A Canadian friend of mine emailed me last November, after President Obama’s election victory, and asked who the President-elect might nominate for Secretary of Peace.
I had never before considered such a question. What a concept.
Someone with the ear of the President, part of the inner circle of power in the most powerful nation in the world, whose responsibility was to promote and protect peace for Americans.
You might argue that is the job of the Secretary of Defense, but think about it. To use a sports metaphor, it’s like saying we need a defensive coach, but not someone who looks for new and effective ways to score points. You can’t win games that way.
Truth is, defending us from an imminent attack is not the same as anticipating what might disrupt peace in the near and distant future, and taking steps to avoid such situations.
If your neighbor keeps throwing his trash over the fence into your yard, you call the cops, and if you don’t get satisfaction that way, you raise the height of your fence so they can’t do it anymore. Defense (pardon the pun).
If instead, you went over to visit, you might find out they were doing that because your dog keeps pooping on their lawn and you never clean it up. They can’t let their toddler crawl around in the yard because of all the crap. You express surprise and regret, and promise to control your dog and clean up after him, they promise to stop tossing their trash into your yard. Peacemaking.
Or, you say “My dog is perfect. His poop don’t stink.” And sick your dog on their toddler. Then you express surprise when they pull out a gun and shoot you. And you make your way home and set fire to their house on the way. Defense.
When a new neighbor moves in, do you knock on their door and tell them to keep the hell off your property and raise your fence height so they can’t see your house? Defense. Or do you knock on the door with fresh-baked bread and a jar of homemade preserves and say “Welcome to our neighborhood.” Peacemaking.
We’ve talked about this before on this blog. Clearly we need both defense and peacemaking if we want to live in peace with the rest of the world. But the Secretary of State is the closest thing we have to a Secretary of Peace. When Secretary Clinton tries to meet with foreign governments, the right wingnuts say she’s weakening our defense.
If someone, anyone, points out that our nation’s behavior in the past might actually have something to do with why another country or group of people take offense and react violently, they are scolded for “blaming America first.”
President Obama is facing an incredibly momentous decision on what to do about Afghanistan. