I'd like Barack to reconsider his view that Bin Laden is "a military target." 9/11 was a crime against humanity. To view 9/11 as a call to war is to fall into Al Qaeda’s trap, to join their race to the spiritual bottom. Viewing the fight against violent extremism as a "war" has led America down a mean and petty path that has turned worldwide solidarity with the U.S. after 9/11 into near-total worldwide revulsion and rejection of our policies. Osama bin Laden ought to be held to account in an international court of law. Assassinating Bin Laden would be the most successful terrorist recruitment tool since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would hurt far more than it would help. It would enhance Bin Laden’s myth and legend and make it harder to make our case in the battle of ideas. Extra-judicial killing has always come back to haunt its perpetrators. I’d like Barack to keep in mind this quotation from one of his professed spiritual mentors, Mahatma Ghandhi: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good it does is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." The more America advances nonviolence, the more safe and secure the world will be.
The excerpt below is FRAMESHOP's take on Barack's foreign policy. The full blog is at framshopisopen.com. I've included a comment I posted after the blog. I'd love for you to join the discussion.
Excerpt:
... [boiling down] candidates' foreign policy positions down to one word each.
Here's what I found...
"Responsible" - Obama
Barack Obama's foreign policy vision makes references to Franklin Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, but ultimately his vision boils down to a single word: responsible.
America must, according to Obama, "protect the American people and expand opportunity for the next generation," but we must do that by first "bringing the war [in Iraq] to a responsible end." In context, Obama's "responsible" looks like this:
To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.
Everything begins with this notion of a "responsible end" to the situation in Iraq. What does this mean? Well, it does not mean bringing American soldiers home right away. Obama's proposal is to remove "all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008"--a date he calls "consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. But having put this date down in black and white, Obama then says the following:
This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.
Hmm. When is a withdrawal date not really a withdrawal date? When the larger concern is that America's foreign policy be "responsible."
But "responsible" for what? Many would say the only responsible thing to do at this point is to make a radical change in the Iraq policy--to alter just about everything about it right now.
It seems, however, that the Obama campaign is actually re-iterating a more vexing and problematic frame, one that has been used by the Republicans and by a small group of Democrats closely associated with Senator Joe Lieberman. In this logic, "withdrawal" is framed as some kind of David Copperfield magic act: one second there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the next second (poof!)--all gone. This is what that frame looks like when President Bush invoked it during his May 1, 2007 press conference, in which he explained why he vetoed the Democratic insistence on a withdrawal date:
It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.
Here we see that the word "irresponsible" is a political stone thrown by Bush at the Democrats who propose serious change to American's Iraq policy. The attack on Democrats takes the form of the false scenario of a "magic" disappearing soldiers and, apparently, has made some Democratic candidates concerned that a foreign policy that proposed an immediate change in strong words will leave them open to this charge of "irresponsible."
So, as great as it may be to read Barack Obama invoke the names of Democratic Presidents past, it does seem that the Obama' campaign's entire foreign policy vision is still reacting to Bush's flawed logic rather than pushing the national debate to new terrain.
"Responsible," at the end of the day, is a code word that really means: no withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq any time soon.
And let's be honest, here. If a foreign policy vision does not begin by proposing big change in the Iraq policy, how can it really claim to be new, let alone "responsible."
Comments
Re: Obama I agree with Jeff insofar as Obama DOES seem to want to have it both ways...though he was clearly AGAINST the war before it started, he now seems both to want to end it, and to be willing to prolong it, under certain circumstances...I believe with his recent "No" vote on the Iraq supplemental he's passed a tipping point in which he's decided we DO need, as Jeff puts it, "big change" in Iraq policy. The sooner the better.
I made the following remarks at a rally outside of Kingsmill resort when Bush came to visit Democrats earlier this year...:
I’m fired up! I am fired up! I appreciate you for being here...my name is David W. Koenig and I am standing up to George W. Bush...are we standing up to George W. Bush? [pause]...(sorry, didn’t hear that...) my name is David W. Koenig and I am standing up to Dick Cheney...are we standing up to Dick Cheney? [pause] I feel that war is always cruelty...and that war is always failure...we are better than this...and the United States of America is better than this...we recognize this...as the dearly departed Molly Ivins said in her last column, "Stand Up Against the Surge,"
"A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country — we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls and at the polls.
I believe Bush committed war crimes when he launched a preemptive war on and invasion of Iraq; that he was and remains criminally negligent in responding to Hurricane Katrina; and that he flouted treaties and international law by approving of, and institutionalizing torture. For these reasons, I believe we need to impeach this President, and I’ve started a group to work for that locally that called "Williamsburg: Impeach the President" (you can learn more about the group at myspace.com/williamsburgimpeachthepresident)...by holding our leaders accountable, we make it more likely the future will be one of peace and justice.
How about denouncing torture? I believe that denouncing torture and cultivating peace are intimately connected...Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are pit stops on the same mean and petty road the Bush Administration has led our country down since 9/11...the same road we are repudiating and reversing...on January 11th at the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. I spent six hours in a holding cell. I'd been charged with "disorderly conduct," along with seventy-nine others. On the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being brought to the detention center at Guantanamo, my fellow detainees and I had gathered at the Federal Court atrium to urge that torture be stopped, and that the detention center be shut down. I heard a number of my fellow detainees take the names and identities of men at Guantanamo in order to get them entered onto the record. I believe that our torturing people is costing us our moral leadership in the world.
I have started a group called "Williamsburg Denounce Torture" (you can check it out online at myspace.com/williamsburgdenouncetorture)...if you are interested in learning more about either Williamsburg: Impeach the President or Williamsburg: Denounce Torture I’d be happy to talk with you...Gandhi was asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?" He replied, "I think it would be a nice idea." I bet he would be proud of us. Let’s keep up the good work. What do we want? Peace Surge! When do we want it? Now!
To the Editor:
Please ask yourself: Why are we in Iraq? What are we doing there? Is what we are doing there making us safer? And, what kind of world do you want to live in?
David W. Koenig
other treaties and articles of international law. This war is both criminal and inhumane. These
charters and conventions form the legal basis for charges of war crimes, but they are also a formal
statement of principles of humanity shared by all civilized nations. They are but an expression
of fundamental unalienable rights of all humanity. Conscience demands that those responsible be
brought to justice. The Nuremberg Judgements declare that complacency is not acceptable. We must condemn these crimes and demand that those who gave the orders be punished.
I believe the following charges warrant an indictment:
The invasion of Iraq is a War of Aggression and a Crime against Peace.
The U.S. illegally imprisons, interrogates, abuses and tortures individuals in Iraq,
The most fundamental requirement of International Law is the protection of and care for the injured.
Sign the petition at peoplejudgebush.org.
Bush and his administration have operated as if they are above the law. He believes noone can challenge him. Prove him wrong. Iraqis, Americans, and the rest of humanity are counting on you.
I sent the following fax to Rep. Jo Ann Davis:
The Honorable Jo Ann Davis
U.S. House of Representatives
February 14th, 2007
Re: Vote No on More Occupation Money
Dear Representative Davis,
I have seen photos and video of children dismembered by American air strikes. After seeing these images, I felt a tear down my cheek. American and Iraqi men, women, and children are increasingly suffering and dying because of the U.S. occupation. America is better than this. Americans are better than this. You can stop this. Be sweet – stop funding the American occupation of Iraq.
I respectfully urge you to publicly pledge to vote NO to more money for occupation and YES to supporting our troops by bringing them home and taking care of them when they get here. For your convenience and to publicly document your position, I’ve included a signing statement (below) that I invite your staff to deliver to you for your signature.
The majority of people in this country oppose this occupation; the majority of U.S. troops in Iraq oppose more troops being sent there; and the majority of Iraqis want us to leave.
Sign the pledge: defund the occupation: save lives.
Most Sincerely,
PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL
FUNDING FOR THE IRAQ WAR/OCCUPATION
I, Representative Jo Ann Davis, pledge to vote against the supplemental spending measure that President Bush will seek in 2007 from Congress to fund the war in and occupation of Iraq.
Signed: _________________________________________________
Date: _________________________
I wrote the following Letter to the Editor which appeared in late '06 in "The Virginia Gazette." I believe Barack would be sensitive to saving Darfur.
I’m writing to express my grave concern over the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Millions of people have been forced from their homes and face starvation, rape, and the constant threat of violence. The UN has declared it to be the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. I watched a video in which a mother recounted having her two year-old son, Zahra, pried from her arms and beaten to death in front of her and her daughter.
Work with the U.N. to send U.N. troops to Chad and the Central African Republic to prevent the cancer of genocide from completely upending these two countries. It’s incomprehensible that we’re allowing the madness of Darfur to spread inexorably into two more countries.
Visit Chad and the Central African Republic as a show of support to keep those two countries from collapsing — invite Chinese leaders, who provide Sudan with the guns used for atrocities, to join you.
At the least, dispatch Condi Rice to Chad to show the U.S.’s support — then have her stop off in Cairo for meetings with Arab leaders on the crisis.
The U.S. could also try targeted sanctions against Sudanese leaders, a no-fly zone to stop Sudanese jets from bombing civilians, and especially a major new effort to start a real peace process in Darfur, for ultimately only a peace agreement can end these horrors.
There’s more at SaveDarfur.org.
Williamsburg, VA
I wrote a letter similar to the one I wrote below and it appeared in Hampton Roads, VA's "The Daily Press" January 27th. I believe denouncing torture and Barack's campaign are intimately linked. Let's disuss this.
To the Editor:On Jan 11th, I spent six hours in a holding cell at the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. With seventy-nine others, I'd been charged with "disorderly conduct." On the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being brought to the detention center at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (or "Gitmo"), my fellow arrestees and I had gathered in the Federal Court atrium to urge that torture be stopped, and that the detention center be shut down. Most of us withheld our identification and took the names and identities of men at Gitmo.How do you feel about human beings being tortured in your name? Because, in all likelihood, that is what is happening. The few reports about Gitmo that do reach us tell of prisoners - men who are fathers, sons and brothers - without contact with their families, with very little or no contact with attorneys, of interminable detention without legal charge, of rendition, of kidnapping, of the sale of prisoners to US authorities, of the desecration of the Qur'an, and of unconscionable prisoner humiliation and abuse. This situation degrades not only its victims; it degrades us all. The very existence of Gitmo detention centers defies a coherent ethical explanation. Our government's dangerous dance around the Geneva Conventions and the use of dubious tactics on Gitmo detainees and elsewhere is morally inconsistent with what we stand for as a nation. We claim to honor the principles of justice and human rights. Therefore we're accurately called hypocrites when we deny any sort of justice or due process in the name of protecting America. How we treat our suspected enemies will help determine how many future terrorists we create. We should be, and can be, a lot smarter about overcoming terrorism. Any minimal intelligence we are gathering is not worth the harm we are doing to our international reputation. It's costing us our moral leadership in the world. How long before we pause, look over our shoulder, and find no one is following?David W. Koenig
