“America’s Man-O-War”

Nicholas Halks

‘On the Right and Never Wrong’

“America’s Man-O-War”

In 2008, Americans elected the most charismatic president since John F. Kennedy. Voted in on promises to bring our military home from the Middle East and rebuild the burned bridges of the Bush II Era, Barack Obama was seen as a ‘Man of Peace.’ Yet his popularity has plummeted faster then any president in history this far into a first term. Many cite the dreadful economic despair as the major reason for this drop in approval rating. Yet could it be that, after two years into his presidency, Barack Obama has had a more aggressive and militant foreign policy then George W. Bush?

Though he won a Nobel Peace prize, he has done little in the way of achieving tranquility abroad. To discover the truth, one must ignore the words of Obama and watch his actions. To begin, the troops never came home from Iraq; they were simply re-deployed further away from the U.S. There are now a record number of troops in Afghanistan. The remaining 50,000 military troops in Iraq were renamed ‘Support Personnel’ and the departed soldiers were supplanted by 200,000 military contractors. Obama has been conducting an undeclared war on Pakistan through the usage of military drones, missile strikes, and Special Forces troops. The President has also sent Special Forces troops into Yemen and completed the largest arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia. His promises to end unlawful assassination, torture, and Guantanamo Bay have been utter lies.

And yet, the liberal watchdogs that howled incessantly at Bush’s expansive War on Terror and erosion of civil liberties are silent. Instead, they sit obediently waiting for the occasional ‘public policy’ bone that Obama’s administration may throw them, in exchange for the silence needed for the President to pursue his unrestrained and dangerous war aims. With the War-hawk Republican Party set to retake the House of Representatives in January, one wonders how long before a military strike on Iran will be.

For many, it is hard to consider Obama a warmonger. Yet quickly reflect on his actions.

Bush II invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the Taliban. In 2008, America had only 38,000 troops in the country. Obama has increased NATO’s troop presence to 152,000 men. Instead of drawing down the conflict, 2009 and 2010 were each, respectively, the bloodiest years of the almost decade long war. Yet the Taliban are stronger than ever. Our allies are going home. Does anyone really believe this war could be won by June of 2011?

In Iraq, the troops were euphemistically renamed, “Support Troops.” Supposedly this means there are no ‘combat’ soldiers in the country but many a solider continues to be wounded, maimed, or killed even in November 2010. The troops that departed were merely supplanted by 200,000 military contractors, a population the third the size of Boston.

The issue of the gravest concern is the undeclared war in Pakistan. The major dilemma is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is descending into chaotic instability with each passing day. Unmanned drones and NATO attack helicopters fire missiles to destroy villages which support the Taliban or Al Qaeda. 80 suspected militants were killed in October 2010. ABC News reported on October 13, that since Obama’s June appointment of General Petraeus to command the war in Afghanistan, there has been a 172 percent increase in air strikes. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are at an all time high. Surveillance flights over the country have increased three fold from September 2009. The Pakistani government responded by blockading supply routes into Afghanistan for American troops. Perhaps, our military incursion into Pakistan proves that our puppet-state is not as submissive as some had first thought. Or, is the Obama administration attempting to destabilize the country in order to justify a NATO troop presence to ‘secure’ Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?

While on the topic of unmanned drone attacks, termed “targeted killings” by administration officials, Obama has extended America’s hospitality to Yemen. The CIA declared in August of this year that Yemen’s variant of Al Qaeda is the most dangerous threat to the United States. The New York Times reported that special counterterrorist forces have been in the country since December 2008 to train Yemeni forces. Obama has also nearly completed what might possibly be the largest arms deal in the history of America to the homeland of Usama Bin Laden. The reported $60 billion but probably closer to $90 billion arms package to Saudi Arabia is predominated by advanced jet fighters; apache and black hawk attack helicopters, as well as sophisticated anti-radar missiles. Saudi Arabia and Yemen border each other.

The pledge to close Guantanamo Bay within one year was made by Obama 2 days after his inauguration. It remains open. Obama has continued ‘rendition’ or shipping suspects to countries without prisoner safeguards to be interrogated. Do not fear, our president does pledge to monitor those sent to far-away prisons to ensure no torture happens.

The anti-war wing of the Democratic Party has been largely silent since the inauguration. Why is this? It may matter little now because the Republicans will commandeer the Speaker’s gavel from Nancy Pelosi in January. Though the Democrats retain control of the Senate, perennial war hawk Senators like Joe Lieberman will virtually guarantee any war declaration needed against anyone Obama and his administration wish to target. The question is not when the next strike will occur. It is which country it will be against.

Will Obama strike Iran’s reactors with cruise missiles and naval bombardment?

Perhaps commit ground troops to secure a destabilized Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?

Though it is only possible to surmise where the troops are headed next, it will definitely not be to the border with Mexico, where they are needed the most. Besides, many Americans love a good war to distract their attention away from the economic disaster which is destroying them.