He’s not known
as Barack O’Bomber for nothing. Even as the bellicose US president
snagged the Nobel Peace Prize last week, American military forces under
his command were pounding Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. More than a
million civilians have died and millions more have been forced to flee
because of these senseless wars. Yet O’Bomber seems determined to fight
on.
Never mind that as Sun Media columnist Eric Margolis pointed out
last week, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on lies. Saddam
Hussein’s non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” justified the
illegal invasion of Iraq, while in Afghanistan, we’re supposedly
fighting terrorists to keep them from attacking us here. “Many North
Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came
directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda and Taliban movements,”
Margolis writes. He argues, however, that the 9/11 attacks “were
planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis
to punish America for supporting Israel.”
Margolis notes that so far, the US has squandered $236 billion in
Afghanistan while Canada has wasted $16 billion. Now, after eight years
of carnage, the top US commander there warns that at least 40,000 more
American troops will be needed to avoid defeat. To quote the old Pete
Seeger tune, “When will they ever learn?” Or to quote Muriel Duckworth,
“War is stupid.”
Duckworth, who died in August, was formally inducted last week into
the Order of Nova Scotia. That news reminded me of a similar quote from
her friend and fellow Quaker, Ursula Franklin: “War does not work, not
even for the warriors.” Franklin points out that “violence begets more
violence, war begets further wars, more enemies and more suffering.”
Both women called repeatedly for negotiations to resolve
conflict—diplomacy instead of military force.
I know. Right-wing ideologues insist we just can’t negotiate with
the irrational, uncivilized evildoers who oppose enlightened,
freedom-loving people like us. It’s a good example of black-and-white
thinking. The reality is that the world’s richest and most powerful
countries are using the pretext of the war on terrorism to pound the
hell out of the poorest and most defenseless ones in the mad scramble
for control of the world’s resources.
As I worked on Ursula Franklin’s Wikipedia entry last year, I
learned the power of her argument that “peace is not the absence of
war—peace is the absence of fear.” Franklin points to what she calls
the “threat system” which instills fear at all levels of society, not
just fear of violence but of unemployment and poverty. Only social
justice rooted in equality, she argues, can banish fear and bring
peace.
Unfortunately, consumer-oriented societies like ours tend to promote
acquisitiveness instead of equality. They rely on military force to
impose their own global order and as they do, their economies become
increasingly dependent on the production of sophisticated weapons
systems. Franklin says that leads to a state of permanent war, either
endlessly preparing for conflict or actively engaging in it. Implacable
external enemies are needed to justify the trillions spent on weapons.
No wonder the mainstream media is full of warnings these days from US
and Canadian politicians that oil-rich Iran poses a dire nuclear
threat. Iran’s willingness to let international weapons inspectors into
its nuclear facilities is reported as a clever ruse while the media
play down the statement from the UN’s chief weapons inspector that
there’s “no credible evidence” Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Even
US intelligence agencies have concluded the Iranians stopped nuclear
weapons production in 2003. Yet the media and politicians continue to
beat their war drums.
Given these pressures, O’Bomber may be tempted to launch an attack
on Iran or acquiesce in an Israeli one. If he’s wise, though, he’ll
steer clear of yet another stupid war while withdrawing US forces from
Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, he really would be worthy of Nobel’s golden
medal.
This article appears in Oct 15-21, 2009.
Oh dear !
Mr Wark, you have deviated from the normal perceived wisdom.
Everywhere, except Fox News and Rex Murphy, I see and read of the greatness of the Almighty Big O. You’re off the Christmas card list.
In fairness, Obama didn’t start those wars and you can’t just stop all foreign military operations as soon as you get elected. That would be colossally stupid…almost as stupid as war. I think giving him the prize may have been premature, but Obama does appear to be dedicated to reconnecting the international ties that were severed during the disastrous Bush administration.
Also, speaking of black and white thinking, aren’t comments like “war is stupid” and “war does not work” kind of black and white too? The world is a long way away from the utopia where social justice rooted in equality will foster world peace. In the meantime, war does work to maintain security. Diplomacy is better, but war can work too.
You got ‘er Bruce. Really nailed that one.
Barrack “O’Bomber” is about as clever as it is funny. Bellicose? Are you kidding me? Because he inherited the presidency after the shit storm that was the Bush administration, and subsequently the wars that they initiated?
Is there even a central theme to this article? It seemed like you wanted to discuss whether Obama was deserving of a peace prize – a subject worthy of discussion. Instead, you trail off after the first paragraph into nonsensical babbling about the cost of war, the Iranian nuclear threat, and Ms. Franklin’s avant-garde opinion that “war is bad.” Concluding the piece with a weak reference to your introductory statements does not mean you came full circle – it’s more like a bookend on a shelf of garbage.
Is he worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? Probably not, not this early in his presidency anyway. Does this article provoke any new or relevant thoughts on the issue? No.
You should have spent more than a paragraph on O-bama before moving on to what was really on your mind, it wouldn’t have been as obvious. Still obvious, just not AS obvious…
Well, it’s not quite true to argue Obama “inherited” the war in Afghanistan. During his campaign for the presidency, he called it “the right war” and promised to step up American military involvement there which he has done. He has thereby openly made the Afghan war his own. As Eric Margolis points out, his justification is that the war is needed to root out terrorists who would otherwise threaten the U.S. itself. (That indeed is the lie behind U.S. involvement.) Here is Obama as recently as Tuesday:
“Our principal goal remains to root out al-Qaeda and its extremist allies that can launch attacks against the United States or its allies. That’s our principal mission. We are also obviously interested in stability in the region.”
The phrase “stability in the region” is code for domination by the U.S. and its allies in NATO.
It’s obvious that Obama cannot win in Afghanistan — hence the relevance of Ursula Franklin’s quote: “War does not work, not even for the warriors.” The war in Afghanistan is certainly not working for the tens of thousands of civilians killed, wounded and uprooted as the fighting continues. Nor will it work any better for the U.S. and its allies than it did for the Russians and the British before them.
Finally, I felt it unnecessary to argue at great length that the Nobel Peace Prize should not have been awarded to a commander-in-chief who is presiding over two wars (in three countries). Now, if there were a Nobel War Prize, O’Bomber would definitely deserve it.
He deserves the ‘Reading Literature’ prize for so eloquently delivering the woeds of his speechwriter.
All the ‘Dictionary of Quotations’ should show the writer, not the one mouthing the words.
Winston Churchill was another great speech reader, of words written by someone else.
Same with John Kennedy ‘Ask not what you can do for your writer, but what your writer can do to make you look good’.
How much did BO get from the Health Insurance lobby last year ?
And the ambulance chasing lawyers.
Nice to see George Bush with his mouth shut, he must be having quite a laugh.
It’s not that I can’t take criticism or that I’m off my meds, it’s that I’m having a hard time reconciling what western civilized countries claim to stand for with what we — I mean the richest nations — habitually do, including awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a U.S. commander-in-chief waging a couple of bloody neo-colonial wars. I’d be genuinely grateful for your help in resolving what I see as basic moral contradictions.
OK, so Muriel Duckworth was and Ursula Franklin is a Quaker. The Quakers take Christ’s explicit messages about practising peace and loving your enemies seriously — teachings that are common to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
In the New Testament, for example, Christ is quoted without any ambiguity: “I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
That teaching in our secular society is reflected in civil practices which prescribe the non-violent settling of disputes through discussion, debate, education, mediation, the courts and voting.
Under what circumstances, therefore, can we justify resorting to violence and bloodshed? Yes, we are governed by secular laws, but the older religious teachings designed to resolve conflict and maintain peace provide the authority for our laws. This is why George W. Bush and now, Barack Obama, have to argue that killing poor people in distant lands is justified as an act of self-defence. I believe that is blatant, self -serving bullshit.
“Obama’s no prize as peacemaker” was the title.
” I felt it unnecessary to argue at great length that the Nobel Peace Prize should not …”
You can understand the confusion, right?
“Under what circumstances, therefore, can we justify resorting to violence and bloodshed?”
WWII comes to mind.
