On the last night of August, the president used an Oval Office speech to boost a policy of perpetual war. Hours later, the New York Times front page offered a credulous gloss for the end of â€œthe seven-year American combat mission in Iraq.â€
Whereâ€™s the Beef?
The first sentence of the coverage described the speech as saying â€œthat it is now time to turn to pressing problems at home.â€ The story went on to assert that Obama â€œused the moment to emphasize that he sees his primary job as addressing the weak economy and other domestic issues — and to make clear that he intends to begin disengaging from the war in Afghanistan next summer.â€
But the speech gave no real indication of a shift in priorities from making war to creating jobs. And the oratory â€œmade clearâ€ only the repetition of vague vows to â€œbeginâ€ disengaging from the Afghanistan war next summer. In fact, top administration officials have been signaling that only token military withdrawals are apt to occur in mid-2011, and Obama said nothing to the contrary.
Theyâ€™re All Good Wars
While now trumpeting the nobility of an Iraq war effort that heâ€™d initially disparaged as â€œdumb,â€ Barack Obama is polishing a halo over the Afghanistan war, which he touts as very smart. In the process, the Oval Office speech declared that every U.S. war — no matter how mendacious or horrific — is worthy of veneration.
Obama closed the speech with a tribute to â€œan unbroken line of heroesâ€ stretching â€œfrom Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own.â€ His reference to the famous U.S. military outpost in South Vietnam was a chilling expression of affinity for another march of folly.
With his commitment to war in Afghanistan, President Obama is not only on the wrong side of history. He is also now propagating an exculpatory view of any and all U.S. war efforts — as if the immoral can become the magnificent by virtue of patriotic alchemy.
A century ago, William Dean Howells wrote: â€œWhat a thing it is to have a country that canâ€™t be wrong, but if it is, is right, anyway!â€
New Rhetoric, Same Old Policies
During the presidency of George W. Bush, â€œthe war on terrorâ€ served as a rationale for establishing warfare as a perennial necessity. The Obama administration may have shelved the phrase, but the basic underlying rationales are firmly in place. With American troop levels in Afghanistan near 100,000, top U.S. officials are ramping up rhetoric about â€œtaking the fight toâ€ the evildoers.
The day before the Oval Office speech, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs talked to reporters about â€œwhat this drawdown means to our national security efforts in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia and around the world as we take the fight to Al Qaeda.â€
The next morning, Obama declared at Fort Bliss: â€œA lot of families are now being touched in Afghanistan. Weâ€™ve seen casualties go up because weâ€™re taking the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies.â€ And, for good measure, Obama added that â€œnow, under the command of Gen. Petraeus, we have the troops who are there in a position to start taking the fight to the terrorists.â€
If, nine years after 9/11, we are supposed to believe that U.S. forces can now â€œstartâ€ taking the fight to â€œthe terrorists,â€ this is truly war without end. And thatâ€™s the idea.
Terrorism Canâ€™t Be Defeated
Nearly eight years ago, in November 2002, retired U.S. Army Gen. William Odom appeared on C-SPANâ€™s â€œWashington Journalâ€ program and told viewers: â€œTerrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We’re not going to win the war on terrorism.”
With his Aug. 31 speech, Obama became explicit about the relationship between reduced troop levels in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan. â€œWe will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists,â€ he said. â€œAnd because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense.â€ This is the approach of endless war.
While Obama was declaring that â€œour most urgent task is to restore our economy and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work,â€ I went to a National Priorities Project webpage and looked at cost-of-war counters spinning like odometers in manic overdrive. The figures for the â€œCost of War in Afghanistanâ€ — already above $329 billion — are now spinning much faster than the ones for war in Iraq. [www.costofwar.com]
One day in March 1969, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. â€œOur government has become preoccupied with death,â€ George Wald said, â€œwith the business of killing and being killed.â€ More than four decades later, how much has really changed? Î¦
Norman Solomon is the author of many books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign, launched by Progressive Democrats of America.