SMALL BUSINESS AND POLITICS WORKING TOGETHER
7 years ago
Today is the day of the Super Bowl. I don't know if any bigger news will come out of Super Sunday than the name of the victor, which happens to be Pittsburg in a 27-23 game that came down to the last few seconds. President Obama will be happy; he was apparently rooting for the Steelers.
But that does not mean that events around it stand still, and indeed they have not. One bit of news, as reported by MSNBC, is that the catch-phrase "War on Terror" is fading.
MSNBC goes on to say that "White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared."
We have lived with this myth of a "war on terror" for seven years now. And it never really was. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror but a war of naked aggression against a nation that had done us no harm. I've always equated it with Hitler's invasion of Poland, on equally flimsy justification. If the US fared better than the Third Reich as a result it is only because Bush's Reich lasted only eight years to Hitler's twelve. The US dodged a bullet.
Unlike Bush, Obama is not an ideologue. He understands that the world is far more complex than a black-white dichotomy can explain. The decision-making paradigm of the Bush administration was based on ideology and therefore was flawed. It could not be otherwise. Ideology imposes its will on the world whatever reality itself dictates. Obama is a practical man and I think we can safely say he won't make the same mistakes Bush has made. If war is the result of a failure to listen, we will at least know that Obama HAS listened.
Obama says that there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.
The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."
As the MSNBC piece observes,
The New York Times reports that changes are taking place in Iraq as the US prepares to depart in 16 months, a timetable some still oppose.
As the New York Times article points out, "President Obama has made it plain that Iraq is not his war; he wants to focus on Afghanistan. In an economic crisis, there is simply not enough money for the country to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq."
But that does not mean that events around it stand still, and indeed they have not. One bit of news, as reported by MSNBC, is that the catch-phrase "War on Terror" is fading.
The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.
MSNBC goes on to say that "White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared."
We have lived with this myth of a "war on terror" for seven years now. And it never really was. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror but a war of naked aggression against a nation that had done us no harm. I've always equated it with Hitler's invasion of Poland, on equally flimsy justification. If the US fared better than the Third Reich as a result it is only because Bush's Reich lasted only eight years to Hitler's twelve. The US dodged a bullet.
Unlike Bush, Obama is not an ideologue. He understands that the world is far more complex than a black-white dichotomy can explain. The decision-making paradigm of the Bush administration was based on ideology and therefore was flawed. It could not be otherwise. Ideology imposes its will on the world whatever reality itself dictates. Obama is a practical man and I think we can safely say he won't make the same mistakes Bush has made. If war is the result of a failure to listen, we will at least know that Obama HAS listened.
Obama says that there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.
The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."
As the MSNBC piece observes,
According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran.
The New York Times reports that changes are taking place in Iraq as the US prepares to depart in 16 months, a timetable some still oppose.
Iraqis across the country voted Saturday in provincial elections that will help shape their future, but regardless of the outcome it is clear that the Americans are already drifting offstage — and that most Iraqis are ready to see them go.
As the New York Times article points out, "President Obama has made it plain that Iraq is not his war; he wants to focus on Afghanistan. In an economic crisis, there is simply not enough money for the country to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq."
Post a Comment
Share your thoughts