Notice that you aren’t getting much criticism for saying Obama’s peace prize may not be deserved. What people seem to be taking exception to is the overly-cynical and overly-simplified idea that the West is just stomping on the little guys in order to maintain their status quo. That may be partly true, but it’s also true that Afghanistan was legitimately implicated in the 911 attacks. Retribution was justified. Now, we can discuss whether their retributive tactics were appropriate (and I would argue they weren’t). But, here we are, stuck in the middle of a bloody quagmire of a war with no way out that will prevent further human suffering. If you really care about people and peace then you must realize that if the Western nations cease military operations in Afghanistan today that country and its innocent poor people will suffer immeasurably for decades to come.
Since you like quotes, here’s one of my favourite from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series: “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”
As long as there are incompetent people in the world (and I believe there always will be), there will be violent people. Violent people can sometimes only be dealt with by force. For proof of that I refer you to the WWII reference above, or you can ask any police officer. Nations behave like the people who run them and all the social justice and equality in the world will not stop assholes from gaining power.
If violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and violent people can only be dealt with by force…I feel like I’m chasing Miles’ tail here.
Anyway, the article makes a salient point that has largely been ignored in most media and public discourse. Obama seems to have given the left a sense of hope, yet when it comes to foreign policy it’s been mostly more of the same—neo-colonial wars as Bruce put it—with much the same bullshit self-defense spin.
And as we can see from the comments here, people have bought it.
Well Mags, I think it was kind of my point that there will always be incompetence that leads to violence. SOMETIMES, not always, that violence needs to be dealt with using more violence. If it comes to that, I would say there was incompetence on both sides contributing to the escalation to violence in the first place. But let’s not confuse the underlying point here that when someone pushes you, it’s sometimes necessary to push back.
World peace is not as simple to obtain as just throwing out our weapons and investing in social programs. There will always be people looking to take from others and those people will always be a threat to peace. Sometimes talking to those people just doesn’t work. Sometimes those people happen to be in charge of countries.
And I’m not buying into the self-defence rhetoric, but I’m not buying the neo-colonial line either. The Afghanistan issue is a little more complex than that.
Jesus prayed for his enemies and found himself nailed to a cross. Passivity doesn’t always lead to longevity and not everyone is willing to count on the promise of immortality.
Surely you must see the difference between initiating conflict and dealing with conflict that has been raging for eight years. As much as I think the US and NATO and everyone else should pull their troops out of Afghanistan (and most certainly Iraq), there are legitimate reasons for them to stay. The situation is essentially this: Obama chooses to stay and he’s a war monger. Obama chooses to leave and a likely Mid-East power vacuum ensues. These are the options. His foreign policy hand was forced, and in neither scenario will he emerge unscathed.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and this could not be any more painfully apparent than under these circumstances. Did he know about this when he ran for office? Yes. Will he be held responsible for the fallout (hopefully not literally)? Absolutely, but only to the point where his office took control.
For the record, Bruce, I believe “stability in the region” literally means “stability in the region.” The US and its allies don’t need to flex their nuts within NATO; they ARE NATO.
And Mags, for one who speaks about people buying into things, you seem to have bought into the concept of left v. right pretty whole-heatedly. Has Obama only given the “left” hope?
They gave one to Al Gore for doing a power-point presentation, so let the Noggies give their prizes to whomever they deem important. It comes down to opinion which affects me less than the academy awards affects my movie choices (which isn’t very much).
But Algore invented Powerpoint, didn’t he?
Bruce said
“the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on lies. Saddam Hussein’s non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” justified the illegal invasion of Iraq, while in Afghanistan, we’re supposedly fighting terrorists to keep them from attacking us here. “Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda and Taliban movements,” Margolis writes. He argues, however, that the 9/11 attacks “were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel.”
