Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst as well as the author of ten books and hundreds of articles, many of which can be found at OpEdNews. Over his long career, he has frequently spoken on radio and television and appeared in the national press. Welcome to OpEdNews, Earl. In a speech at West Point on December 1, President Obama announced a 30,000 troop increase for the war in Afghanistan. Was this response ever in doubt?
In speeches, interviews, and off the cuff talks dating back to August 2007 before he was the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama repeatedly called Afghanistan the war that had to be fought and the war that had to be won. He made it crystal clear that, if president, he would not only fight it, but fight it to win no matter what the time, cost, and military effort required. He's simply done exactly what he long promised. Why anyone, especially anyone on the left, would be shocked at this and rail at the president as a back flipper, betrayer and sell out shows that they've had their head in the sand or, more likely, and more fatally continuing to try to makeover Obama into something he isn't and never was, namely, a progressive, peace candidate. An added note never in the century plus history of the Nobel Peace Prize has it been awarded to a person with no track record for peace, and worse, one who is waging not one but two wars.
I know you're not a mind reader. But, feel free to speculate here. Why do you think the Committee took the unprecedented step of awarding the Peace Prize to someone "with no track record for peace"? Surely there were plenty of people out there working for peace. Was it wishful thinking on their part? A terrible misstep?
The Nobel Committee did not award Obama the prize based on A. A long, personal track record working for international peace and reconciliation; B. A long history of working with governments and NGO organizations for peace and reconciliation; and C. Because of any tangible accomplishment of his to end wars, conflicts, brush fires, strengthen peace diplomacy. They awarded him the award for 1. He is a history-making first; 2. They mistook his rhetoric about peace for real action; 3. They were media and celebrity star-struck with him.
The Committee should be embarrassed by their
choice and Obama should have had the good graces to turn it down with the
statement that "I don't deserve it, but I will work hard in the next three
years to make global peace a reality, and then when I accomplish my end, I
humbly hope to be considered for the award."
If we put aside Obama's foreign policy,
for a moment, how's he doing a year in? Has he shown signs of moving
decisively to clean up the mess left behind by the last administration?
Not only has he not cleaned up Bush's mess, he's dumped more mess on the
nation's pile. Double digit unemployment (double double digit underemployment),
home foreclosures at record highs, no real controls on Wall Street trading,
swaps, and lending, no requirements for banks to lend, a sham of a
consumer protection law, no real cost containment provisions in health care
reform, a record debt, and a stimulus plan that was weak, underfunded, and
created no new jobs, worst of all, surrounding himself with the same economic
crew -- Geithner, Summers, Rubin, and Bernacke -- responsible for the
economic/financial debacle.
Beyond the historic significance of
having the first person of color in the White House, was Obama the right man
for the job? Or, do you think this is a mess no mere mortal could have wrestled
into submission?
Obama was the right man for the job. If you believed that a Beltway, corporate, centrist, Democrat was
the answer to the domestic and foreign policy wreck and ruin of Bush and the
GOP. But, if you believed sincerely
in hope and change in Washington and the country from the dominance of big
money, Wall St. and corporate lobbyists, the end to a failed, flawed costly war
policy, single payer health care, criminal justice overhaul, full defense and
expansion of civil rights and civil liberties, jobs for all, massive funding
and support for farms, small businesses, and working class and middle class
homeowners, and most importantly to take the government (taxpayers) out of the
business of shoring up Wall St. and big bank profiteering, and imposing tough
and enforced regulations on the banks and Wall St., then Obama was not your guy.
Well, judging by results, Obama was not "our" guy, despite all his calls
for change. So, where does that leave millions of us who were hoping, praying,
and working for change? Are we just out of luck for the foreseeable future?
It leaves progressives where they should have been all along: 1.
organizing around progressive issues -- independently of Democrats; 2. Critical leverage (push) of those
Democrats who can be worked with to fight for a progressive agenda within and
without Congress, legislatures, city councils, and all other organs of
political power; 3. Organizing and
support for viable third party
candidates. Progressives, sadly, failed miserably to learn the great lesson of
history. That is, when you give unconditional support (and adulation) to a
establishment, special interest, corporate Democrat, you'll be bitterly
disappointed and betrayed. And, in the end, [you'll] have no one to blame but
yourself.
So, what you seem to be saying is work
around the White House and Congress, essentially. Speaking of Congress, where
have they been? Didn't the Dems have a big mandate in November? Why would they
just throw it away?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
