Obama’s renunciation of the “preemptive war” doctrine is a welcome gesture not only to the world at large but also to Muslims across the globe who feel they have been victims. Will Obama’s new grand strategy undo the wrongs done by his predecessor? Only time will give the answer.
Federal Budget 2010
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Thursday, July 01, 2010
President Barack Obama’s new National Security Strategy signals a clear break from his predecessor, George W. Bush’s neocon doctrine of go-it-alone “preemptive use of force” which has been the very rationale of his war on terror. In a 52-page document, Obama lays out a new grand strategy, based on a fresh doctrine of “security through peace, not war.” It is a welcome statement of intent but there is no room for any euphoric illusions anywhere in the world.
Through his first formal policy declaration, President Obama appears to be correcting the direction of America’s global behaviour. His new vision does not provide for the US to strike first or take unilateral military action. This indeed marks a a new approach which unlike some of his predecessors, leans heavily on the value of global cooperation, building wider security partnerships and helping other nations defend themselves.
While the new Obama strategy retains the option for the US to act unilaterally in certain situations (Pakistan, a classic example), it envisages the use of military force “only as a last resort when all other options are exhausted and the costs and risks of action have been weighed against the costs of risks of inaction." It draws up a considerably more complex and distinctly more “intelligent” concept of the world where new partnerships need to be forged through dialogue and engagement, and also necessary space created for emerging powers.
The strategy departs from past practice in citing the threats of homegrown terrorists, cyber security and climate change. While signalling a break with the Bush legacy, it falls short of its outright repudiation which is bound to disappoint those within the Democratic camp who expected a more direct rejection of the doctrine of pre-emptive war. Republicans, on the other hand, are already critical of the policy's new emphasis on diplomacy and development aid.
In his introductory remarks, President Obama claims "Our strategy begins by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with steps that we take at home.” Like some of his predecessors, Obama includes a commitment to building the nation's economic health as part of his security strategy. A key tenet of his domestic agenda is creating what he calls a "new foundation" for America’s future through economic growth, deficit and debt reduction, better education, a stronger and clean energy industry, greater scientific research and a revamped health care system.
Obama stresses that success in these areas is crucial to maintaining U.S. influence abroad. That is about as much of a stretch as Dwight D. Eisenhower justifying the interstate highway system on national defense grounds. By implication, the 2009 stimulus package and the Bush administration's 2008 bank bailout were also integral parts of America's national security strategy.
President Obama and his Democratic Party also seem to be conscious of the imminent mid-term elections and their likely impact on his second –term prospects. No wonder, Obama’s new national security manifesto is striking for its domestic policy content and is full of State of the Union-style promises. It looks like a statement on how to cut down the long checklist that will be used in the coming elections to judge on his unkept promises.
The favored Obama foreign policy buzz word ‘engagement’ is conspicuous by its 42 times use in 52 pages. In a rebuke to Bush-Cheney “lone gunman” unilateralism, the term ‘engagement’ denotes “active US participation in relationships beyond its borders. It is, quite simply, the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes." At the same time, the strategy makes it clear that the US will not abdicate its unrivalled global military prowess with unsurpassed reach and capability despite being stretched by two wars and other global challenges.
Through his first formal policy declaration, President Obama appears to be correcting the direction of America’s global behaviour. His new vision does not provide for the US to strike first or take unilateral military action. This indeed marks a a new approach which unlike some of his predecessors, leans heavily on the value of global cooperation, building wider security partnerships and helping other nations defend themselves.
While the new Obama strategy retains the option for the US to act unilaterally in certain situations (Pakistan, a classic example), it envisages the use of military force “only as a last resort when all other options are exhausted and the costs and risks of action have been weighed against the costs of risks of inaction." It draws up a considerably more complex and distinctly more “intelligent” concept of the world where new partnerships need to be forged through dialogue and engagement, and also necessary space created for emerging powers.
The strategy departs from past practice in citing the threats of homegrown terrorists, cyber security and climate change. While signalling a break with the Bush legacy, it falls short of its outright repudiation which is bound to disappoint those within the Democratic camp who expected a more direct rejection of the doctrine of pre-emptive war. Republicans, on the other hand, are already critical of the policy's new emphasis on diplomacy and development aid.
In his introductory remarks, President Obama claims "Our strategy begins by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with steps that we take at home.” Like some of his predecessors, Obama includes a commitment to building the nation's economic health as part of his security strategy. A key tenet of his domestic agenda is creating what he calls a "new foundation" for America’s future through economic growth, deficit and debt reduction, better education, a stronger and clean energy industry, greater scientific research and a revamped health care system.
Obama stresses that success in these areas is crucial to maintaining U.S. influence abroad. That is about as much of a stretch as Dwight D. Eisenhower justifying the interstate highway system on national defense grounds. By implication, the 2009 stimulus package and the Bush administration's 2008 bank bailout were also integral parts of America's national security strategy.
President Obama and his Democratic Party also seem to be conscious of the imminent mid-term elections and their likely impact on his second –term prospects. No wonder, Obama’s new national security manifesto is striking for its domestic policy content and is full of State of the Union-style promises. It looks like a statement on how to cut down the long checklist that will be used in the coming elections to judge on his unkept promises.
The favored Obama foreign policy buzz word ‘engagement’ is conspicuous by its 42 times use in 52 pages. In a rebuke to Bush-Cheney “lone gunman” unilateralism, the term ‘engagement’ denotes “active US participation in relationships beyond its borders. It is, quite simply, the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes." At the same time, the strategy makes it clear that the US will not abdicate its unrivalled global military prowess with unsurpassed reach and capability despite being stretched by two wars and other global challenges.
