By
Greg Albert
December 8, 2009
The Navy discharge officer wrapped up my paperwork and bade me farewell.
“Don’t call me,” I said to him. “If you want me to go to war, you should have instigated one while I was still enlisted.”
I thought I was being funny, but the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen a couple of days later, and I found myself anxiously awaiting the phone call to see if I would be sent back to the battle group. The minutes ticked away until I was a civilian again. We went to war the next year.
Since I separated before the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, it’s always interesting to hear from veterans who served after Sept. 11. Throughout the weekend, I spent some quality pub-crawling time with the Husky United Military Veterans (HUMV), and I overheard some interesting conversations. Okay, I provoked those conversations, but they were enlightening nonetheless.
“I don’t believe in pre-emptive strikes,” I heard one member say.
“Obama said that the 9/11 attackers came from Afghanistan, but the attackers weren’t even Afghani,” said another.
Most poignant of all: “My comrades are still dying over there, but the left doesn’t care anymore now that it’s Obama getting them killed.”
No one really appreciates the plight of the soldier like a soldier, eh?
These statements struck me as profound because they used to be espoused by the now-defunct anti-war movement. While I used to hear self-described liberals, condemning the actions of the U.S. government, now I hear the same voices equivocating and sputtering defenses of the Bush-Obama stratagem. Did identity politics kill the anti-war movement? Methinks it did.
On the heels of the announcement that the U.S. government will send another surge of occupational troops to Afghanistan, we would do well to remember that Congress is still willing to send people to die overseas while spinelessly refusing to declare its actions a “war.”
After Obama’s speech conflating the Sept. 11 attackers with his Afghanistan campaign, when the attackers were neither citizens nor officials of Afghanistan, we would do well to note that his administration is sounding increasingly like the Bush administration, that it is missing its deadlines for troop reduction, and that its promises of change were always politically convenient. Do you think NPR would have let George W. Bush get away with that kind of logic?
And three weeks after Veteran’s Day, we would do well to remember that military personnel bleed just as red as everyone else. When they die, their spouses and mothers wail and mourn just like any other. And their children grow up with pictures instead of parents.
Six years ago, this campus was saturated with anti-war protestors chanting better-than-mediocre slogans about “Bringing the troops home!” Two years ago, a not-insignificant overlap of that crowd chanted “change” and promoted Barack Obama for president. Now Obama is president, but the troops are still getting blown to bits, and the protestors are all but gone. Was the anti-war movement animated by an identity-based distaste for Bush? If not, where is the courage behind the left’s supposed convictions?
It’s pretty telling when the only people I hear complaining about the carnage and unconstitutionality of Obama’s war have actually served in the military. But at least some of us are still trying to end it.
Reach contributing columnist Greg Albert at opinion@dailyuw.com.
29 Comments
#1 Holland A.
on December 7, 2009 at 10:30 p.m.(Kirkland, WA)
Don't you know, whatever Obama does is the new progressive doctrine.
#2 Sean K.
on December 8, 2009 at 5:46 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
The author conflates Barack Obama's centrist foreign policy ('liberalism', essentially in IR-land) with left-wing criticisms of the U.S. intervention/occupation. The left actually does care that the United States has pursued a campaign (and apparently endless)of serial intervention.
Bravo for sticking up for HUMV, but your caricature of the left misses a very long list of left-leaning writers, scholars, bloggers, and activists who attempt to comprehend how different ideological, governmental, and bureaucratic interests (MNC's/intelligence/security/Pentagon/contractors, etc) profit from these policies - at the expense of non-combatants, soldiers, their families, and our domestic needs and possibilities.
#3 Uh-huh
on December 8, 2009 at 7:06 a.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
I've been wondering the same exact thing.
#4 YUP
on December 8, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Took the words right out of my mouth.
#5 SeanKmakesmePuke
on December 8, 2009 at 9:14 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Wow Sean K. Do you write in such convoluted language to try to sound smart? It doesn't work. You didn't say anything.
#6 Sean K.
on December 8, 2009 at 9:47 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I am flabbergasted that I have a hater. Awesome!!
#7 Kuzma
on December 8, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
You know, this just kind of shows you how little independent thought there is in America. It seems that liberals are just as much sheeple as many conservatives are. Just as conservatives would blindly follow George Bush, liberals are showing the same die hard loyalty to Obama. Don't question the leader!
#8 Angela
on December 8, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Mr. Albert,
Obama's STRTEGY is different from Bush's! You are overlooking that he hired better people than Bush and he will WIN in Afghanistan!!! Some of the troops have died but they are BRINGING freedom to Iraq! That's what CHANGE MEANS!
#9 Sean K.
on December 8, 2009 at 10:20 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Okay - I guess I should break in down...?
1) The left has consistently opposed interventions. It's an anti-imperialist thing, you know. Goes with the territory
2) [So have libertarians]
3) This would be obvious if you bothered looking. Littered throughout the non-MSM press are criticisms of the U.S.'s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama's half-assed commitment to closing Gitmo, reduce our reliance upon corporate mercenary armies or eliminate POW prisons that operate without professional standards or some means of due process.
