War for peace
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Maswood Alam Khan
Mr. Barack Obama, when he was delivering his wonderful speech after his accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, sounded more like a philosopher having a huge command of English literature to express his feelings poetically than an American president having a command on his people to get their endorsement for his views on global security. "If only Obama could carry on learning English literature", I was thinking wistfully " he, like the former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, could someday be awarded Nobel Prize in literature, who knows? ".
His selection of words, his élan, his body language, his voice modulating in perfect inflections to intone emotional pitches, and his ability in using appropriate metaphors to arouse excitements among the listeners created an aura that must have touched hearts of his avid fans all over the world.
Obama, a handsome man, an extraordinary orator, a black American president beloved to the black and the white alike, a charismatic personality in whom millions of people inside and outside of the US boundary find their bonds of blood and culture, must have captivated a worldwide audience who watched the ceremony that was telecast live by BBC on December 10. Such is what is nowadays called the 'Obama magic'.
Last Thursday Obama attempted to redefine the concept of 'war and peace' and introduced war as a new tool to enforce peace. Mahatma Gandhi espoused the notion of non-violence as a pathway to peace. Obama, to the contrary, has advocated for violence to stamp out violence with a goal to bringing peace. Force, Obama declared, is not only necessary but also morally justified.
"War is for peace" may now be coined as a new phrase tailored first by Obama and "War is an antithesis of peace" may now become an out-of-date axiom.
On a Friday in last October, after hearing that Obama was chosen for Nobel Peace Prize, I wrote in an article that Nobel Peace Prize Committee made, as if, a 'down payment' to the new American President in exchange of a firm commitment from him that peace will prevail. But most observers termed the decision premature, because Obama had not yet done anything startling to uphold peace during a few months of his assuming office that could qualify him for such a sterling trophy. However, the award to Obama, though unexpected, was more of an encouragement for intentions than a prize for achievement.
But now it seems the 'down payment' has been made for a job impossible on the part of the present American president to perform and the failure to perform the job means a disgrace for Obama who is still presumed to emerge as a hero to reach an extraordinary height many of his predecessors could not climb up to.
Nobel Peace Prize Committee declared Obama as the winner; his councils counseled him not to miss the opportunity to be a Noble laureate; and Obama could not feel that he had been led to a dilemmatic situation wherefrom he cannot really afford to fulfill the aspirations Nobel Peace Prize Committee demanded. To strike a balance between expectation and reality, Obama had but to invent a formula of bringing peace through war, a weird formula that may, to the delight of all his enemies, be placed in his path as an obstacle to the next-term American presidency.
There could be a conspiracy too to place Obama in a quagmire where he is doomed to sink. By accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, instead of rejecting it, Obama is now a hostage in global politics. Treading on a path shrouded by a smoke screen of glamour Obama has stepped into a point, a kind of a trap, that he thought might be a gateway to fame.
Just nine days before he was to receive the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Obama ordered 30,000 additional American troops into a war which, many fear, may turn into another Vietnam War---a war Americans can ill afford at a time when their nation is still smarting from the recent economic meltdown.
Why did Obama declare additional deployment of American troops in Afghanistan? Is Barack H. Obama turning into a George W. Obama? Why hasn't Obama mentioned in his speech how to resolve the crisis in the Middle East---the origin of all conflicts in the Muslim world? Why doesn't he boldly criticise both kinds of terrorism---one sponsored by a radical group like Al-Queda and the other by a state like Israel? Answers to these questions are demands of people who have been weaving cocoons of dreams with Obama as their leader.
The original plan, as we knew from the press reports, included reducing US forces in Afghanistan and stepping up missile strikes and also operations by Special Forces against Al-Qaeda militants in the Pak-Afghan border areas that serve the militants as a safe haven. Why is the sudden change of mind for surging instead of reducing troops?
The deployment Obama announced will combine troops from America and 42 other countries into a force of 140,000 soldiers. But deploying more and more American soldiers in a foreign land without robust support from the local people is tantamount to forcing American boys and girls to commit suicide.
