|
October 11, 2009
I was surprised and taken back when I heard on Twitter that President Obama had won the Nobel peace prize. Sure there is "peaceful diplomacy" in contrast to the swaggering Bush style unilateralism and regime change, but there was also Afghanistan.
How does that conflict square with a peace prize? Where is the peaceful dialogue and negotiations in Afghanistan? He's even considering sending more troops to Afghanista and has ramped up American drone attacks in the tribal regions of Pakistan where al Qaeda is headquartered.
Martin Rowson
Obama has promised peace but prosecuted war in Afghanistan. He should have declined the prize. He gives nice speeches but he has done little in the Middle East (what peace process?) or to reduce nuclear weapons. True, he has held off on a hardline approach to Iran (the only US approach to Iran is preventive war) so far in spite of a being surrounded by a hawkish commentariat (the Max Boots, William Kristols and John Boltons who love to hatch more wars).
The political reality is that the al Qaeda organization no longer poses a direct national security threat to the United States itself and that Obama's adminstration is full of traditional liberal internationalists who believe that it is America's mission to go out and right wrongs in the world wherever they may arise and to change the internal character of states to achieve this.
The political reality is that the US is constrained these days-- a superpower in decline. The Iraq war punctured the mystique surrounding America's superpower status and exposed its military limits. The economic limits of empire were exposed during the global financial crisis.
|
I think the Nobel Peace prize has been devalued by this.