3) Opposition to these policies will be measurable in 2012 and 2016. You can bank on that.
4) Obama in not a "leftist" or a "socialist", and his "progressive" standpoints are more rhetorical nod than committed policy.
#10 Newmanagement
on December 8, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.(None, Germany | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Mr. Albert,
I never expected to hear such wise words from the ranks of the Daily staff. Kudos to you sir.
Change? The only thing Mr. Obama changed was the color of the Kool-Aid. It was red, now its blue. It tastes the same to me.
#11 Francis G.
on December 8, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Mr. Albert,
Thank you.
Obama is putting lipstick on a neocon foreign policy. Unfortunately, the anti-war left has been in disarray for half a decade. Bush's reelection was a soul-sucking defeat, and then Marxist front groups took over the anti-war organizing (long story).
Though I do get the impression, a student anti-war movement is finally coalescing. I pray the soldiers come home as soon as possible.
#12 Holland A.
on December 8, 2009 at 12:06 p.m.(Kirkland, WA)
Sean, while the more liberal left may still oppose the war, some has become instant converts to its cause now that Obama supports it. As for your standard center-left person, the majority of the Democrat party, they now support the war after years of opposing it when Bush was president.
Angela: You are ridiculous, Obama has the same generals that Bush had, and the same Secretary of Defense. And the freedom to Iraq that you mention is because of the "Surge" that Obama still opposes, that worked so well. Remember, Bush was the one who pushed for that. Obama is basically copying the Bush strategy, but with less troops, to try and appease everyone. I fear that he will fail, and make no one happy. I think it may end up being not enough of a commitment to win, and it would have been better to pull out or really commit the amount of troops the generals in Afghanistan asked for.
#13 Brian_Cox
on December 8, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Uh, Sean K. ... "some means of due process" does not exist as a military concept. Whether you're talking about a sanctioned army or mercenaries or terrorists or any sort of military-esque unit.
It's only a legal term for lawyers, used to pick apart police departments. It doesn't apply to war.
#14 Sean K.
on December 8, 2009 at 2:04 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
There isn't one aspect of modern warfare that isn't bureaucratically mediated. Decisions are formulated and executed through multiple layers of authority. To say that "process" is not involved in war is ludicrous.
The United States has historically trumpeted its apprehensions to conduct war ethically outside the context of a firefight.
Prisoners of war are sequestered and disarmed. Of course there is a procedure, a clock, and paperwork. We can do that ethically or not. As of late we have chosen the latter.
#15 SeanKisaTool
on December 8, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Sean K,
The left has consistently opposed interventions? I don't think you know your history. The left wanted intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia. They are clamoring for intervention in Darfur. Meanwhile, Republicans Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower were elected to end the Viet Nam and Korean interventions, which were started by Democrats John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman.
For most of the 20th century, the Republican party was known as the anti war party. They're for small government. Goes with the territory.
It sounds like you change the definition of "left" and "right" to suit your views of foreign policy. That way, you can call Barack Obama "centrist" when he occupies countries and you can call his opposition "left." That's just a circular argument. No one can ever claim that the left supports a war because you pack opposition to war into the definition of left, progressive, or liberal. That's just playing semantic games.
#16 Evan
on December 8, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Up until Obama's recent speech I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He inherited an impossible situation from his predecessor. But now it's his war. I don't know where you got the idea that the anti-war movement is "now-defunct", but if you bothered to do a little research beyond a single veteran's "profound" statement you would see that it is still very much active and has Obama in its sights. Not to mention his continued and disturbing use of drone attacks in Pakistan.
#17 SeanKistheBallPeenHammerofDiscourse
on December 8, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
SeanKisaTool: Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson instigated interventions from imperial assumptions but couched in either humanitarian terms or as a means of propping up "emerging democracies. I call that liberalism - a nod to Woodrow Wilson. Obama is somewhere between this tradition and Bush's neo-con variant.
Leftists generally oppose U.S. interventions as a covering rule. The U.S. track record is pretty poor, so even though leftist argue from an idealistic standpoint, the empirical evidence against the benefits versus the costs is pretty stiff.
So what may be confusing you is your insistence that domestic political party names should neatly correspond to to ideological arguments. In my opinion they don't.
#18 Pascal Clark
on December 8, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Many people here talk about "the left" and "liberals" with the assumption that anyone has a clue about what either term means. I honestly don't know if these terms refer to people who voted for Obama, people who agree with the Democratic party on K out of N issues, hippies, militant animal rights activists, whatever.
Please define:
- The Left
And please describe the attributes of:
- A liberal
P.S. - I realize the futility of this request.
#19 Sean K.
on December 8, 2009 at 8:19 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Good point Pascal. Probably a futile exercise...
#20 Nick J.
on December 8, 2009 at 10:42 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Please define:
- The Left
I would imagine when people are using this term, they're talking about the Liberal Left. Moveon.org types...
