If I were on the selection committee for the Peace Prize, I would be having buyer's remorse about the selection of Barack Obama. Far from emboldening the president, the prize seems to have given him comfort to move the country away from taking stands that meet our international obligations.
In the last few days, Mr. Obama has decided to dramatically escalate our presence in Afghanistan, and announced weak and inadequate global warming goals to bring to Copenhagen.
Faced with the unholy trinity of a stolen election by a corrupt Afghani president, domestic concern over rapidly rising fiscal deficits, and a public challenge by his handpicked general to send tens of thousands of additional troops or lose the war, Mr. Obama has gone with tens of thousands of additional troops. Without doubt, the new strategy will include tough new anti-corruption standards that are not worth the paper they are printed on. And the Administration is far more likely to pressure progressive members of Congress to vote to expand the war than it might threaten Blue Dogs who vote against deficit-reducing health care reform. At $1 million per soldier per year (ever wonder how much of that goes to the soldier and how much goes to corporate contractors?), the Afghanistan misadventure heralds an Obama era without money for many campaign promises.
Regardless of the escalation and the anti-corruption rhetoric, we will almost certainly still lose by any reasonable definition of loss. Yes, a surge might temporarily appear to create a victory, but the rural and patriarchal forces of reaction among Afghanis, like the Iraqi Shiites, are patient and measure progress in decades. We may call it a victory, having spent a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, but it will be a loss nonetheless. Not since Genghis Kahn has anyone successfully occupied Afghanistan. No sane analyst would call what we have accomplished in Iraq a victory.
The White House also recently announced that the president would visit the global warming summit at Copenhagen and deliver a message that the U.S. will commit to lowering our greenhouse emissions by 17%. For those in the know - which will include most people in Copenhagen, this will be deeply disturbing.
The International Panel on Climate Change has argued that the science indicates that the developed countries (of which the U.S. is by far the largest polluter) must reduce their 2020 greenhouse emissions by 25% to 40% from 1990 levels. The White House, and the House legislation that they are referring to, do the equivalent of lowering the basketball rim from ten to eight feet and say they are dunking. The White House says it can commit to lowering emissions 17% from the levels of 2005 - fifteen years and a great deal of added pollution from 1990. The U.S. press may not notice, but the rest of the world surely will.
And it was not a good day to be Sen. Barbara Boxer, whose global warming legislation passed out of committee with a 20% reduction. With her own president stating a 17% goal, her position is now toast.
One of the pernicious effects of the international gathering at Copenhagen has been that it has been used to generate immense pressure to compromise the science with the battle cry - legislation must be passed so that Copenhagen will not fail. The lobbyists for the coal and oil industries were successful in leveraging the desire to pass ANY legislation with weakening the already weakened targets.
And having praised legislation that does not remotely meet the targets the best scientists believe are necessary, the Administration was willing to bargain away their only trump card - the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases beyond that legislated by Congress. The House legislation eliminated that power in a backroom deal with Rep. Boucher, D (coal industry) without public notice or debate.
As a sad result, the 17% House/Obama goal, rather than being a floor for reduction became an upper limit. An upper limit which literally ensures that global warming will get worse - most likely terribly worse. And most perversely, of course, the worst damage from global warming will not fall on those of us in the United States which has caused most of the problem, but on those in the developing world who have done the least.
I continue to hope for the best for President Obama. The Nobel committee rolled the dice betting that several good speeches were the down payment on fighting for tough changes. They got an expanded war and a guaranteed to fail approach to global warming.
James Bradley: Obama's Nobel More Deserved Than Teddy Roosevelt's?
Theodore Roosevelt won the Peace Prize for bringing the Russians and Japanese to the negotiating table to end the bloody Russo-Japanese War. In fact, Roosevelt did little to abet peace.
I agree with what you are saying and I am beside myself with Obama. From hiring Dana Perino to getting ready to renew Bernenke to another 4 years, that and this and the other will be the last straws for me.
I'm going green party, and I invite all disillusioned dems to follow. I will not support a corporate dem party that trades away what is good for our country.
Please sign the petition on Change.org to get lobbyists out of the Ag department and join me there too. :)
http://food.change.org/actions/view/get_corporate_agriculture_out_of_the_white_house
This is what I have always thought. It has nothing to do with him or his ideas or this column. I have voted a straight Democratic slate for many years, so I obviously voted for him in this election (I used to think that I was an independent until I realized that I ended up voting for all Dems).
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how 'win' is defined.
Some help, please. Anyone?
The aim is "decent retreat", at least in Iraq.
About the 17%, well that's a good beginning, right?
Iraq is so far from anything I think of as 'win' I can not imagine a win in Afghanistan. We may want to win the hearts and minds of the people, but I doubt we could sustain that for very long.
Afghanistan is the closest thing to a "no-win" scenario I can think of.
Just imagine what would happen if US and NATO withdraw all their troops.
So did a lot of Democrats. So did a lot of Independents.
Look how it turned out.
Snake eyes.
The candidate said, over and over, that he'd be fighting the war in Afghanistan if he were elected President because it was a just war; that Bush and his c horts took their eyes off the ball and made Afghanistan worse. That's what he said and the American people voted for his slate of ideas.
I refuse to become Palin-like and change the facts now.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing as we have found out with the right wingnuts. The President as we have found out, does not make a decision willy nilly, he must have his reasons that he cannot disclose to the public (something about state secrets act). Eventually, it will come to light.
Americans have no patience, everything has to be NOW. They have no vision, everything is kneejerk decisions. Your president is nothing like that, he has vision, intelligence and is a masterful chess player.
Opygollopy is right, a lot of you on this site are backseat drivers..have more then likely done nothing to contribute to the cause of getting America back on track other then give your one vote during the election of this President and thought the work ended there. I find it hard to beleive that you were once one of his most "ardent" supporters, yet act surprised by his decision about AFGH... I am an independent voter who voted for this President and still support him understanding that the decisions he has to make are bigger then him and anyone on this comment section giving their two cents of opinion (and thats all it is).
I believe Obama has done that and the committees writings looks ok:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
They instead seem to think that land based solar or wind power can replace our electric needs. Well they can't. At least not without themselves using huge expanses of land and disrupting local ecosystems.
Wind turbines slow air movement converting it to electricity. This has a direct impact on weather patterns.
Solar panels steal heat that would otherwise go to plants, animals and general heating of the Earth in that location and transporting/releasing it at point of use, likely to be hundreds of miles away, again likely changing local weather patterns.
Space based solar is an option, but a means of transmitting it safely and efficiently must be found. Even that solution brings with it a huge question of what happens when we start adding all of that extra trapped energy from space to Earth and dissipating it as heat (Real global warming?).
So, which one do you want? Which one are you satisfied with? It's very sad, but the Republican Party of today are a bunch of mediocre, irresponsible individuals who always shout and make noise without any reason. They don't know anything, but they think they do.
They preach fiscal responsibility, yet at the end of each president's tenure, their presidents raked up more debt than Democratic presidents. They preach family values; they have none. Majority of the recent marital infidelities are from Republican politicians. Their levity caused the 9/11 tragedy, yet they think they protect Americans better. They want to be pro-life and think fetuses should be protected, yet a lot of them voted against the bill for swine flu vaccines and are against ensuring that people have affordable health insurance. The sad thing is that Americans, many of whom are really dumb, let them get away with all these hypocritical conducts. Incredible!!!
Nobel peace Prize for;
Increasing and continuing the war in Afganistan.
Continuing the war in Iraq.
Saying no to land mine banning treaty.
Delay in closing Gitmo.
Revelation we still have Gitmos on foreign soil.
The Iraq war has been scheduled to end by the end of next year, the agreement has already been settled...what world do some of you live in where you thought wars can just end the next day after him taking office? The delay in closing Gitmo is due to our congress not being able to agree on where to put the detainees..you do know that they have to have actual places to go right? Some of the critisisms of this President are far but most are not ok..its just a bunch of whining from either side of the isle. History is going to show how this President was treated by some people in this country..its embarrassing to witness.
However, as we near the end of 2009 the underlying weaknesses of his novel beginnings are disturbing. The restructuring of our economy has resurrected Wall Street into a more dynamic force and has left the best of American's hungry and displaced. The inherited war in Afghanistan will officially become Obama's when thousands more troops will be deployed next week. Legislation for health care, gay marriage and global warming has not yet satisfied the masses.
Dreams are not enough. This is a vulnerable Presidency, which is a sad fact as Obama is an admirable man. If he declines the Peace Prize, postpones his acceptance until a time when our country is stronger, he will reclaim and exceed our expectations.
Whoever reads this, please do not make the assumption that I am on the other side of the political spectrum. I suspect in Obama's quieter moments, he knows that he is not ready to be the recipient of this prestigious acknowledgement.
So be happy. You got it right.