________________________________________________________________________
true Iraq was considered like unfinished business and Afghanistan was a legal war if you people on the left like it or not the Taliban provided a place of operation for Al-Qaeda this is like helping someone committed murder and come-on Bruce if you knew anything about the Saudis it’s one of the least stable countries in the World and the House of Saud controls by fear and by force and West did not attack them two reasons 1) they have oil and a lot of it, 2) please George Bush Junior was even smart enough not to attack a country that is sovereign of the two holiest places in Islam think about it. If 9/11 was based on lies then was the Bombing of the USS Cole?, 1998 US Embassy attacks?, the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina?( a so called Iranian backed “freedom Fighters” claimed responsibility for that) ,2002 Bali bombings?, 2008 Mumbai attacks? are based on lies? I need more evidence then Wikipedia or Democracy Now
________________________________________________________________________
Bruce you also said:
“I know. Right-wing ideologues insist we just can’t negotiate with the irrational, uncivilized evildoers who oppose enlightened, freedom-loving people like us. It’s a good example of black-and-white thinking. The reality is that the world’s richest and most powerful countries are using the pretext of the war on terrorism to pound the hell out of the poorest and most defenseless ones in the mad scramble for control of the world’s resources.”
________________________________________________________________________
and you on the left did not do the same? please give me a break one could consider the 1939 Invasion of Poland as a example of the Left- Right love affair when they have a common enemy. Another good example the American intervention of Vietnam was started by Dwight D Eisenhower a Republican but the most intense fighting occurred under JFK a Democrat but it was Richard Nixon(Republican) that did brought it to a end A 21 century example of this love affair can be seen with Iran. The Left supports a regime that kills it own people when it clearly stole a election. many leftests out right supported Iran Islamic Regime and also when it comes to Israel you people see eye to eye and yes Barack (Obama) O’Bomber is considered by many Americans as a leftest or even a Socialist president declared that “the bond between America and Israel is unshakable”. Barack (Obama) O’Bomber does deserves the Nobel Peace Prize why? he doing like any other President does by preserving the American Order and the American Peace and backing freedom loving nations or nations that agree with us to do it but one could play the “Race” card in criticism as Jimmy Charter would say that most criticism of Obama comes from.
________________________________________________________________________
Bruce you also said
“black-and-white thinking.”
________________________________________________________________________
well it can also apply to the left since the left is clearly blind in their thinking
________________________________________________________________________
Iran’s willingness to let international weapons inspectors into its nuclear facilities is reported as a clever ruse while the media play down the statement from the UN’s chief weapons inspector that there’s “no credible evidence” Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Even US intelligence agencies have concluded the Iranians stopped nuclear weapons production in 2003. Yet the media and politicians continue to beat their war drums.
________________________________________________________________________
So did Iraq but remember it was Israel that did destroy their nuke program and maybe they could help Iran out so they could not develop WMDs and make the Americans and CIA look really stupid at the UN but it looks that Iran is falling from with in but don’t let Press TV foul you
________________________________________________________________________
you said “Even US intelligence agencies have concluded the Iranians stopped nuclear weapons production in 2003. Yet the media and politicians continue to beat their war drums.”
________________________________________________________________________
It was European intelligence agencies are the ones that under covered that second enrichment plant not the CIA and other intelligence agencies mostly European one think they are just started and the full Documented accounts of Iran Nuclear WMD Bruce can be found here http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/… and note some of the sources can be found here http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/… and some come from Iran.
Iranian Special Weapons including nukes: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/ir… and please note the sources and read the about me part about Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview… and Praise from Others can be seen here:http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm
________________________________________________________________________
Bruce, don’t cry wolf just yet O’Bomber(Obama) still has 4 years to prove you wrong
Well… better than Kissenger or Arafat, no? I feel the justification of the award that the committee gave made sense
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=534…
I don’t think any gov’t or politician or anyone…fuck not even a perfect computer designed to govern us to our own positive advancement, would make you happy Bruce. You are a fucking anarchist. There is no political system that will work for you. You have this hippie mind set that violence is a thing of the past and yada, yada, yada hippie blahhhhhhhh. Look around Bruce, the world is a piece of shit. People killing and fighting about everything from religion to parking spaces so I’m just glad that North America has at least one leader who is willing to look at peaceful options but not afraid to wipe out the nasty religious crazies who would kill you Bruce in a heart beat, just because you might and probably do disagree with their religion/politics/color of the sky. When will you hippies learn the world is not that place you dreamed about in the 60’s and probably never will be. We are animals, we act like animals. Try “reasoning” your way out of a terrorist kidnapping and then tell me if you think we don’t need some positive violence in the world. And yes I said positive violence. Your as bad as all the right wingers who want total constant war. Your an extreme, and any extreme is bad. Do you even understand the ramifications that pulling out of Iraq and Afganistan would have right now. Or do you care. Maybe you extreme leftists are the same as the right wingers when it comes to other countries. Fuck em. Is that it Bruce? First world first. Is that it? We shouldn’t worry about whats happening “over there”, lets just worry about Canada, right Bruce. Your as bad as G.W. Bush and co. and you don’t even realize it. And we all know the wars are based on lies, but again do we just pull out and leave them after eight years of Bush ruining their lives. Or do we try and finish the terrorists off before we leave. Remember, Iraq was a false war. Afghanistan was not. You hippies don’t understand the socio-political crisis that would be caused by just up and leaving. It might take a while for the rest of the world to evolve to your magical, peaceful hippie mindset. Until then we need to arm up. Would you hippie dreamers read a fucking history book and learn something. Oh wait those we’re all written by people with agendas right Bruce? All the world’s a conspiracy and Pres. Obama was only elected so they can get into Africa and get the resources right Bruce? Conspiracy bullshit. You hippies make me want to go to war.
