Military-Industrial Complex 1, Obama 0

Live From the Swamp

On Location in Washington, DC

Photos by Ari Cushner

As President Obama announced his new strategy to send an additional 34,000 troops to Afghanistan by the summer of 2010, a small yet vocal group of protesters led by Medea Benjamin and Code Pink descended on the White House to voice their opposition.  The best that can be said about Obama's speech, from a progressive point of view, is that he simultaneously announced his decision to began a withdrawal of American forces from the region by July of 2011.  In essence, he plans to end the war by first escalating it. This concept is difficult to grasp, although the logic appears to be that he intends to "finish the job" once and for all in a defined period of time.  Even harder to understand is the possibility of this new strategy actually working given the reality of what has been an eight year-long quagmire in which the "enemy" keeps shifting along with the underlying rationale for the war: to hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda, to rout the Taliban, to train Afghan security forces, to neutralize the threat of violent extremism, etc.

Obama inherited this war from Bush-Cheney, and it does not appear that he embraces it with every fiber of his being as did his predecessors.  He seems to be pursuing a purely political and generally pragmatic course of action designed to appease those in the Pentagon, for whom war and US military power are a way of life, while at the same time trying to subdue growing opposition to this conflict coming primarily from his left flank.

As Obama attempts to thread the needle between those who run the military-industrial complex and those who view US militarism as a grave danger to the well-being of the nation, his efforts may fail and will surely cost many lives and an untold amount of money in the meantime.  People have a right to be furious, and many are. Still, as the following excerpt demonstrates, this long-term strategy could point the way towards an eventual reorganization of priorities away from costly and ultimately counterproductive wars abroad in order to focus on urgent domestic priorities: jobs, healthcare, education, renewable energy, etc.

I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home... I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The commander-in-chief has thusly announced clearly that he understands the building skepticism about devoting still more national resources abroad when such resources are desperately  needed here at home. Yet, he declares that he his committed to this plan because he sees it as being in the best interest of the  "security" and "safety" of Americans, otherwise he "would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow." Many would be thrilled if he did just this, myself included. But it would seem that Obama is unable to embrace this point-of-view for fear that his chances for reelection in 2012 would be doomed if he were to simply announce that the war is a lost cause, and it therefore would be better to cut our losses now.  He might, according to this logic, be pilloried by the Right as a weakling, a terrorist-sympathizer, an anti-American liberal with no "national security" bona fides.  Or, perhaps, he truly believes that throwing more blood and treasure down the drain for eighteen months before ending the war actually makes sense.

I believe Obama is hemmed-in by his generals, some (but not all) of his advisers, and the last fifty plus years of US foreign policy during which the projection of military power throughout the world has become a national secular religion. In this context, he ran on a platform of opposing the war in Iraq while supporting the war in Afghanistan because the former pleased liberals while the latter pleased conservatives. This is politics defined. It worked for the 2008 election, and it might just work again in 2012. Yet it is clear that he will at some point be forced to announce the inevitable withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, a withdrawal he has already set in motion. What the current escalation will accomplish is unclear, at best. What is clear is that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the deeply entrenched proponents of military power still hold most of the cards when it comes to determining foreign policy. If the opponents of such militarism can increase their ability to mobilize public support, perhaps the necessary paradigm shift will begin in earnest during the term(s) of a US president who was preemptively awarded a Nobel Peace Prize by an international community desperate for real change when it comes to the role of American global power.

Let us hope sanity will prevail, and let us continue the struggle to make this happen. In the meantime, justice is a distant dream; peace is an unfounded rumor; war is an omnipresent tragedy.