And please describe the attributes of:
- A liberal
www.whitehouse.gov
#21 Sean K.
on December 9, 2009 at 11:18 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
This wiki article on political ideologies in the U.S. isn't bad. You'll notice that "left" is equated with liberalism in the Pew research tables that are included in this article. That left and liberal are conflated is a testament to the success the Republican Party has had collapsing the two into one pejorative definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politica...
A list of wiki articles on the hundreds of ideological distinctions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
The labeling of domestic political ideologies does not coincide with academic distinctions (wherein conservatism, liberalism, neoliberalism, neoMarxism, feminisms, postmodernism, indigenous perspectives, anarchism, etc. etc. - depend upon assumptions regarding human nature, the character of social relationships, what knowledge is valid, what practices have causal significance, etc).
Disciplinary division in academia matter too: Ideologies are characterized differently in economics, political science, international relations, and sociocultural studies. Collapsing these into domestic categories (Demo/Repub/Ind, Lib/Con) requires a long-winded explanation loaded with caveats which would interest only theory nerds at best.
#22 HAHA
on December 9, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Sean K. needs to get a life
#23 SeanKistheMotherofJesus
on December 9, 2009 at 1:04 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
@ #17 SeanKistheBallPeenHammerofd...
No one is insisting that party names correspond to political ideologies, but there is a noticable correspondence.
Also, most wars are justified on humanitarian grounds. The Iraq war was.
#24 NamelessAuthorsAreChickens
on December 9, 2009 at 2:11 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Desert Storm was justified as a response to Iraq's violation of Kuwaiti sovereignty (and implicitly Saudi Arabia's).
Operation Iraqi Freedom was the execution of the "preemptive self defense" ruse formulated by neocons. That Iraq would eventually have the WMDs justified our invasion and occupation.
Humanitarian concerns were halfheartedly offered as a motivation in both cases, but largely as a marketing pitch to garner liberal support domestically.
#25 SeanKisJustAsAnonymous
on December 9, 2009 at 2:55 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Calling yourself "Sean K" doesn't make you less chicken. "Sean" is one of the most common names on Earth.
Humanitarian justifications were offered for every war and conflict in the 20th century. You can conveniently weave in other factors for the wars that Republicans started, but then I could do it for the wars that Democrats started. Nice try. Unless you come up with something else, you lose.
#26 Sean K.
on December 9, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
It was the name my mother gave me. What's yours?
Yes, humanitarian reasons were given by someone, somewhere, for every imperial adventure the U.S. has embarked upon. That does not mean that the President, his staff, or the governmental or diplomatic officials in his charge attributed their concern for human rights, the rights of indigenous people, the rights of workers, or the execution of genocide as the the reason we sacrificed soldiers in the thirty-some iterventions the U.S has participated in this century.
Whether what said corresponds with the "real" reasons why we invaded, occupied, or otherwise overthrew sovereign nations - they still formulated specific rationales (this being a democracy). You can find them anywhere (most documents and/or transcripts of speeches are online).
In Iraq there were clear, foundational rationales for each invasion. They were stated in front of Congress, at press conferences, in front of the United Nations, and debated ad naseum in the mainstream media.
There were also different, secondary, or contingent rationales. Saddam's treatment of the Kurds in the North and the inhabitants in the marshes of the Tigris were mentioned, but not 'the' reason.
The difference between Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger is significant - preemptive self defense is a pretty big leap from deterence and or/self-defense.
#27 Matthew Z.
on December 11, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Am I the only one who *isn't* surprised that people are less opposed to the Afghanistan war than the one in Iraq?
#28 John H.
on December 13, 2009 at 3:31 p.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
This is the name my mother gave me. It doesn't really clear up the anonymity does it? And your mother didn't name you "K." Jesus, you're easy to spank.
All of the republican presidents gave humanitarian reasons for invading in all of those wars. They gave them in front of congress. They gave them in speeches to the public. To say that those reasons were secondary to the "foundational" reasons is an arbitrary distinction. You're the one attributing more creedence to one reason than the other, not them. Quit trying to squeeze out a difference where there is none.
#29 Sean K
on December 13, 2009 at 4:13 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
What reasons were given probably matter little to the victims of U.S. interventions - true. Name an intervention and state the parties affected in the host country and your point is right on. It doesn't matter why you are being occupied - what matters is that soldiers are there telling you what you can and cannot do, searching your house without asking you, and killing your fellow citizens.
But this being a representative democracy, a rationale is still deemed necessary to justify a Presidential decisions. Whether they are marketing fictions tossed out of a hat ('humanitarian';'to stem the expansion of communism';'to prevent another Cuba'; to 'protect Kuwait's sovereignty'; or 'preemptive self-defense'), or whether the rationale had a causal role in our decision to commit troops, there are formal, logical distinctions.
They may mean nothing 'really' to you. There are a lot of people (from left to right) who would say that our justifications actually mean something. To say they are all the "same" means that politics is a purely superficial process.
That would be very postmodern of you.
Post a comment