Tweet
I was recently debating with several conservatives the legacy of Ronald Reagan. As we all know, it’s an article of faith among conservatives that Reagan was anti-big government, pro free market, and a fierce advocate for individual liberty. And that his presidency was a net benefit for American freedom and prosperity.
I am skeptical, for the simple reason that his very successes dramatically strengthened the executive and weakened the Congress, ultimately to the effect of undermining our individual liberties.
Compare that to Jimmy Carter. Or the hapless Warren Harding, who spend his presidency playing poker. Or Calvin Coolidge, who spent his fly-fishing.
It’s really hard to get conservatives to see this. Strong presidents aren’t good for liberty.
As always, when talking to conservatives it’s very important calibrate your language.
When we speak of a "strong" president shouldn’t we refer to his ability to protect our liberties? To demonstrate humility, particularly as the commander of the most powerful military in world history. Is it a measure of "strength" to traverse the globe kicking ass as he sees fit?
To my mind, a "strong" president is one where under his administration the Constitution, and therefore our liberty, is preserved and protected.
Of course, Jimmy Carter has other virtues, beyond simply not expanding executive power at our expense. As an engineer, he was one of the most intelligent, comprehending presidents we’ve had. He grokked Peak Oil and its implications for American growth, security, and sovereignty. The economic growth achieved under Reagan was due to Reagan’s willingness to resist pressure to remove Paul Volcker, the fed chairman, who broke inflation. Reagan deserves credit for holding the line. But remember: it was Carter who nominated Volcker.
And Carter’s steady, intelligent bearing, his compassion and soulfulness were very much needed for a nation still reeling from Watergate. Remember Nixon? Another strong executive. How did that work out?
And yet Carter is ridiculed as weak and ineffectual, a presidential failure, largely because of the man who followed him.
This seems unfair, and I suspect history will ultimately be kinder to Carter than popular opinion has it today.
What are your thoughts? Will revisionist history salvage Carter’s reputation?
45 Comments
The people are no better at judging Presidents, than they are voting them into office.
Ike was a great president, and without Him mand the interstate highway system we would be back in the stone ages. Yet the Republicans hate Him because of the very thing He did most for us and that is the interstate system.
They brag up Reagan who really did shit for us, and should have been impeached if not convicted for Iran Contra. Reagan Militarism and His build up of our Military didn’t break the Soviets, just proved to them spending their intire countries wealth on the Military couldn’t make them greater. One might say they were the smart ones. We are still almost broke by our Military Spending and won’t mend our ways. Last of all Reagan’s trickle down economics has put us in the position we are today.
So one could say that a great President is anyone the Republicans don’t, or didn’t like.
The Interstate system is one of the biggest contributing factors to suburban sprawl, the death of the mom and pop general store, the decline family farm, and the rise of the big box retailers.
Orginally designed as an efficient means to mobilize materiel and men to thwart a Soviet invasion, it’s long term effect was the McDonalization and suburbanization of American commercial life.
Unintended consequences rule the day. Government planning never works as intended. When private companies do stupid stuff, they’re allowed to fail (or at least they used to be; now they just get tax dollars). Government screw-ups live on forever.
Some of what You say is true, but we could have kept the model T’s and unpaved roads, so that things wouldn’t change.
With no urban sprawl all those people would be living in the cities in what would be high class city slums.
The family farms went out not because of the interstates, but because they all wanted the big tracktors for five acre’s and that didn’t work.
The mom and pop groceries and local hardwares got scared and gave up. many local businesses are actually doing better, because people don’t like the atmosphere of the big box retailers.
If You think the interstates are so bad, don’t drive on them take the back roads.
barredrock,
First, thanks for your diary. You are great.
Second: I loath Jimmy Carter; it’s personal.
I went to Viet Nam as a volunteer. I could have gone to Germany.
I signed up for the experience. I was that way then.
When I got back, I was still pumping adrenalin. Viet Nam stayed in my head for 20 years. It’s still there.
Carter pardoned those who went to Canada to avoid the draft. I’ve always considered those guys assholes. They were cowards.
I’ve always respected those who burned their draft cards and, in some cases, went to jail. They are heroes in my book.
Thanks for your diary. It brings back some old memories.
So how do you respond to the Cheney/Bush/Qualye types who supported the war but manipulated the system to avoid serving then denied they got preferential treatment?
Seems they are far more hypocritical than those who went to Canada and left their families behind
Oh, believe me, I hold Bush (especially) in utter contempt for using power and influence to avoid his military obligations.
Wow. Strong stuff, ART. Honest curiosity- if all that you have learned in the intervening years could be placed in the 18 year old mind of young ART45, would he still go to Vietnam? If not, what course of action (or non-action) would he/you take?
Good Story.
I feel guilty. I was drafted and went to the Boston Army Base for my physical. I flunked the fucking physical for high blood pressure and never served. You served in Viet Nam and paid the price. Thanks.
The 60′s were a weird time, I was against the war and could never understand why young guys from our generation died so needlessly.
If I served, I could honestly make some comments, but I never served and
rely on your comments since you were there….
Carter began the arms race that Reagan later took credit for as having finally brought the USSR to its knees. Rather a mixed blessing, I suppose. I certainly wasn’t grateful at the time.
His biggest “mistake” was the hostage crisis, which had a lot to do with a military that had become rather bad at that sort of thing. St. Ronnie exploited that one to the hilt.
I think his biggest failing was his lack of ability to pick a team of advisers and manage them.
But I liked the guy, and respected him. Those are two things I can’t say of many of the Presidents we’ve had since. He was right about what we should have done to solve the energy crisis. He was right about Camp David. He probably could have done more with a second term.
I miss him.
Interesting premise. I think Carter was a good President. But I also think FDR was a good President. One expanded executive power and one didn’t as much. It’s a metric I’d use to judge a Presidency, but not the only one.
Fair enough. FDR is a good example of the dangerous mix of a strong executive and unintended consequences.
A strong president is great when he’s enacting policy we agree with. But what happens when a future president inherits the expanded power-base and uses it to nefarious purposes?
I address this in an earlier post on constitutional abuses.
(Incidentally, I am not a fan of FDR. I consider him a warmonger of the first order.)
I wouldn’t deny that there are consequences to a strong executive. But given how screwed up a place like the Senate is, I wonder if the chances aren’t better on the White House side of the street…
Actually Carter was mocked as a weak president because he refused to nuke Iran after the Embassy was overrun and the hostages were taken. If he had sent in the bombs instead of negotiating, all the hostages would have died but the folks who see weapons as extensions of their d*cks would have been happy as can be.
Carter was way ahead of his time and still is. If he were president of a true democracy, or maybe our country 100 years of now, there would be statues of him everywhere. There are many indications now that presidents actually have very little power (let’s call it the JFK blowback). So Carter was probably fighting the MIC every single day of his presidency. His beliefs and what he did after leaving office shows his true colors though and he should be greatly admired. BTW, Democracy now had a great show today. Here’s an excerpt:
In an extended interview, award-winning journalist and activist Allan Nairn looks back over the Obama administration’s foreign policy and national security decisions over the last twelve months. “I think Obama should be remembered as a great man because of the blow he struck against white racism,” Nairn says. “But once he became president…Obama became a murderer and a terrorist because the US has a machine that spans the globe that has the capacity to kill, and Obama has kept it set on kill. He could have flipped the switch and turned it off, but he chose not to do so.” He continues, “In fact, as far as one can tell, Obama seems to have killed more civilians during his first year than Bush did in his first year, and maybe even than Bush killed in his final year.”
Carter will long be noted for presiding over absolute failure and impotence in attempting to secure the release of Americans held hostage by Iranians.
Have to say that Reagan’s people convincing the Iranians to hold off on releasing the hostages until after St Ronnie had been sworn in does not mean Carter did wrong. The hostages came home safely. He lost an election. That does not mean he was a failure.
Unless you are one of those who thought he should have turned all of Iran into a black glass parking lot due to the bombs.
I’m one of those you believe that if you send the military on a raid, you don’t mount a half-assed embarrassment such as the one Carter authorized and oversaw.
More than anything else in the Iranian affair, that marked him as a fool.
It’s hard not to like Carter on a personal basis, but God he could be politically naive to the point of dumb.
Art –
Thanks. I have a small personal relationship with the viet nam draft as well. I didn’t serve (not old enough).
My uncle dodged and went to Canada. As a kid I was pretty conservative, and deeply admired Reagan and military might, which I equated with patriotism (obviously I have since come to my senses). I was very angry towards my Uncle, considering him a traitor. This from a young punk who’d never faced a physical threat more serious than a broken collar bone from a dirt bike accident.
I’ve come to admire my uncle for his decision, which given the animus showered on the draft dodgers, was pretty brave. I might feel differently if, like you, I’d served. But I agree, that going to jail would be a noble thing to do rather than fight in some insane war like the ‘Nam.
Incidentally, have you read A Prayer for Owen Meany? If as your handle suggests, you were born in 1945 and served in Viet Nam, I guarantee you that novel will bring back loads of memories.
yessir, right from his first inaugural speech, FDR was mongering war against the Great Depression.
Mad mongerer!!
Yes, well, when you declare war on something, that something tends to fight back.
Is depression something that should not be fought against? Or does its resistance serve to discourage you?
Hoover and FDR created the Great Depression.
The economic contraction of 1920/21, following the spending and borrowing binge so Wilson could fight WW1, was more severe than the crash of 1929. Yet Mellon did nothing. He allowed the liquidation to occur, and allowed assets to be transfered for the unproductive to the productive. Within months the economy was on a sound footing and real production was rising.
We have the same problem today. The government is forestalling the liquidation of overpriced assets that need to fall is price to relfect their actual value in the market. Everything the government’s doing is deepening and lengthening our economic misery.
Bad investment must be liquidated or it becomes an albatross around the neck of the private sector, limiting credit and risk-taking.
Saying that FDR created or helped to create the Depression sounds like idiocy and ignorance.
Is there something that you might know that would help make sense of that claim or are you ignorant of the beginning of the Great Depression and FDR’s election date?
You can’t say FDR created the Depression as it already existed when he got into office.
Just liek you can’t say Obama caused the 2008 meltdown
Carter was a centrist corporate shill. He was the beginning of the neo liberal corporate left. It wasn’t just his foreign policy, he domestic policy was also a joke.
I’m a fan of FDR. Like it or not the country responds to a leader. LEaders need to be bold, vocal, and even a little flamboyant. FDR got as much done as he did because he was willing to stand up for it. He was willing to try.
Carter, like Obama had no spine and just sold us down the easy corporate way.
I disagree with everything about this article.
To me, this is precisely the problem. I don’t want a bold, vocal leader. It never ends well. Home sapiens are predisposed to be led by a strong leader. It’s our primate impulse. That, combined with our pack-hunting territorial proclivities acquired from our time on the serengetti, means we are just primed to do all kinds of nasty business under a strong bold leader. Man is a dangerous animal. With concentrated political power he is a savage beast.
One thing I’ll grant you though, a la The Road to Serfdom. Technocratic planners like Obama almost always fail, leading to the Strong Man. The masses clamour to be led, a return to Order is promised, an Other is identified, and all hell breaks loose.
Power needs to be diffused, checked and circumscribed as much as possible.
There’s a difference between a Strong man and a vocal flamboyant leader.
I’m not saying I want Obama to turn into Bush, but do any of us think we’d be worse off if he was out there being extremely vocal for the public option? If he had been up there from day one saying “I want single payer” or something.
You don’t need to go strong man for that, but you do need to be vocal and flamboyany, and Americans, humans, will always respond to that as you said.
Yes, there is. The question is: are you too angry or stupid to hear about it?
Probably both, but go right ahead anyway.
Great, there is hope. Sounds like a good diary topic rather than more diary creep here.
In any event I should apologize for calling you stupid. That’s not my style and not very nice. You are angry though, which is to your credit. Just try to keep an open mind, stupid or otherwise.
Also, I don’t understand the problem here viz. timing. If the Depression had ended in 1933 or 34, I could see the problem. Or even 1935. Yet it continued for another decade after his inauguration. Are you suggesting that the economic wasteland of America from 1933-1941 (or 45, to be more accurate), was Hoover’s fault and FDR had nothing to do with it?
I’m stating that things that were evident in the 20s, that broke open in late 29 and that washed over the world before FDR’s inauguration can’t be said to have been caused by him.
You can make a case that he wasn’t effective in his efforts to end the Depression, but you gotta let go of “caused”.
(thanks for the apology, even though stupid seems to suit me)
Agreed, though I wouldn’t even say FDR’s policies weren’t effective. Just because the economy didn’t pull back from the brink of the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen in a few years doesn’t mean the policies weren’t effective. For one, the millions on relief would have starved without them.
GDC @7: I was 25 when I went and wanted to be a novelist. I opposed the war but believed I had to get war experience, like Hemingway. Turned out to be a pretty good technical writer, but I’ve never finished a novel. Got about 20 of ‘em half-written.
barredrock @12: I’ve always regarded my views as my own and am not bothered (except on occasion) by differing or contrary views. You’re right, btw, about 1945. Thanks again.
Fair enough. I should have been more careful. prolonged, exacerbated, worsened.
In any event, from a Keynesian standpoint he couldn’t be considered that bold. Lots of half measures. Taxes and cuts to new Deal programs in 1937 sent the economy south again, for years; employment didn’t retake 37 levels until the beginning of the war, and then of course production was geared to the war effort, for towards private consumption.
(Though to be fair to FDR we can’t blame him for not being a Keynesian when Keynes didn’t publish General Theory until the late 30s!)
Keynes came to the White House in 1934 to lecture FDR and urge deficit spending.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/economy/27fdr.html?_r=1&em
When Reagan ran for president he said our trillion dollar national debt was a disgrace – when he left office it was 3.5 trillion – the myth that he was for smaller government is bs.
Reagan began what has become a 30 year decline of the middle class. He was the demagogue in chief.
Many of the posters here on FDL are making the same mistake progressives, including myself made with Carter. Carter was a thoughtful man. He appointed Paul Volker head of the Fed. Volker tamed inflation, which was a major problem in the seventies. But to do it he raised the interest rates to 20% and more. Carter took the heat and Reagan, wrongly, got the credit.
Obama is a thoughtful man who is taking the time to solve long term problems. Many are impatient. Luckily many more of us understand and will not make the same mistake of trashing a brilliant ethical leader like we did with Carter.
I’m fed up with the demagoguery that the right uses to enhance the wealth of the upper class. The middle class has had stagnant growth for the last 30 years. Don’t make the same mistake again.
I’m wondering what thoughtful moves Obama has made so far.
Please name them
Obama is thoughtful? Excuse me.
I could give him a 10-question test on law he would fail.
He suckered us. Those who wanted to believe.
Okay. Print the test. Let’s see how many Seminal readers pass and are proved thoughtful.
Art – what a foolish thing to say – you are saying that you are a better lawyer than the editor of the Harvard Law Review – foolish hubris.
Oh, I am. Here are 10 questions:
1. Does a person having a power of attorney have the ability to make gifts?
2. Can a private foundation pay a charitable pledge?
3. Sorry. Stopped at #2. I can go on if you want.
Oh, and yes, Obama is ignorant of the law.
I supported Obama but never cheered him as a miracle worker, but expected him to be torn to pieces the way Jimmy Carter another fine President was. Can’t anyone support him and push him to better at the same time. Anyway I am trying to do that,
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/22672
I have a friend who is still mad at Carter over a sily issue the Panama Canal. Many were bent out of shape that the Shaw of Iran received medical care hear, in hindsight a non-issue.
Obama made a peace bid when he and Pakistan agreed to a cease-fire in the Swat Valley in return for modified Sharia Law being established there. Doves didn’t cheer. Instead seem to want Obama to just set a day maybe a month away to get out while chaos, and confusion and retaliation grips Kabul. It’s not only the hawks lobbying that is getting in the way of peace but the lack of insight of the peace movement.
Obama an Incredible Contradiction Jan 3, 2010
At first glance Obama is confusing. Some try to solve the contradiction by claiming Obama is a fraud. Others it seems by avoiding the issue of Afghanistan and dwelling instead on other issues. Before taking office, tensions between the US and Iran were heading toward a US strike. Somehow Obama stopped or at least greatly slowed a nuclear-arms race that would have been started by Iran, with other counties, such as Saudi Arabia, joining in. This without threatening war with Iran, unlike under Bush. Obama even got Russia on board with sanctions, instead of somewhat siding with and somewhat arming Iran. However, in Afghanistan, Obama is jumping into the quicksand. Though there are a few good signs of hope there that most have missed, that I will get into later.
The Johnson Administration started out with a lot of idealism and the Great Society programs, which all went up in smoke because of Vietnam.
Under Bush, the Russian and US nukes were still under hair-trigger alert. Besides an accident, bin Laden always dreams of getting new people to fight with each other, Sunnis and Shiites, suicide attacks in minority enclaves in Kurdistan, trying to create tit-for-tat-violence there as well, and instead of thanking Denmark for refusing to send troops to the Afghan War, Al Qaeda was at the forefront of the cartoon controversy, maybe even dreaming of Muslims kicked out of being polluted by European ideas. Whether others note it or not, setting off an accidental nuclear war between Russia and the US was something bin Laden must have craved for. Perhaps more than having fancy new weapons of his own. It is conceivable though I guess not likely that Obama’s election averted this total disaster. Off the subject, another conceivable total disaster was when General Musharrah in 2001 withdrew Pakistani troops from the Kashmire border during escalating skirmishes with India. Whatever Obama and before him Bush did wrong, no absolute disasters have yet occurred.
The Christmas Day airplane suicide bombing attempt, announced to the world that all the US weapons in Yemen, meant it was US’s war, despite the fact that the US hadn’t helped to set up the present Yemen Government. This, to get militant Muslims, and they hoped, not so militant ones to tie in together Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen into a package of belief that the US is trying to own the Muslim word. So far, Obama’s statements have been cautious instead of taking the bait, of an all-out war in Yemen. Al Qaeda, and sometimes ordinary Muslims, believe that the US never voluntarily leaves, since US troops are still in Korea almost 60 years after the tensions started. US troops still pushing US culture and values on the Koreans. Hastening US withdrawal out of Iraq is something the peace movement can maybe successfully encourage Obama to do. And the US troops now coming home from Korea as well would get in the way of the mind-set al Qaeda is pushing on the Muslim world. Anyway it is clear that if the Christmas Day attempt happened under Bush or most presidents the reaction would have been much more shill, and a wider group of people would be in the government’s radar.
However, this doesn’t apply to Afghanistan. President Obama shows no sign of realizing that Afghanistan can be quicksand, the way Vietnam was to Johnson. Although there are a few signs that something has changed. When Obama, at West Point, announced sending more troops, he also changed the rhetoric from “defeating Taliban’s core” to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government”. This as backdoor negotiations are going on including with Taliban Chief Mullah Omar. The above material noted by Shibil Siddiqi in Foreign Policy in Focus and Just Foreign Policy and David Ignatius writing in the Washington Post. Shibil Siddiqi spent years in Afghanistan indirectly working for the UN.
Obama also befriending any Taliban fighter willing to renounce al Qaeda, basically change sides. However, if the renouncements of al Qaeda get vague enough, basically politely asking the al Qaeda recruits to stay out of Afghanistan. Most of al Qaeda is already out of Afghanistan and in Pakistan, where al Qaeda thinks its suicide bombers can be more effective. It is possible that the war in Afghanistan can quickly end with somewhat vague statements by all of al Qaeda in exchange for a quick US withdrawal. This, al Qaeda will sabotage or ignore, if they are vague enough.
Ominously there is a problem if a cease-fire occurs. There was an earlier peace move in the Swat Valley in Pakistan that Obama signed onto, to allow Sharia Law there. This didn’t last. But it also presented a problem for us in the US as well. Both hawks and doves, condemned that peace move, and as matters now stand will jointly condemn any future cease-fire in Afghanistan that will include Sharia Law in Kabul. How can ordinary doves image that the US could just get out of Afghanistan in several weeks without at best Sharia Law quickly coming to Kabul and at worst revenge attacks and chaos mixed in?
There is something amazing going on. Obama has a policy that he alone supports. He has a narrow goal of stopping al Qaeda’s appeal. Some in the West want to fight in Afghanistan so women can go to school and not have to wear a veil. This it turns out is not always what it seems. In US dominated areas of Afghanistan a drug lord can demand that a pretty young non-veiled thing marry him or get severely whipped. If he was a lesser official or soldier he would have just raped her, and her relatives jailed on trumped up charges if they complained. Neocons who support Israel want the US to fight with Hamas and Hezbollah, or give a green light for Israel to do it, and attack Iran as well. So Obama has his own foreign policy that belongs to him alone. But all those with the war fever, Obama is now stirring up, would be very disappointed if they discover that the US ends up helping to keep the peace temporary while Sharia Law is being imposed on Kabul with the US troops helping cool those in Kabul crying “No”, preventing the chaos and revenge killings that would have otherwise be taking place.
Bin Laden believes in permanent war as long as there is a divided world, so there is no way for Obama to just make peace with al Qaeda like he wants to do with others.
There is one thing that is particularly strange. There is one other US politician whose statements on al Qaeda sound like Obama’s. That is Senator Arlen Specter. Ironically he one of the three senators who indicated they might vote against surge supplemental funding. Senator Robert Byrd who is almost incapacitated, and Bernie Sanders who has been making cautious comments.
