with the rest of the world from the Dubya model of "our war or the highway" has made the world an immensely safer place. Whether that's worthy of a Nobel prize is another question.
Carter I think naive and foolish, but that I can accept.
Roosevelt helped end a war.
What has he done yet? Nothing.