Obama 2.0: a failed peacemaker and an unsure hawk

The first black president of the United States proved to be – on some issues at least – no less of a hawk than his predecessor, George Walker Bush. Bruce Fein, an expert on constitutional issues and a an advisor to the Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul, notes that Obama prefers strikes from a distance to Bush’s tactics of massive interventions on the ground. Obama’s drone campaign, however, is in many respects even more cruel than Bush’s occupations and renditions to secret CIA prisons. Moreover, Obama personally approves the so called killing lists during his meetings with John Brennan, whom he recently made a candidate for the top CIA job. A strong supporter of American constitutional principles, Bruce Fein finds such practice immoral.

Bruce Fein: (following is the full transcript of the file Bruce Fein_on Obama, drones, BRENNAN) Brennan’s nomination indicates that Obama’s second term won’t feature any substantial change in his foreign policy approach, which is an approach of an empire, may be an “Empire-Light” this time. Brennan epitomizes the arrogance of the United States which believes that it is uniquely endowed with an authority to send predator drones to assassinate anyone that the president in secret decides is a danger to the country.

A lot of Obama’s early enthusiasts were disappointed to see that Obama’s multicultural background and talk about outstretched hands to Russia and even to Iran were little more than a sugar coating for in fact unchanged policies of his predecessor. Moreover, Obama’s “politically correct” biography and Nobel Peace Prize made his policies less vulnerable to questions from concerned citizens. How can a person of such modest beginnings and such a varied cultural experience be in fact a greater advocate of military solutions than the white, arrogant and provincial Mr. Bush? Mark Sleboda, a political analyst working for the Moscow State University and the London School of Economics sees Obama as a “black hand” for a dirty job.

Mark Sleboda: I would not say he is more of a hawk [than George W. Bush], but the simple fact that he is a Democrat and an African American has provided him a license to do at a lower political cost the very same things that Bush would have done, if he had the technology and the political will of the US at the right time. But Obama does not get protested against for the same things that would have brought millions of Americans out into the streets protesting against a Republican presidency.

When did the change of paradigm in Obama’s mind take place? When did he turn away from his Cairo speech, Russian-American reset and address to the Iranian people? When did the fascination with drone wars and continued petty bashing of Russia set in instead? Some analysts point to the influence of secretary of state Hillary Clinton whose generally negative attitude to Russia made a lot of experts question the sincerity of her participation in the reset policy. However, Peter Lavelle, a political analyst with the RT television channel, sees Clinton’s behavior as a part of a more general change of attitude, that occurred some time around 2010 in Obama’s administration.

Peter Lavelle: “The Republicans have a hard time seeing a Democrat, Obama, being more hawkish, than the Republican party. I think this is fascinating. And this is the entire Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, looking for more wars instead of more peace.”

Can a change for the better occur? Right now we see only replacements of certain problems with other ones. Analysts predict that even technically the so called drone wars are not a solution to the United States’ security problem. Aggressive regimes will also try to get hold of this terrible weapon, and in an hour of need these regimes won’t shy away from using drones on their side. A real dialogue, not weapons could be a solution. But as Bruce Fein notes, dialogue has never been a part of an imperial narrative.

Bruce Fein: We even had candidates like Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney who said that Russia is the most dangerous country facing the United States on earth and expressed other equally absurd positions. But that is a symptom of an empire. An empire views every country that is not doing what this empire thinks this country ought to be doing as an antagonist. Take for example the fact that Russia does not have the same views as the US on Syria or on Iran. Our reaction is: “Oh, there is something wrong with Russia”. Instead we could ask ourselves if some of our policies could be wrong.

Summarizing Obama’s new foreign policy agenda, one can come to a conclusion, that a change from Bush’s tactic of “hitting back tenfold” to the preventive hits against countries which never did anything bad to the United States, such as Yemen, - this change can only be temporary. Sooner or later the United States will have to engage in dialogue, in which Russia will no doubt take part. It would be advisable for this to happen before Obama loses the remnants of hopes associated with him by some of the world’s peace activists.