It would be nevertheless premature to say that American plan of deploying more troops will shed only blood of soldiers and civilians and destroy the alternative ways to get rid of terrorists. It may also be unwise to see the specter of Bush inside Obama haunting the world before we see how the new Afghan plan does work in the next few months.
Former US President George W. Bush had waged the war in Iraq not to establish peace in the Middle East. Ousting Saddam from his power was also not the cardinal goal of the Iraq war. The hidden aim was perhaps to establish a U.S. right of possession over Iraqi land to take away Iraqi oil as a strategy to safeguard American energy security.
But, there is nothing precious in Afghanistan that can be taken away from that country for any benefit to America. The stated American objective is to dismantle and eventually defeat Al-Qaeda and Talibans in and around Afghanistan and Pakistan. If that were the strategy behind the plan of surging troops, then we can hope, the goal is probably peace.
But defeating Talibans may be proven a difficult target, if not altogether an impossible job, given the treacherous terrains where Afghan snipers will be at advantageous positions compared to the foreign troops---an uphill job that reminds us of the dirty American job in the Vietnam War.
Obama is the fourth American president (after Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt) to receive the coveted Nobel peace medal. In a ceremony at Oslo City Hall attended by 1000 high-octane dignitaries including the king and the queen of Norway, Obama accepted the award with deep gratitude and great humility.
Dignitaries attending the gorgeous ceremony wore a somber look with their eyes fixed at Obama's bony face radiating youthful charms and their ears pricked up at Obama's flowery words pronounced in metallic voice. Total silence prevailed during the 36-minute acceptance speech except on two moments when the audience broke into rapturous clapping. One moment was when Obama said: "the United States must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war". The second moment was when Obama tried to strike a chord with the audience with a little bit of literary spices: "Let us reach for the world that ought to be, that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls".
A dark haze hung over the city of Oslo when people lined the roads to catch a glimpse of the American president on his way to the city hall to attend the prize giving ceremony. Not far away a crowd chanted some welcome slogans and held up a yellow banner, saying, "Obama, you won it, now earn it".
I wish Obama did catch a glimpse of the advice written on that yellow banner!
Maswood Alam Khan is a writer at large. He can be reached at e-mail: maswood@hotmail.com
Mr. Barack Obama, when he was delivering his wonderful speech after his accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, sounded more like a philosopher having a huge command of English literature to express his feelings poetically than an American president having a command on his people to get their endorsement for his views on global security. "If only Obama could carry on learning English literature", I was thinking wistfully " he, like the former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, could someday be awarded Nobel Prize in literature, who knows? ".
His selection of words, his élan, his body language, his voice modulating in perfect inflections to intone emotional pitches, and his ability in using appropriate metaphors to arouse excitements among the listeners created an aura that must have touched hearts of his avid fans all over the world.
Obama, a handsome man, an extraordinary orator, a black American president beloved to the black and the white alike, a charismatic personality in whom millions of people inside and outside of the US boundary find their bonds of blood and culture, must have captivated a worldwide audience who watched the ceremony that was telecast live by BBC on December 10. Such is what is nowadays called the 'Obama magic'.
Last Thursday Obama attempted to redefine the concept of 'war and peace' and introduced war as a new tool to enforce peace. Mahatma Gandhi espoused the notion of non-violence as a pathway to peace. Obama, to the contrary, has advocated for violence to stamp out violence with a goal to bringing peace. Force, Obama declared, is not only necessary but also morally justified.
"War is for peace" may now be coined as a new phrase tailored first by Obama and "War is an antithesis of peace" may now become an out-of-date axiom.
On a Friday in last October, after hearing that Obama was chosen for Nobel Peace Prize, I wrote in an article that Nobel Peace Prize Committee made, as if, a 'down payment' to the new American President in exchange of a firm commitment from him that peace will prevail. But most observers termed the decision premature, because Obama had not yet done anything startling to uphold peace during a few months of his assuming office that could qualify him for such a sterling trophy. However, the award to Obama, though unexpected, was more of an encouragement for intentions than a prize for achievement.
But now it seems the 'down payment' has been made for a job impossible on the part of the present American president to perform and the failure to perform the job means a disgrace for Obama who is still presumed to emerge as a hero to reach an extraordinary height many of his predecessors could not climb up to.
Nobel Peace Prize Committee declared Obama as the winner; his councils counseled him not to miss the opportunity to be a Noble laureate; and Obama could not feel that he had been led to a dilemmatic situation wherefrom he cannot really afford to fulfill the aspirations Nobel Peace Prize Committee demanded. To strike a balance between expectation and reality, Obama had but to invent a formula of bringing peace through war, a weird formula that may, to the delight of all his enemies, be placed in his path as an obstacle to the next-term American presidency.
There could be a conspiracy too to place Obama in a quagmire where he is doomed to sink. By accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, instead of rejecting it, Obama is now a hostage in global politics. Treading on a path shrouded by a smoke screen of glamour Obama has stepped into a point, a kind of a trap, that he thought might be a gateway to fame.
Just nine days before he was to receive the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Obama ordered 30,000 additional American troops into a war which, many fear, may turn into another Vietnam War---a war Americans can ill afford at a time when their nation is still smarting from the recent economic meltdown.
Why did Obama declare additional deployment of American troops in Afghanistan? Is Barack H. Obama turning into a George W. Obama? Why hasn't Obama mentioned in his speech how to resolve the crisis in the Middle East---the origin of all conflicts in the Muslim world? Why doesn't he boldly criticise both kinds of terrorism---one sponsored by a radical group like Al-Queda and the other by a state like Israel? Answers to these questions are demands of people who have been weaving cocoons of dreams with Obama as their leader.
The original plan, as we knew from the press reports, included reducing US forces in Afghanistan and stepping up missile strikes and also operations by Special Forces against Al-Qaeda militants in the Pak-Afghan border areas that serve the militants as a safe haven. Why is the sudden change of mind for surging instead of reducing troops?
The deployment Obama announced will combine troops from America and 42 other countries into a force of 140,000 soldiers. But deploying more and more American soldiers in a foreign land without robust support from the local people is tantamount to forcing American boys and girls to commit suicide.
It would be nevertheless premature to say that American plan of deploying more troops will shed only blood of soldiers and civilians and destroy the alternative ways to get rid of terrorists. It may also be unwise to see the specter of Bush inside Obama haunting the world before we see how the new Afghan plan does work in the next few months.
Former US President George W. Bush had waged the war in Iraq not to establish peace in the Middle East. Ousting Saddam from his power was also not the cardinal goal of the Iraq war. The hidden aim was perhaps to establish a U.S. right of possession over Iraqi land to take away Iraqi oil as a strategy to safeguard American energy security.
But, there is nothing precious in Afghanistan that can be taken away from that country for any benefit to America. The stated American objective is to dismantle and eventually defeat Al-Qaeda and Talibans in and around Afghanistan and Pakistan. If that were the strategy behind the plan of surging troops, then we can hope, the goal is probably peace.
But defeating Talibans may be proven a difficult target, if not altogether an impossible job, given the treacherous terrains where Afghan snipers will be at advantageous positions compared to the foreign troops---an uphill job that reminds us of the dirty American job in the Vietnam War.
Obama is the fourth American president (after Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt) to receive the coveted Nobel peace medal. In a ceremony at Oslo City Hall attended by 1000 high-octane dignitaries including the king and the queen of Norway, Obama accepted the award with deep gratitude and great humility.
Dignitaries attending the gorgeous ceremony wore a somber look with their eyes fixed at Obama's bony face radiating youthful charms and their ears pricked up at Obama's flowery words pronounced in metallic voice. Total silence prevailed during the 36-minute acceptance speech except on two moments when the audience broke into rapturous clapping. One moment was when Obama said: "the United States must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war". The second moment was when Obama tried to strike a chord with the audience with a little bit of literary spices: "Let us reach for the world that ought to be, that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls".
A dark haze hung over the city of Oslo when people lined the roads to catch a glimpse of the American president on his way to the city hall to attend the prize giving ceremony. Not far away a crowd chanted some welcome slogans and held up a yellow banner, saying, "Obama, you won it, now earn it".
I wish Obama did catch a glimpse of the advice written on that yellow banner!
Maswood Alam Khan is a writer at large. He can be reached at e-mail: maswood@hotmail.com