The following are quotes by Pennsylvania Senator Specter: “I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda. If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda since they’re out to annihilate us. But if Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?” . . . “I disagree with the President’s two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our NATO allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.”
Specter could have added, Al Qaeda claims it will bankrupt the US like it did the Soviet Union. Our economy is much stronger but our smart weapons that save a few US soldiers’ lives cost a fortune. The VA is spending much on artificial limps that behave more and more like the original, and Obama now treating disabled veterans with respect, all this costs money as the quicksand of Afghanistan is destined to make more and more of the locals in Afghanistan to hate us.
A historic bright spot happened in Jordan. In 2005 there was a lot of al Qaeda attacks in Jordan until it attacked a wedding party. Queen Noor then organized the people of Jordan into anti-al Qaeda demonstrations and rallies, being on TV every night. She didn’t call for nonviolently resisting al Qaeda, but she was given no power or influence over the police or army. Al Qaeda agreed to leave Jordan alone, and incredible hasn’t attacked Jordan since then. So Jordan so far won a battle with very little direct force. Sadly the Internet has criticism of Queen Noor for supposedly being a hypocrite, for not mentioning previous female suicide terror attempts. I hope a commentor to this article can post a link to her inspiring words. There is also the Daniel Pearl Foundation, named after the News Correspondent Daniel Pearl who was lured to Pakistan, gruesomely tortured and beheaded in front of the camera. The Foundation had interfaith peace prayer services and conferences, and still has annual peace concerts, but it wants to call itself being for peace and doesn’t want to use the concept fighting al Qaeda with nonviolent force. But it has done a lot to challenge the image of a dead suicide bomber as an inspiration.
In Canada a legislator who is a Muslim organized the Muslim community to keep track of any of their kids playing around with extremism as they traditionally watch their kids against playing around with alcohol and drugs. I wonder if word of mouth in the Muslim Communities has something to due with two fathers turning over the names of their kids to the US government. This, not traditionally done with drugs or a man endangering his wife or a neighbor. In Spain, al Qaeda set off backpack bombs on the Mildred commuter trains, to change the then upcoming election results. However it was soon discovered that the bombing was in the planning stage before Spain ever sent troops to Afghanistan, making Spanish Muslims think the attack was really against Spain’s warn relationship with moderate Muslim countries of North Africa. Al Qaeda members were caught, several committing or trying to commit suicide rather than be taken alive, killing one police officer and injuring several more who were trying to arrest them. When the US claims it got important al Qaeda leaders in Guantanamo it is probably wrong except for the few who are alive against their permission. Spanish Muslim clerics on the anniversary of the Madrid bombing declared bin Laden a heretic against Islam. Al Fadl, an x-Jihadest in Saudi Arabia, did the same and blamed bin Laden not the US for the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush cut down on al Qaeda’s appeal when he finally removed US Troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003. People forget that this was bin Laden’s first justification, and perhaps the main reason he was angry before 9/11. Obama cut down al Qaeda’s appeal considerably when he want along with Sharia Law being set up in the Swat Valley. Of course peace between Israel and it’s neighbors would do likewise. Even the nonviolent Buddhist monks in Burma getting somewhere would lessen the belief that suicide bombing is the way to solve things. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with religion. The suicidal kids at Columbine High were inspired by 9/11.
I have a different thought, considering the way Obama said that he was sending more troops to stop the Taliban’s momentum I wonder if he is being sucked into quicksand rather than jumped into it. If the Christmas Day attack occurred after Obama had gone along with Vice President Biden’s call to pucker down in secure areas of Afghanistan instead of having a surge. Neocons and others would have screamed, “See I told you al Qaeda attacks when you show weakness”. Let’s try to figure out how to get out of quicksand instead of blaming Obama and thus the country for being stuck in it. Whenever Obama or anyone else criticizes al Qaeda, others add, women forced to wear veils, or Hamas, Hezbollah, and for those non-religious condemning religious fanatics in general. Bin Laden is a lightning rod for anger in a lot of different directions. Some have narrow focus such as young Muslims in their own community. Only Obama seems to be focused only on al Qaeda. To bad he hasn’t yet noted how effective the nonviolent or less-violent responses are.
Al Qaeda wants a permanent war as long as the world is divided. Obama wants to beat them out of the idea, but it would be far better if he relied of less military force, and instead repeated the words of the Spanish Muslim clerics and al Fadl over and over again. Al Fadl hasn’t spoken out of late. I wish he would say that anyone who equips their child with downs syndrome as a remote-controlled suicide bomber, or his own mother with a similar condition is going against every religion and religious leader throughout history.
China and Hamas and Iran got in conflicts with al Qaeda, Al Qaeda has been attacking Shiite religious processions and sacred sites both in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Iran would be in the forefront of fighting al Qaeda if the US and Israel stopped sparing with Iran, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50581,news-comment,news-politics,iran-neocon-ally-war-al-qaeda-and-the-taliban-obama-gordon-brown-afghanistan-israel
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75663§ionid=351020101
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929388,00.html/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=al9wM3k5zjLQ
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/08/hamas_and_al_qaeda_l.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/4736358/Al-Qaeda-founder-launches-fierce-attack-on-Osama-bin-Laden.html
When there is a bar room brawl sometimes those who try to stop it may end up just part of the brawl. This may include Obama, but definitely includes those who are contending that Obama was sent to become the President, by the powers at be. to trick the American public into thinking things can change.
The world can do better then everyone joining in the barroom brawl.
People especially due to the internet read only what they agree with. So many Obama supporters haven’t actually read material condemning Obama on the peace issue. I urge such Obama supporter to digest the following very critical article by a long time peace leader,
http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_new_start
The following is an article supporting both peace and Obama by a world renowned peace leader,
http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2009/50.ObamaPeaceWar.html
Please someone post the links to any similar material. I hope organizations that support Obama and peace like MoveOn.org, gather such articles rather than only a petition to Congress to set an end date for the surge. Thank you Obama for being President. Please stop slipping up when it comes to Afghani quicksand.
Richard Kane
RichardKanepa.blogspot.com,
Google RichardKanePA
Obama an Incredible Contradiction
At first glance Obama is confusing. Some try to solve the contradiction by claiming Obama is a fraud. Others it seems by avoiding the issue of Afghanistan and dwelling instead on other issues. Before taking office, tensions between the US and Iran were heading toward a US strike. Somehow Obama stopped or at least greatly slowed a nuclear-arms race that would have been started by Iran, with other counties, such as Saudi Arabia, joining in. This without threatening war with Iran, unlike under Bush. Obama even got Russia on board with sanctions, instead of somewhat siding with and somewhat arming Iran. However, in Afghanistan, Obama is jumping into the quicksand. Though there are a few good signs of hope there that most have missed, that I will get into later.
The Johnson Administration started out with a lot of idealism and the Great Society programs, which all went up in smoke because of Vietnam.
Under Bush, the Russian and US nukes were still under hair-trigger alert. Besides an accident, bin Laden always dreams of getting new people to fight with each other, Sunnis and Shiites, suicide attacks in minority enclaves in Kurdistan, trying to create tit-for-tat-violence there as well, and instead of thanking Denmark for refusing to send troops to the Afghan War, Al Qaeda was at the forefront of the cartoon controversy, maybe even dreaming of Muslims kicked out of being polluted by European ideas. Whether others note it or not, setting off an accidental nuclear war between Russia and the US was something bin Laden must have craved for. Perhaps more than having fancy new weapons of his own. Off the subject, another conceivable total disaster was when General Musharrah in 2001 withdrew Pakistani troops from the Kashmire border during escalating skirmishes with India. Whatever Obama and before him Bush did wrong, no absolute disasters have yet occurred.
The Christmas Day airplane suicide bombing attempt, announced to the world that all the US weapons in Yemen, meant it was US’s war, despite the fact that the US hadn’t helped to set up the present Yemen Government. This, to get militant Muslims, and they hoped, not so militant ones to tie in together Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen into a package of belief that the US is trying to own the Muslim word. So far, Obama’s statements have been cautious instead of taking the bait, of an all-out war in Yemen. Al Qaeda, and sometimes ordinary Muslims, believe that the US never voluntarily leaves, since US troops are still in Korea almost 60 years after the tensions started. US troops still pushing US culture and values on the Koreans. Hastening US withdrawal out of Iraq is something the peace movement can maybe successfully encourage Obama to do. And the US troops now coming home from Korea as well would get in the way of the mind-set al Qaeda is pushing on the Muslim world. Anyway it is clear that if the Christmas Day attempt happened under Bush or most presidents the reaction would have been much more shill, and a wider group of people would be in the government’s radar.
However, this doesn’t apply to Afghanistan. President Obama shows no sign of realizing that Afghanistan can be quicksand, the way Vietnam was to Johnson. Although there are a few signs that something has changed. When Obama, at West Point, announced sending more troops, he also changed the rhetoric from “defeating Taliban’s core” to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government”. This as backdoor negotiations are going on including with Taliban Chief Mullah Omar. The above material noted by Shibil Siddiqi in Foreign Policy in Focus and Just Foreign Policy and David Ignatius writing in the Washington Post. Shibil Siddiqi spent years in Afghanistan indirectly working for the UN.
Obama also befriending any Taliban fighter willing to renounce al Qaeda, basically change sides. However, if the renouncements of al Qaeda get vague enough, basically politely asking the al Qaeda recruits to stay out of Afghanistan. Most of al Qaeda is already out of Afghanistan and in Pakistan, where al Qaeda thinks its suicide-bombers can be more effective. It is possible that the war in Afghanistan can quickly end with somewhat vague statements by all of al Qaeda in exchange for a quick US withdrawal. This, al Qaeda will sabotage or ignore, if they are vague enough.
Ominously there is a problem if a cease-fire occurs. There was an earlier peace move in the Swat Valley in Pakistan that Obama signed onto, to allow Sharia Law there. This didn’t last. But it also presented a problem for us in the US as well. Both hawks and doves, condemned that peace move, and as matters now stand will jointly condemn any future cease-fire in Afghanistan that will include Sharia Law in Kabul. How can ordinary doves image that the US could just get out of Afghanistan in several weeks without at best Sharia Law quickly coming to Kabul and at worst revenge attacks and chaos mixed in?
There is something amazing going on. Obama has a policy that he alone supports. He has a narrow goal of stopping al Qaeda’s appeal. Some in the West want to fight in Afghanistan so women can go to school and not have to wear a veil. This it turns out is not always what it seems. In US dominated areas of Afghanistan a drug lord can demand that a pretty young non-veiled thing marry him or get severely whipped. If he was a lesser official or soldier he would have just raped her, and her relatives jailed on trumped up charges if they complained. Neocons who support Israel want the US to fight with Hamas and Hezbollah, or give a green light for Israel to do it, and attack Iran as well. So Obama has his own foreign policy that belongs to him alone. But all those with the war fever, Obama is now stirring up, would be very disappointed if they discover that the US ends up helping to keep the peace temporary while Sharia Law is being imposed on Kabul with the US troops helping cool those in Kabul crying “No”, preventing the chaos and revenge killings that would have otherwise be taking place.
Bin Laden believes in permanent war as long as there is a divided world, so there is no way for Obama to just make peace with al Qaeda like he wants to do with others.
There is one thing that is particularly strange. There is one other US politician whose statements on al Qaeda sound like Obama’s. That is Senator Arlen Specter. Ironically he one of the three senators who indicated they might vote against surge supplemental funding. Senator Robert Byrd who is almost incapacitated, and Bernie Sanders who has been making cautious comments.
The following are quotes by Pennsylvania Senator Specter: “I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda. If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda since they’re out to annihilate us. But if Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?” . . . “I disagree with the President’s two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our NATO allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.”
Specter could have added, Al Qaeda claims it will bankrupt the US like it did the Soviet Union. Our economy is much stronger but our smart weapons that save a few US soldiers’ lives cost a fortune. The VA is spending much on artificial limps that behave more and more like the original, and Obama now treating disabled veterans with respect, all this costs money as the quicksand of Afghanistan is destined to make more and more of the locals in Afghanistan hate us.
A historic bright spot happened in Jordan. In 2005 there was a lot of al Qaeda attacks in Jordan until it attacked a wedding party. Queen Noor then organized the people of Jordan into anti-al Qaeda demonstrations and rallies, being on TV every night. She didn’t call for nonviolently resisting al Qaeda, but she was given no power or influence over the police or army. Al Qaeda agreed to leave Jordan alone, and incredible hasn’t attacked Jordan since then. So Jordan so far won a battle with very little direct force. Sadly the Internet has criticism of Queen Noor for supposedly being a hypocrite, for not mentioning previous female suicide terror attempts. I hope a commentor to this article can post a link to her inspiring words. There is also the Daniel Pearl Foundation, named after the News Correspondent Daniel Pearl who was lured to Pakistan, gruesomely tortured and beheaded in front of the camera. The Foundation had interfaith peace prayer services and conferences, and still has annual peace concerts, but it wants to call itself being for peace and doesn’t want to use the concept fighting al Qaeda with nonviolent force. But it has done a lot to challenge the image of a dead suicide bomber as an inspiration.
In Canada a legislator who is a Muslim organized the Muslim community to keep track of any of their kids playing around with extremism as they traditionally watch their kids against playing around with alcohol and drugs. I wonder if word of mouth in the Muslim Communities has something to due with two fathers turning over the names of their kids to the US government. This, not traditionally down with drugs or a man endangering his wife or a neighbor. In Spain, al Qaeda set off backpack bombs on the Mildred commuter trains, to change the then upcoming election results. However it was soon discovered that the bombing was in the planning stage before Spain ever sent troops to Afghanistan, making Spanish Muslims think the attack was really against Spain’s warn relationship with moderate Muslim countries of North Africa. Al Qaeda members were caught, several committing or trying to commit suicide rather than be taken alive, killing one police officer and injuring several more who were trying to arrest them. When the US claims it got important al Qaeda leaders in Guantanamo it is probably wrong except for the few who are alive against their permission. Spanish Muslim clerics on the anniversary of the Madrid bombing declared bin Laden a heretic against Islam. Al Fadl, an x-Jihadest in Saudi Arabia, did the same and blamed bin Laden not the US for the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush cut down on al Qaeda’s appeal when he finally removed US Troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003. People forget that this was bin Laden’s first justification, and perhaps the main reason he was angry before 9/11. Obama cut down al Qaeda’s appeal considerably when he want along with Sharia Law being set up in the Swat Valley. Of course peace between Israel and it’s neighbors would do likewise. Even the nonviolent Buddhist monks in Burma getting somewhere would lessen the belief that suicide bombing is the way to solve things. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with religion. The suicidal kids at Columbine High were inspired by 9/11.
I have a different thought, considering the way Obama said that he was sending more troops to stop the Taliban’s momentum I wonder if he is being sucked into quicksand rather than jumped into it. If the Christmas Day attack occurred after Obama had gone along with Vice President Biden’s call to pucker down in secure areas of Afghanistan instead of having a surge. Neocons and others would have screamed, “See I told you al Qaeda attacks when you show weakness”. Let’s try to figure out how to get out of quicksand instead of blaming Obama and thus the country for being stuck in it. Whenever Obama or anyone else criticizes al Qaeda, others add, women forced to wear veils, or Hamas, Hezbollah, and for those non-religious condemning religious fanatics in general. Bin Laden is a lightning rod for anger in a lot of different directions. Some have narrow focus such as young Muslims in their own community. Only Obama seems to be focused only on al Qaeda. To bad he hasn’t yet noted how effective the nonviolent or less-violent responses are.
Al Qaeda wants a permanent war as long as the world is divided. Obama wants to beat them out of the idea, but it would be far better if he relied of less military force, and instead repeated the words of the Spanish Muslim clerics and al Fadl over and over again. Al Fadl hasn’t spoken out of late. I wish he would say that anyone who equips their child with downs syndrome as a remote-controlled suicide bomber, or his own mother with a similar condition is going against every religion and religious leader throughout history.
China and Hamas and Iran got in conflicts with al Qaeda, Al Qaeda has been attacking Shiite religious processions and sacred sites both in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Iran would be in the forefront of fighting al Qaeda if the US and Israel stopped sparing with Iran,
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50581,news-comment,news-politics,iran-neocon-ally-war-al-qaeda-and-the-taliban-obama-gordon-brown-afghanistan-israel
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929388,00.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75663§ionid=351020101
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=al9wM3k5zjLQ
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/08/hamas_and_al_qaeda_l.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/4736358/Al-Qaeda-founder-launches-fierce-attack-on-Osama-bin-Laden.html
When there is a bar room brawl sometimes those who try to stop it may end up just part of the brawl. This may include Obama, but definitely includes those who are contending that Obama was sent to become the President, by the powers at be, to trick the American public into thinking things can change.
The world can do better then everyone joining in the barroom brawl.
People especially due to the internet read only what they agree with. So many Obama supporters haven’t actually read material condemning Obama on the peace issue. I urge such Obama supporter to digest the following very critical article by a long time peace leader,
http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_new_start
The following is an article supporting both peace and Obama by a world renowned peace leader,
http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2009/50.ObamaPeaceWar.html
Please someone post the links to any similar material. I hope organizations that support Obama and peace like MoveOn.org, gather such articles rather than only a petition to Congress to set an end date for the surge. Thank you Obama for being President. Please stop slipping up when it comes to Afghani quicksand.
Richard Kane
RichardKanepa.blogspot.com,
Google RichardKanePA
Some are trying to say that Obama was never really for peace, and just an establishment rouge to fool the people.
In an earlier attempt at a step toward peace, Sharia Law was set up by Pakistan and Obama in the Swat Valley. Both US Doves and Hawks were incensed. How do Doves think that we could possibly quickly get out of Afghanistan without at best Sharia Law being established in Kabul and at worse chaos and revenge killings mixed in?
Earlier Vice-President Biden suggested pucker down in secure areas instead of escalating. However if the Christmas Day attempted airplane bombing happened after Obama agreed with Biden, there would be a huge cry by the American right that “See, I told you al Qaeda attacks when one shows weakness”.
After the bombing in 2005 of a wedding in Jordan Queen Noor did such a good job rallying the people of Jordan against al Qaeda against al Qaeda that it agreed to leave Jordan alone if she would keep quiet. Al Fadl rallied Muslims against al Qaeda without any violent force at all.
Al Qaeda wants a permanent war as long as the world is divided, believing that peace is an evil state if one thinks things need changing. I think Obama might be persuadably that less direct force might be more effective, and more dissimilation of persuasive words might be effective against a group dreaming of bankrupting the US, but not that al Qaeda isn’t much of a problem which most of the antiwar movement is trying to convey.
26c39309
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/
http://capitolhillblue.com/node/20880#comment-58392
When Sharia Law was set up in the Swat Valley, which Obama signed onto, both doves and hawks complained.
If the US just announced, it was leaving Afghanistan in the next few weeks Sharia Law in Kabul would have been mixed with chaos and revenge killings. If Obama had taken Biden’s suggestion to pucker-down in secure areas, the Christmas suicide-bombing attempt still would have happened, but hawks would say, “See I told you al Qaeda attacks when you are weak”.
When the world economy froze because of Bush, the entire world except Sweden which said the government wasn’t in the business of owning a car company (Sabb) was preserving jobs and throwing money at it. If Obama tired the Swedish-Ron Paul approach, the rest of the world would have declared economic war on the US for causing the mess then trying to make the rest of the world pay for it.
http://capitolhillblue.com/node/21399
RichardKanePA
!4792##
EScd5
The better nation and world Obama was to be ushering in is in danger of being suck by the war. An uncanny similarity with the way President Johnson’s Great Society programs slowly began to to evaporate, as the country sunk into the quicksand quagmire of Vietnam. However Obama unlike Johnson made one step toward peace, when he and the Pakistan government signed on to modified Sharia Law in the Swat Valley, which didn’t peace either doves or hawks. Instead of the cease fire speeding to other areas it was violated with an attack on Pakistan.
I’m going to try something new instead of another suggestion on what Obama should do differently, I’m going to try to scenario what might have happened if Johnson had entered peace negations with Ho Chi Mine’s government. Of course he conceivably also could have just announced withdrawal like today’s peace movement is demanding of Obama, and see if it would lead to chaos, confusions and revenge killings, of those who got too close to the Americans.
Most of the good liberals back then didn’t like communism, though they didn’t hate it like the conservatives did. Who would have cheered if Johnson had entered peace negotiant with North Vietnam agreeing to let Ho Chi Ming’s government slowly or quickly unite with the South.
History repeating itself, what if Johnson did differently?
The better nation and world Obama was to be ushering in is in danger of being sidetracked by the war like Johnson’s Great Society drowned in the quicksand quagmire of Vietnam.
Instead of asking why Obama might let history repeat itself, I’m going to try to scenerio what might have happened had Johnson entered into peace negotiations, or just got out of Veitnam and face the possibly of chaos and confusion, mixed in with what we called communism, taking over Vietnam.
Johnson’s Great Society drowned in the quicksand quagmire of Vietnam, like may b happening to the better nation and world Obama was hoping to be ushering in.
Good liberals back when Johnson was President didn’t like Communism any more than most of the antiwar progressives today liked it when Obama and Pakistan agreed to a cease-fire in the Swat Valley that included modified Sharia Law.