Jared M.
Dear Sir Bruce, While visiting the fair city of Halifax this past weekend and stopping for a brew at second cup, something I crave for, along with a good Tim’s when i come home, being from Cape Breton but living in Chicago the past seven years.. I was amazed at the miss information I read in your column. Obama’s No prize Peace Maker. Not that I am a fan of Obama, I’m not, I live in Illinois . He did zero as senator. I think he is in way over his head. Anyway, the two statements of false information you gave are these. “more than a million civilians have died”, and, ” senseless war”. What is it with you guys ? Do you all go to the same ,push a left wing agenda journalism school? Or do you look at the evidence, and report that, even if it contradicts your ideology?
So how many civilians died in Iraq? The Associated Press wrote about it’s tally for how many Iragi civilians have been killed since the US invasion. Associated Press is one of the few that keep it’s own independent account. They have traditionally depended on those same ministry sources as others, but also look at press reports, and hospital records. Recently Associated Press was given access to new data collected by Iraqi Health Ministry, and searched through morgue records along with burials at the Shiite cemetery in the holy Shiite city of Najaf. Altogether Associated Press estimated 110,600 Iraqi’s have died from May 2003 to March 2009. Iraq Body Count, one of the major sources of casualty counts in Iraq found 100,346 dead from March 2003 to April 2009. The Lancet Study led by Gilbert Burnham in the Lancet Medical Journal claimed 601,027 Iraqis died since the US invasion. But this report has faced major criticism because it’s results were based upon polling, faulty polling questions, and numbers that were inflated for political reasons, and not precise numbers. The Grand Total of Iraqi deaths according to trust worthy sources. Associated Press, (March30 2003 -April 2009) 110,600 – Brooking Institution, (May 2003-March 2009) 110,387- Iraq Body Count ( March 2003- April 2, 2009) 100, 436. Over a million is quite a leap Mr. Wark. And as terrible as war is, war is not always senseless. What is better, Peace or Freedom. I’ll take freedom any day. Take Care, from William Legge Chicago IL.
Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that half a million children have died in Iraq. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price? We think the price is worth it.”
Willegge, those figures you provided don’t include death by sanctions. When you look at the course of American policy and action in Iraq since 1990, it hasn’t changed direction at any point. It has only escalated. The goal under Obama has so far been the same as it was under Clinton and both Bushes: make Iraq do what we want it to do; control it; take its resources.
The same is true of Afghanistan. Is that what we call a ‘good war’ nowadays?
Hi willlegge: Sorry to say buddy, the million deaths figure is well established — unless you’re swayed by dismissive coverage in the mainstream media. (I was using the figure for both Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Iraq alone, the figure is well above one million.) I’ll cite a source I trust: Project Censored which operates out of Sonoma State University in California. If you click on the link, you’ll see where Project Censored got its information. As I say, Project Censored was founded by Carl Jensen in 1976. Its list is always based on reliable and in-depth research. In 2009, the million deaths figure was number one on the Best Censored list. Read it and weep: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories…