Obixon

This article was originally published at the Nolan Chart on November 2, 2008. With Obama now ramping the Iraq war back up by sending 1500 more troops there I'm republishing this article on this blog.

Many have said that there isn’t much difference between Sens. McCain and Obama and taken to calling them McBama. I’d like to offer a prediction about how things will go under the next President, who at this point looks like it will be Sen. Obama, and suggest that there will be a strong parallel with Pres. Richard Nixon’s administration, hence the name Obixon.

In 1968 while campaigning Nixon said he would “end the war and win the peace in Vietnam.” After posturing as a peace candidate he went on to escalate the war in many ways, not concluding it until 1973. During the five years that the war continued under his administration Nixon ordered stepped up bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia, and ground attacks into Cambodia and Laos. In this author’s opinion there is no other conclusion to come to but that Nixon lied during his campaign and had no intention of ending the Vietnam War quickly.

In 2008 Sen. Obama is running as a peace candidate, promising to end the war in Iraq in sixteen months or perhaps less. His website states, “Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.” More can be read on the subject here,[link edited for length]

Perhaps he will end the war in Iraq quickly, but with history as a guide there’s little reason for optimism. Just like in Vietnam, the local forces the US is supporting in Iraq are doing poorly, the political and economic situations are unstable, and the enemy is committed to a long war of attrition. No doubt there will be surprises from Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents that Pres. Obama will have to deal with. Pres. Bush has already escalated the war by attacking into Pakistan and Syria. No doubt Pres. Obama will do the same. As pressure to end the war increases his administration will become more aggressive, hoping that will defeat the enemy. If Pakistan becomes unstable or is taken over by an anti-American regime how else will an Obama administration react but violently?

Therein lies the parallel with the Nixon administration. The peace promises mean nothing. Guerrilla wars such as these carry their own momentum that no administration committed to maintaining the American empire can overcome. As Ayn Rand said, “There is no proper solution for the war in Vietnam, it is a war we should never have entered. We are caught in a trap: it is senseless to continue, and it is now impossible to withdraw”. So it now seems the political class views the occupation of Iraq.

The only way out is to renounce foreign intervention and begin bringing home all American troops and intelligence operatives from around the world. This way we will not be seen as having been defeated, but as having learned to live at peace with the world. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama doesn’t see things this way. We’re in for a long war.

**********************************

Feb. 8, 2009 update: Associated Press published an article entitled “Obama considering at least 2 Iraq withdrawal plans”. To quote from the article, “At the White House’s request, top military officials recently offered an assessment of the risks associated with the 16-, 19- and 23-month withdrawal timetables, without saying which is preferred. Obama’s top two defense advisers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, have not yet provided a formal recommendation to the president on a timetable, an official said.” Is Obama backing away from his campaign promise to end the war quickly? It would seem so.

May 11, 2009 update: Andrew Bacevich said on Democracy Now! “…I think its worth noting the comment that General Odierno in Iraq made over the weekend at a press conference. I think the question was something to the effect that, ‘Hey, how about the continuation of violence in Baghdad after the success of the surge?’ And Odierno, I think rather petulantly, said, ‘Hey, look. This insurgency is going to go on for another five, ten or fifteen years.’ I agree with that assessment in Iraq.”

Sept. 1, 2009 update: Looks like the same comparison is now being used about Afghanistan. Gene Healy wrote “Afghanistan may be Obama’s Vietnam”.

January 26, 2010 update: Ivan Eland is predicting a restarting of the fighting in Iraq in “The Next Crisis for Obama?“.

July 5, 2011 update: Ivan Eland compares Obama & Nixon, “Like Nixon, Obama Will Waste Lives to Get Reelected“

Oh, Come, All Ye Hateful

There is an increasingly vocal and aggressive direction being taken by some Christians. That many American Christians supported the Bush administration and its wars is well known. At present the level of dehumanization of Muslims and outright advocacy of genocide is becoming much louder.