A striking feature of the new Obama strategy is that it enshrines principles and policies that the president has advocated since his election campaign. He has always said that he opposed war and favoured dialogue.
In his news conferences, he has admitted candidly that military means alone will not succeed in Afghanistan and that a broader mix of military, political, diplomatic and economic efforts would be needed. It signifies overt recognition in Washington that military force alone is not a solution to the problems in this region.
Another noteworthy aspect of Obama’s new global outline is the effort to move from a monomaniacal focus on al-Qaeda. Referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, the foreign policy paper states, "Yet these wars -- and our global efforts to successfully counter violent extremism -- are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America's engagement with the world ... The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons." Through these words, Obama seems to be redefining America’s threat perception.
Interestingly, during his recent commencement address at the U.S. West Point Military Academy, Obama touched on many of the themes now covered in his strategy document. In his punch line, he told the graduating cadets that the US must shape a world order relying on the persuasiveness of its diplomacy as the might of its military. While listing a whole range of threats including terrorism, spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing world, he said “the burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone.”
In his inaugural address sixteen months ago, Obama had listed the multiple challenges of his terrible legacy which included wars, global image erosion, shattered economy, depleted social security, healthcare crisis, and decaying education system. Obama had vowed to meet those myriad challenges which he said were real and serious. “But know this, America — they will be met” he assured his people.
Earlier in his election campaign, Obama had been explaining how he would make the difference in America’s policies and in the lives of Americans as well as those of the people of the world. At home, he will seek to revive an economy suffering worst meltdown in more than half a century. Abroad, he pledged to end the war in Iraq and defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He also spoke of the Bush era as a bleak chapter in American history. "America, we are better than those last eight years" he asserted while pledging to restore what he called "our lost sense of common purpose."
Obama’s renunciation of the “preemptive war” doctrine is a welcome gesture not only to the world at large but also to Muslims across the globe who feel they have been victims of a “wicked war” perpetrated by George W. Bush in the name of the war on terror. The neocon agenda justified fueling of situations that would allow America’s unabashed use of military power anywhere in the world. George W. Bush unleashed a global onslaught in the name of “self-defence.”
The American people and the media as indeed the whole world are convinced that fighting wars was a mistake that must be brought to an end. According to the Washington Post, "in the name of the war on terror, we have invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, we have emboldened our enemies, we have lost and taken many lives, we have spent trillions of dollars, we have sacrificed civil liberties, and we have jettisoned our commitment to human dignity."
Will Obama’s new grand strategy undo the wrongs done by his predecessor? Only time will give the answer. But let us not forget that Obama is America’s president and is oath bound to protect and promote his country’s interests. He might be sincere in seeking to break with the Bush legacy but eventually, it is the unrelenting challenges of America’s global outreach that will determine Obama’s actions. In alleviating the Muslim grievances,
Another noteworthy aspect of Obama’s new global outline is the effort to move from a monomaniacal focus on al-Qaeda. Referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, the foreign policy paper states, "Yet these wars -- and our global efforts to successfully counter violent extremism -- are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America's engagement with the world ... The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons." Through these words, Obama seems to be redefining America’s threat perception.
Interestingly, during his recent commencement address at the U.S. West Point Military Academy, Obama touched on many of the themes now covered in his strategy document. In his punch line, he told the graduating cadets that the US must shape a world order relying on the persuasiveness of its diplomacy as the might of its military. While listing a whole range of threats including terrorism, spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing world, he said “the burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone.”
In his inaugural address sixteen months ago, Obama had listed the multiple challenges of his terrible legacy which included wars, global image erosion, shattered economy, depleted social security, healthcare crisis, and decaying education system. Obama had vowed to meet those myriad challenges which he said were real and serious. “But know this, America — they will be met” he assured his people.
Earlier in his election campaign, Obama had been explaining how he would make the difference in America’s policies and in the lives of Americans as well as those of the people of the world. At home, he will seek to revive an economy suffering worst meltdown in more than half a century. Abroad, he pledged to end the war in Iraq and defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He also spoke of the Bush era as a bleak chapter in American history. "America, we are better than those last eight years" he asserted while pledging to restore what he called "our lost sense of common purpose."
Obama’s renunciation of the “preemptive war” doctrine is a welcome gesture not only to the world at large but also to Muslims across the globe who feel they have been victims of a “wicked war” perpetrated by George W. Bush in the name of the war on terror. The neocon agenda justified fueling of situations that would allow America’s unabashed use of military power anywhere in the world. George W. Bush unleashed a global onslaught in the name of “self-defence.”
The American people and the media as indeed the whole world are convinced that fighting wars was a mistake that must be brought to an end. According to the Washington Post, "in the name of the war on terror, we have invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, we have emboldened our enemies, we have lost and taken many lives, we have spent trillions of dollars, we have sacrificed civil liberties, and we have jettisoned our commitment to human dignity."
Will Obama’s new grand strategy undo the wrongs done by his predecessor? Only time will give the answer. But let us not forget that Obama is America’s president and is oath bound to protect and promote his country’s interests. He might be sincere in seeking to break with the Bush legacy but eventually, it is the unrelenting challenges of America’s global outreach that will determine Obama’s actions. In alleviating the Muslim grievances,
President Obama must not forget “the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak” that his fellow democrat predecessor, President Woodrow Wilson had spelt out in his famous 14-point congressional speech in January 1918.
Wilson’s ghost doesn’t have to come to remind Obama that to make “the world safe for every peace-loving nation which wishes to live its own life and determine its own institutions, it must be assured of justice and fair dealing, and that unless justice is done to others it will not be done to us.” Obama knows this line well. He must move ahead to translate it into reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment