Arguably, Barack Obama's most promising promise of the presidential campaign was his vow to not just end the war in Iraq but "to end the mindset that got us into war."
Like much campaign rhetoric, this pledge was open to interpretation. Did he just mean that he would avoid the belligerent arrogance of George W. Bush, or was he suggesting a more fundamental challenge to Washington's stale foreign policy elite?
Would Obama pick up on the prescient warning of Dwight Eisenhower about the deforming power of the "military-industrial complex" or on John F. Kennedy's vision of peace that was "not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war"?
In the three weeks since his Nov. 4 election victory, the answer seems to be that Barack Obama is viewing his pledge in the most minimal sense. The emerging shape of his incoming administration suggests that Americans who opposed the Iraq War early will continue to be treated as misfits and outsiders, even though Obama was one of them.
In the mainstream press, too, there survives the same old pro-war frame of debate. On Sunday, the New York Times published seven opinion articles about the open-ended conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, all by writers with histories of favoring Bush's arguments for the wars, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
There were no articles from prominent opponents of the Iraq invasion, like Sen. Russ Feingold or Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni or arms inspector Scott Ritter. It seems that having the foresight and the courage to oppose Bush's reckless invasion still disqualifies you from the respectable debate of the New York-Washington power centers.
Yet, while there is no room at the dinner table for the anti-war "ideologues" – as they're often called – there appear to be plenty of seats for the neocon-lites of the Democratic Party (from their institutional base at the formerly liberal Brookings Institution) and even some spots for key holdovers from the Bush administration.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment