Al Jazeera English - IMPERIUM - Obama: Commander-in-(mis)chief?


Watch Now
FRONT PAGE



Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
CENTRAL/S. ASIA
Europe
Middle East



Focus
Business
Sport
Programmes
Weather
Your Views



Search
Arabic
About us

FOCUS: IMPERIUM

Obama: Commander-in-(mis)chief?

By Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's Senior Political Analyst

Barack Obama, the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, made his war agenda clear before travelling to the Middle East and Europe.

He committed to withdrawing fighting troops from Iraq before experiencing the so-called progress on the ground and regardless of whether the US is winning or not.

That is smart. His opponent, John McCain, wants US troops to stay in Iraq either way.

Obama also committed to increasing the number of fighting brigades in Afghanistan.

That, however, is not so smart. In fact it is stupid, not because he never set foot in the country, nor because McCain makes the same promises, but because of the way the Democratic candidate has connected the two commitments.

His logic follows that Washington needs to withdraw troops from Iraq and re-direct them to Afghanistan - the centre of the "war on terror" - where the US military is over extended.

The presumably cultured liberal Obama failed to explain why killing more Afghans rather than killings Iraqis will make Americans safer, or how adopting the Bush-McCain rhetoric on the "war on terror" will win him the presidency.

It would have sufficed to take the moral high ground on the question of the unpopular war in Iraq instead of offering a pretext to widen an unwinnable and unnecessary war in Afghanistan seven years on.

Obama's opposition to launching a pre-emptive and destructive illegal war against Iraq leading to thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties has been wise not because it was politically savvy or popular, but because it was the principled position to take.

Targeting the centre

But it is an election year and candidate Obama must move to the centre to win the presidency. Right?

Well, true, but that does not mean the American centre is militaristic. If the last half century is any guide, Democrats have generally lost elections when they played into Cold War Republican militarism.

Remember, for example, how Michael Dukakis lost his double digit lead over George Bush Sr by playing the commander-in-chief role from the cockpit of an army tank, while Bill Clinton won the 1992 elections by steering away from the war rhetoric with the slogan 'it's the economy stupid'.

It is not clear why the senator from Illinois does not bother explaining to the voters that Afghanistan is as complicated a challenge as Iraq and that sending more military hardware and troops there is hardly the answer.

He also failed to explain why in light of the continuing deterioration and escalation of the war, he does not focus diplomatic energies on overcoming regional challenges for arriving at stability and peace.

Obama should have also distinguished between the Taliban of pre-2001 and the Taliban today and between the latter and al-Qaeda.

An important aspect he should have considered is that the Taliban, disagreeable as they may be, do not constitute a threat to the US as al-Qaeda does … unless Afghanistan is under foreign occupation.

And while a tougher military crackdown will likely not stabilise the country for long, alienating (or for that matter appeasing) Pakistan will also not de-escalate the violence in Afghanistan.

In fact, without Pakistan, it is impossible to neutralise the Taliban or deal seriously with al-Qaeda Central on the border between the two countries.

Meanwhile, the Afghan government is bridled with corruption, ineptness and mismanagement.

Afghanistan has also been listed as one of the worst ten countries in the world in terms of living standards with drug traffickers, criminals and warlords running amok outside Kabul.

Cool-headed strategy

Candidate Obama needs to approach Iraq and Afghanistan with the same sane and cool-headed strategy of constructive diplomatic and regional engagement paralleled with military disengagement.

When he returns to Washington, Obama need not boast about how a few days in the region made him a fit commander-in-chief.

Rather he must confide in the American people about what needs to be done in Afghanistan in the same manner that he addressed the issue of the war in Iraq - candidly, pragmatically and strategically, away from populism, sensationalism or warmongering.

Obama's support for the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group that underline regional diplomacy and political reconciliation are applicable in Afghanistan and should be the fulcrum of America's policies forward instead of more of the same war.

In his cornerstone foreign policy speech a couple of weeks ago, Obama stressed 'sound judgement' as indispensable for leadership. It is. And it outweighs McCain's experience that leads to poor political judgements.

Obama's strength has thus far been embedded in the force of his logic, not in the logic of force.

That is the distinctive element between a commander-in-chief and commander of mischief.

The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of Al Jazeera

Source:

Al Jazeera

Feedback

Number of comments : 75

Matt J United Kingdom		20/07/2008

mistaken

Sen. Obama isn't stomping around like George Bush in a country that never attacked the U.S. Obama is wanting to direct the troops at a problem that does face the United States, and the world. To every American it is common sense to withdraw from Iraq and try to find the terrorists, ya know, what George W. said he was going to do but instead decided to invade a country at the whim of other conservatives for ill reasons.

Kara Mustapha Afghanistan		20/07/2008

obama commander in mischief

Afghanistan is central to American imperialism. the war of aggression has nothing to do with al-qaida, nor the Taliban. US forces in Afganistan can lieterally stab China, Russia and Iran, in the back. Precesely the countries that refuse to integrate into American Empire. Afghanistan is a must have military base. The world will not have peace , nor happiness, until America has ist civil war as in 19th century and dissolves into smaller states. LET US ALL PRAY FOR THAT.

Karl Eysenbach United States		21/07/2008

Focus: Imperium article

This is why I read Al Jazeera. I couldn't get this opinion anywhere in the United States. While I don't agree with everything he says, this article is refreshing. As to Afghanistan v. Iraq, remember. We are comparing eggs to apples.

fcarrara Argentina		21/07/2008

"Stupid"

"It is stupid" and "presumably cultured" are quite the strong accusations against somebody like senator Obama. Perhaps the words "foolish", or "unadivsable" would have sufficed, especially coming from a serious reporter.

sameen Afghanistan		21/07/2008

Supressing nature

The author says "It would in Iraq instead of offering a pretext to widen an unwinnable and unnecessary war in Afghanistan seven years on." Point to be noted here is that we unnecessarily have high hopes from Obama . He may be just a bit different from Hilary Clinton or Mccain- only just a bit Attacking Muslim countries one by one till all are taken care of, is an integral part of their grand design or probably due to their natural instinct. You can't suppress your nature for a long time.

Neil Hoskins United Kingdom		21/07/2008

Disagree

Taliban and Al Qaeda are the same thing. And the idiotic diversion in Iraq seems to have made people forget that this entity attacked the USA in an attack that killed far more people than were killed at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Strategically, the Americans can never again let these people have sanctuary in any country, whether it's Afganistan, Yemen, Sudan, or, indeed Saudi Arabia.

Lynne United States		21/07/2008

Obama - Commander in (mis)chief?

It is the U.S.'s fault that the Taliban took over Afghanistan to begin with. So, it makes sense to me that the U.S. should correct this mistake while also searching for bin Laden. Al Queda does have ties to the Taliban but not Saddam. Going into Iraq was clearly a tragic and unprincipled mistake. Afghanistan is different - and my hope is if Obama is elected the US will be able to leave the Afghani people better off than they were under the Taliban.

Dr Tariq Rajbee Afghanistan		21/07/2008

Obama a Commander in mischief

Marwan Bishara is a rare journalist I could expect from the Middle East. He is very intelligent and so far I have not found any sign of 'generality' in his opinion as one finds in most of the journalists, commentators and even politicians. Most of these people are educated with superficial "informations" pushed down our throats by either lazy media(wouldn't bother to search for truth) or deliberately designed propaganda by the rich and powerful. Well done Marwan, I agree with your analysis.

Saber Shah Pakistan		21/07/2008

Put the focus right

Obamas latest tour awakened many questions in mind of Pakistanis, the focus he had talked about is just nonsense, targeting Pakistan and its trible areas will give nothing to america but more blunders, he should have talked about collation and NATO forces to control infiltration to either sides more responsibaly, if he like other americans think Pakistan is like iraq or afghanistan, definately he is (mis)chief.

Shia United States		21/07/2008

Hope

My Hope is that he's saying these things just to get elected. I think most people forget that a presidential candidates ideas are fluid, not static. And while we can expect them to follow through to some extent, when it comes to foreign policy this fluidity is especially evident. When some in China here especially loud criticism of its country they wonder "is it election time again?". Obama needs to say these things because of the security-obssessed nature of the US right now.

Jose Meras United States		21/07/2008

Focus Imperium

Dear Sirs, The Focus: Imperium opinion piece criticizes Senator Barack Obama because he has asked for an increase in the number of military troops to be sent to Afghanistan. I believe Aljazeera’s criticism is based on the mistaken belief that Obama is repeating the Bush Administration’s policy of using force at the expense of diplomacy. It is important to remember that invasion of Iraq was primarily a unilateral action that the United States undertook with the token involvement of the

onix Afghanistan		21/07/2008

poker

since plainly stomping the previous usian politics around afghanistan, " the allies" , and not in the least the al quida myth/construct would pose obama (A-boma) as some freak to many, he chooses the political option , playing the overextended forces card. sth making sense within thoughts of usian home budgetting etc. , also it may be easier not to have to explain to so many tricked people beforehand why and how they have been tricked. (more then once)

Linda United States		22/07/2008



Let us not forget that Obama is related to six other guys (presidents) who represented imperialism, and that Obama's promise to continue invasions of other countries follows a long history of U.S. aggression. It is time to end all occuaptions now.

Sri Singapore		22/07/2008

Neutrality

Quote: The presumably cultured liberal Obama failed to explain why killing more Afghans rather than killings Iraqis... 1. Taking potshots at how cultured Obama is doesn't help your cause. 2. Do you think the US looks at Iraq and Afghanistan as alternatives to shooting ranges or video games? That they are here to get their kicks by killing people? The usually cultured Marwan stoops to mixing personal propaganda in what is otherwise a very interesting and balanced perspective.

Fouad Netherlands		22/07/2008

Omaba a wolf.

Obama is a member of the same think tank that came up with the idea's to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush, Clinton and McCain are also members of this thinktank. If you think there will be a change you are gravely mistaken. Obama is a wolf in lambs clothing. What most of you don't realise is that Bill Clinton was an extremist. He was far more right-wing than Bush is and Obama is unknown so his allegiance is unknown. He may hide in liberalism but he could be extremely far right.

Lost in Translation Afghanistan		22/07/2008

Troops to Afghanistan

Then we are all in agreement that the U.S. is just meddling in Afghanistan and should just leave. Rather than fight public opinion, Mr. Obama should just leave the region as it is and let the Middle Eastern countries work this out themselves. I am sure Al Quaida will do the same and everyone will be free and happy. No more fighting, no more dope production, no more assisinations. Heaven on earth just by getting rid of the U.S. commitment.

Wabwire Jude Uganda		22/07/2008

Political Game

Politics is game. Regardless of where its played. None of the two is pointing out truely what is on their hearts. It's all about what will fetch more votes back home. And that is exactly what Barack Obama and His opponent, John McCain are doing. My opinion however is that, its high time they let these countries lead their own political affairs. The damage US has coused to the world is enough and may the Candidate who will promote minimal foreighn policy (imposition) win.

Ivan Afghanistan		22/07/2008

Obama: Commander-in-(mis)chief?

It's American foreign policy that has created the so-called 'terrorists'. This prompted the U.S. to start a 'war on terror'. creating more 'terrorists' in the process. Obama will just be another American war-monger. The world will not have peace until the U.S. gets destroyed.

lea United States		23/07/2008

Where is Osama?

Many voices little wisdom. If Osama was responsible for the attack on WTC then you advocate we just forget it about it? How do we stop extremist like him? If they want the troops out in exchange for peace let them say so, I am all for it. I think wars are a waste, no one wins. I think we need for the extremist to take opportunity if Obama is elected to bring peace...then the earth will rejoice.

Rex Crouch United States		22/07/2008

Arabs Judging Obama

In the article entitled "Obama: Commander-in-(mis) Chief?" written by Marwan Bishara, he states that Obama is stupid. One, I would like to say that is a profound and deep thought for an Al Jazeera Senior Political Analyst. Two, Marwan Bishara doesn't vote in our elections so his opinion is really meaningless.

Sean United States		22/07/2008

Failed state

Afghanistan is a failed state who does not possess the means to be an unwilling host to organizations that use terrorism. Iraq was never a failed state and has the infrastructure to support its government and provide for its people.

Nithin United States		23/07/2008

excellent article

I think Bishara hit the nail on its head with this one. Finally an article that is neither completely with nor against obama. The points he makes here are very logical. Most people will agree with the Iraq issue and on Obama's judgement there. In the case of Afghanistan, it can be seen that after nearly 7 years of using force, we still haven't been able to catch Bin Laden and there are still attacks such as the one on Kandahar prison. the answer lies in pakistan and the citizens of afghanistan.

stanley United States		23/07/2008

p.2 Focus: Imperium by M. Bishara

What Mr. Obama has done is reveal that in his opinion the 'war' in Iraq is lost, in that a majority of American will not willingly support further sacrifice of life and funds there, but that Afghansitan is not seen in the same light., at least not yet. Further, that whatever the American General Staff think, they are not trying to sell Mr. Obama on Iraq as a security threat maybe, not Afghanistan either but then agains they may actually feel that if they have to choose their ground they have a

stanley United States		23/07/2008

p.3 Focus: Imperium Obama: Commander-in-(mis)chief

a greater advantage. (I am amused by the idea that Afghanistan is an offensive strategic military base of operations against three nuclear powers: Russia,China, India, and possibly Iran. If it comes to nuclear power the Triad makes geographical position irrelevant -as well as all lie on Planet Earth.)

McBama United States		23/07/2008

Obama - chief or mischief

The article, though clearly biased in favor of Arabs and Muslims, still makes a few decent observations about Obama and American foreign policy. Some comments, especially from those identified as from Afghanistan, show OTOH profound ignorance of the US and its people. The US is a nation of free people and decent principles - unlike China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq was a mistake, but will still turn out OK. Al Queda is doomed.

morgan Afghanistan		24/07/2008

ignorance

Neil, When you say something like Al Qaeda and Taliban are the same thing, you really show the level of your ignorance. Of course you believe that because you've been brainwashed by Big Brother who watches every inch of your country with surveillance cameras. Every time I visit the UK I am appalled by your lack of personal privacy and freedoms. That holier than thou attitude of yours is part of the problem which plagues both US & UK and prevents us from finding commonality and peace

Matt United States		24/07/2008

Obama and Afghanistan

Its good to hear opinions other then the main stream media in the US. I disagree that Obama is making a mistake by concentrating on Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda are guilty of the worst terriost act in US history, the Bush Administration used it to suit their own agenda in Iraq. The US should leave Iraq, responsibly (because we are responsible) but not forget what the real fight is.

onix Afghanistan		24/07/2008

re charge

that piece about lithium is usefull, thanks. All that remains to be hoped is sth about rechargeable investments.

T.Foster Great Britain (UK)		24/07/2008

Focus Imperium

Although Marwan Bishara has allowed some of his personal prejudice to come through in an otherwise extremely written article his analysis of the developing situation is first class. Patt Carr suggests,the usual liberal american solution for a problem,to throw money at Afghanistan(AID).The US has dumped milliards in Afghanistan which has only caused the great problem in the first place. America,NATO and the rest have lost nothing in Afghanistan and have nothing to seek there.

Ben United States		25/07/2008

Civil War

It is clear that many people in the middle east have absolutely no clue about the people of the United States.

Peacemonger United States		25/07/2008

Please give us a chance.

In a country with so many states, so many regions, and so many different ethnicities, the US represents far more than Hollywood and Washington. That people are sometimes powerless to change the course of government and greed is a common tragedy of all peoples, all over our world. "America must be destroyed." What a sad, sorrowful thing to say. The world had terrible, horrific problems before we were a country... and it will continue to if we are gone. Give Obama and our new generation a chance.

Paul United States		26/07/2008

Dear Afganis

I have said it before: The facts of low employment, low literacy, high poverty, corruption, and sectarian violence are within your borders. You should look at these facts, formulate ideas to overcome them, and shape your country to the moral standards of the 21st century. My troops don't want to be there as much as you want them there. You complained about the Soviet invasion, we gave you arms, and you housed the construction of a jihad that shamed the Muslim ideals. Take responsibility.

V.R. Sonti United States		27/07/2008

Lets not become paranoid

Forget the rhetoric of the US ( and Iran.) Look at the facts. The US is a debtor nation indeed the largest. We depend entirely on the goodwill of China, the EU, the Soviet Union now called Russia, and others! We are having trouble enough maintaining essential services to our people. War isn't good for our health - Iraq is the exception that proves the rule. I doubt if the leaders of the US really want war.

jerry hill United States		27/07/2008

Pepe Escobar at Asia Times Online has it right

Al Qaida WANTS to fight Americans in Afghanistan and to spread the conflict into Pakistan. They are much more effective and dangerous on their home territory.

Simon Afghanistan		27/07/2008

Obama: "modest" goals in afghanistan

While I share this article's scepticism about the wisdom of any outside nation getting involved in Afghan politics, I take some heart at the fact (not contained in this editorial) that Sen. Obama has declared that American goals in Afghanistan must be "modest" in nature. I think there probably is room for an exceedingly modest international role in Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether the US military is capable of the degree of modesty required.

Gemini Canada		20/07/2008

Comprehensive Peace

I agree with Marwan Bishara's view that Obama's decision to withdrawing fighting troops in Iraq and increasing the fighting brigades in Afghanistan is not a smart decision nor it is a wise move. If he is talking about peace in Iraq and stability in the region, why not include the issue of Palestine, the Horn of Africa, and Afghanistan? If Barack Obama is talking about a comprehensive peace plan, in the Middle East especially as well as part of Africa, then he should be inclusive.

Sal Fladabosco Afghanistan		20/07/2008

Wrong!

Hi, There is a big difference in the way Americans view the two wars. I think most of us feel the war in Afghanistan is justified because they supported bin Laden in his efforts to attack us, but Iraq was invaded because Bush was personally angry at Saddam. I think we also see the difference between a country led by an evil dictator and a movement of violent religious nuts who believe their deity has told them to kill people. Those people are really dangerous and have to be contained.

Jake Barnes Cook Islands		20/07/2008



" I think we also see the difference between a country led by an evil dictator and a movement of violent religious nuts who believe their deity has told them to kill people" I'm confused. Which one of these is Bush?

Steve Greece		20/07/2008

Obama: Commander-in-(mis)chief?

I agree with Sal Fladabosco. I am from Europe but I believe many people in the Arab world also can see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq was just a dictatorship, of which even the opposition to it, was controversial on the west. On the other hand the Afghanistan had occupied from loonies (Taliban) who after the end of the war against the Soviets, and controlled from a leadership very ambiguous, thought this is the right to start a holly war against the west indiscriminately.

Christopher Rushlau United States		21/07/2008

Bisharas comments and those of "Sal" who speaks for the US

Two points: first, Sal says the US belongs in Afghanistan, in immediate proximity to the legitimate security perimeters of three nuclear and/or economic powers, with a fourth, India, not far away, without lucid reasons given. The second point is that, when someone makes such a threat, you must regard it seriously, but equally, you must admit that it cannot succeed, and so could not be intended as presented: it is a "cry for help. But the proper response is "what is your problem?".

Otis G. Barlow United States		21/07/2008

Obama, Commander in Mis-Chief

Mr. Bishara, It is sad that your employer does not share your views? Your point here are well grounded in "real" fact! Afghanistan is as misguided as Iraq in the dictate of military conflict. The opportunities to contain the threat from criminal elements in bin Laden's network were lost with the invasions. America is today the most lethal "terror" network on the Planet! That reality needs to be explored before we can even hope for a change in policy? Otis G. Barlow East Orange, NJ

Steve Gillette United States		21/07/2008

Mainly agree.

This new rhetoric from Obama focused on Afghanistan is troubling. Mr. Obama needs to better explain in greater detail to the American people AND to the world his views on the current situation in Afghanistan, and the role that America should play in being a force for positive change. Otherwise, the American voter will indeed feel confronted in November with only one option: more mischief, whether from the right or the left.

James Wabwire Congo		21/07/2008