Verbosities

Seems it’s Bash Obama day here at Verbosities. By all means, let me join. Hopefully I can measure up to the penetrating orthography and “deeper views” that have come before me.

My contribution?

Obama’s foreign policy speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, one of many speeches given as he preens and auditions for his CFR mentors and patrons.

Here is the “anti-war” Obama—

So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.

Good, good. Establish simplistic philosophy with religious tones.

I believe that the single most important job of any President is to protect the American people. And I am equally convinced that doing that job effectively in the 21st century will require a new vision of American leadership and a new conception of our national security – a vision that draws from the lessons of the past, but is not bound by outdated thinking.

This whole paragraph provides much fodder (as does the speech in its entirety), but let’s just go with the bold, as it is the most obviously incorrect. The most important job of any President is to uphold and protect the Constitution, as is laid out in the oath of office. The all-encompassing dogma of Freedom through Security goes directly against that, as the last six years spent by most of our politicians ignoring the Constitution’s very existence bears out.*

*Simma down na. This erosion has occurred over a much longer period than the last six years (while "but Clinton did it too" is correct in this case, it completely misses the point), but I’m just leaving it at that for now, since this period is where said erosions are the most obvious, egregious, and accelerated.

Does Obama not understand this distinction and why it is important? Does he simply not agree with it? Who knows, but any ideas I can come up with fail to yield a satisfactory answer as to why “security” is evidently more important than the document that codifies our rights and freedoms, not just as Americans, but as human beings. Having those curtailed for any reason (yes, even Safety and Security) should be unacceptable to everyone under any circumstances.

We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people. We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. We must lead by building and strengthening the partnerships and alliances necessary to meet our common challenges and defeat our common threats.

Again, because Security is Freedom. Here also we see the beginning creep of “global community” rhetoric. Remember, soon-to-be-serfs America, we’re going into global operations, you don’t have a choice. And of course, a bigger military (and its attendant costs) are always the answer. Also, according to Obama, we need stronger (and more) foreign entanglements (presumably in the form of handing over more sovereignty to the UN through the use of “Free Trade”, but any way it gets done is fine, really, for the David Rockefeller CFR folks, self-declared “internationalists” all, of which Obama is a very proud member. Mmmmmm, prestigiouuuuus).

There are five ways America will begin to lead again when I’m President. Five ways to let the world know that we are committed to our common security, invested in our common humanity, and still a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.

This is gonna be good…

The first way America will lead is by bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocusing on the critical challenges in the broader region.

Hit the pause button on Iraq, okay…..

In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi’a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement – a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

Gee, Chuck, that sounds really good, even though it does sound like quite a while from now. After all, you did just refer to "ending the war in Iraq" (which is another misnomer--it is not a war, it is an occupation). What happens when we remove everyone from Iraq?

I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.

Oh gee, I guess I misunderstood. It seems that under Obama we would actually be staying in Iraq (because of, you know, the world-ending chaos that is sure to follow us home across the ocean—just like it did when we left Vietnam). But the "WAR" will be over, like, there's no more immigration problems, we just have a metric fuckton of 'temporary guest workers'. Is it too cynical to exclaim, “Perpetualy Ongoing and Recurring Expense for America” when referring to this "limited number of troops to stay behind"? Oh that’s right. We’re rich and can afford it. Totally loaded. We will never be broke.

The second way America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it.

We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is why our country’s greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

Because if you think the deployments are going to end with Iraq, you’re sorely mistaken.

Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

Ill-advised. Not illegal, or aggressive, or under false pretenses (also known as “lies”), but "ill-advised". You see it’s not that we shouldn’t have done it; we just didn’t throw enough people in when we did it. He also did well to remember to use HOMELAND. What a great word--the CFR crew approves wholeheartedly. Uber alles, uber alles.

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.

No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

And there’s the money shot.

As leaders from Henry Kissinger to George Shultz to Bill Perry to Sam Nunn have all warned, the actions we are taking today on this issue are simply not adequate to the danger.

The serious, sober, enlightened, and established wisdom of the Great HK, it makes my heart swell. Henry Kissinger has always uttered wonderful things, though. On May 21, 1991 in a speech to the Bilderberger Meeting in Evian, France, for example—

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will willingly be relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government. "

At a National Security Council meeting in 1975—

“It is an act of insanity and national humiliation to have a law prohibiting the President from ordering assassination."

And finally (for this post, at least. The full list of memorable Kissinger quotes could be a book in itself),—

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

Wow, no wonder Obama holds him in such high esteem. He’s obviously a great man. The speech continues.

We can do something about this. As President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years – the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb.

So that’s what those combat brigades we took out of Iraq, along with the new ones we add (plus numbers from our merc forces, recruited foreign nationals, and those drafted under “National Service”), will be doing. I’ll bet HK told him that soldiers like to stay busy. Idle hands are the devil’s playground, and our fight, after all, is against a great evil. Onward Christian Soldiers.

The speech goes on, as could I, for some time. I encourage everyone to go read the entire thing, as it is very enlightening. Obama's rhetoric on foreign policy is, at its foundations, no different than that pushed by the neocons and other various factions of the warmongering elite class (current and past), save a few slight changes to the logistics and methods of its implementation.

At the root, neither side differs. Realizing this and facing it is the Audacity in which our real and honest Hope lies.