Consider the following exchange on Facebook (I'm going to keep these people anonymous). Someone posted, "If the Palestinians put down their weapons there would be peace, if the Israeli's put down their weapons there would be no more Jews". The supportive comments started coming in. I replied with,

I don't know. It would behoove the Palestinians to engage in civil disobedience. They'd get a lot more support that way (witness the Freedom Flotilla).

If Israel stopped oppressing, Israel as we know it would cease to exist, but no more Jews? The Afrikaners said the same kinds of things in South Africa to justify Apartheid. While it's very true that Mandela & his successors are making a mess of things, there's been no slaughter.

Consider this about the fighting:

The Israeli government, like the one ruling us, thrives on crises and seems to go to great lengths to cultivate them. As I've pointed out before, there is a sick symbiosis between the Israeli regime and Palestinian terrorist chieftains, a relationship documented by Richard Ben Cramer in his valuable and infuriating book How Israel Lost.

"Things are not as they seem," writes Cramer. "The [Palestinian Authority's] business intersects with Israeli business at the highest levels of Israeli political life." This explains the tacit "arrangement" in which Israeli and Palestinian rulers sustain each other through carefully timed incidents of lethal violence.

Before Yasir Arafat died, he would be regularly "rescued" by Israeli military strikes against Palestinian targets, Cramer observes. The same was true of Arafat's supposed arch-enemy, Ariel Sharon: "If his polls dropped, something terrible happened -- dead Jews all over the TV" -- and Sharon's political fortunes would dramatically improve.

From "We Bought The Bullets"

Every state needs its Emanuel Goldstein, don't be fooled!

The hate began. During the discussion one person replied with these two comments,

If the Israelis would just use all of theirs, we could stop talking about all the other cockroaches. They want to be martyrs, let's help the [sic] succeed... all at once, right now.

Followed later in the discussion with,

Israel is going to have to wipe them all out eventually, in order to survive. That being the case, and we all know it is the case, why not just get it over with? How many thousands of their cirizens [sic] can be saved by not waiting to be hit first (for the ten thousnadth [sic] time)? Just do what needs to be done, we did it to end WW2, and look how effective it was. No we've turned into a bunch of female genitals (poltically [sic] speaking) and look at the manure we routinely put up with, just like Israel. Just push a few buttons and send 'em to their blow-up doll virgins in hell. That's my vote.

Referring to people as cockroaches is using the language of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Another disgusting example of dehumanizing an enemy to justify killing them. One is reminded of the Nazis referring to the Jews as rats.

Another person decided to turn their hate on me,

Thanks XXXX! Sometimes you feel alone battling against the blockheads who think Peace Flotillas, are peaceful, and that hitting a terrorist BACK is bad. There are just so many stupid people in the world, and we don't have enough bullets!

The person who posted the above has since deleted it, which is quite understandable, I'd be embarrassed to have written that too.

Along the same lines there was an exchange at the Future of Freedom Foundation's event "Restoring Liberty and the Constitution" on Friday June 4, 2010. (Which I attended.) During the question and answer period a woman took exception to James Bovard calling for the rights of the prisoners at Guantanamo, Cuba being respected. The woman went on to say that "those bastards" have to be stopped so they won't kill our families. They don't need to be Mirandized, she said. They're guilty, the government wouldn't just arrest people "willey-nilly", she went on.

Now, I can't say with certainty that that woman is a Christian, I don't even know her name. Certainly the odds favor her being one. Perhaps she's Jewish. Surely she's not a Muslim.

The last example is a conversation I had years ago with a devout Christian who said of the War on Terror that it's better to be the hunter than the prey.

This is not to say that all Christians are so evil. There are no doubt many who are as repulsed by this kind of thinking as I am. However, it would seem that there are too many who subscribe to this hateful world view. During the discussion on Facebook mentioned above no one else took exception to the calls for killing. If anything the other commentors were supportive of the hate.

These hateful Christians may only be a minority of those who believe in that religion. It is important, though, that they be exposed and taught a better way. That being the way of peace, liberty, and tolerance. Then, and only then, can we end the hate and the killing.