I hate to admit it, but I’ve been suckered by the Obama administration. A few weeks ago the secretary of State announced, in effect, that the "war on terror" was over. From now on, the mass media informed us, the United States would be fighting only "overseas contingency operations." There was so much buzz about the end of the war that I was moved to write a column, do radio interviews, the whole bit. Very exciting!
John Feffer argues with Brent Choi and Joowoon Jung about the proper response to North Korea’s behavior.
Editor’s note: This article appears in Thirsting for Change: Obama’s First 100 Days, a report published by the Institute for Policy Studies. The Bush administration transformed the way the United States dealt with the world. It invaded two countries, began a war on terror that had no geographic or time limits, boosted military spending, acted unilaterally, and ignored international law. Although his second term was more pragmatic than his first — with an important reversal on North Korea policy and rapprochement with Libya — George W. Bush generally emphasized military force over diplomatic negotiations, acting more like a cowboy than a statesman.
Depending on whose analysis you read, the G20 summit in London was the best or the worst of meetings. To some critics, it was an abysmal failure by a self-appointed illegitimate body. To others (read: Gordon Brown), the world has been saved from the brink of its economic demise by inspired leadership and deft summitry.
After the Bush administration’s heavy-handed foreign policy, which alienated many U.S. allies, a period of caution under Obama might be welcome. But exercising too much caution, if it translates into maintaining the status quo, would be a profound mistake. The sheer number of grave crises confronting the new president requires a fundamental change in the way that the United States approaches the world.
In many respects, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has played right into the hands of cynics who have long doubted his promises to create a new and more progressive role for the United States in the world. The very morning after the last primaries, in which he finally received a sufficient number of pledged delegates to secure the Democratic presidential nomination and no longer needed to win over voters from the progressive base of his own party, Obama – in a Clinton-style effort at triangulation – gave a major policy speech before the national convention of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Embracing policies which largely backed those of the more hawkish voices concerned with Middle Eastern affairs, he received a standing ovation for his efforts.
Although Iraq and the economy tend to dominate the headlines, Iran is never far from the news cycle – or from the speeches of the leading U.S. presidential candidates. In a recent trip to the Middle East, John McCain reiterated his concern about “Iranian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran also received the attention of President Bush when he insisted last month that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to “destroy people.” Implausible and unsubstantiated as this claim might be, it represents a popular thread of argument in the Iran debate.
When George W. Bush first campaigned for the presidency, his foreign policy plans hinged on building a stronger economic and political relationship with Latin America, especially Mexico, and reducing U.S. involvement in small-scale military engagements in general, and “nation building” in particular. When he took office 2001, he inherited a nation at peace, with a record budget surplus.
bama skillfully tackles what is in many ways a “third rail” issue in U.S. politics – race. In a country that a few short years ago walked out of the U.N. Summit on racism, and later failed miserably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seemed like race and justice were too far from the mainstream discourse to be addressed openly and honestly. Like the high power third rail in the railway track, politicians and co-workers alike feared the consequences of touching issues of race. Obama’s speech changes all that.
Fidel Castro’s decision to officially relinquish his elected post as president of Cuba once again defied the conventional, but stagnant "wisdom" of U.S. pundits and many Liberal, Right, and Left ideologues and politicians alike.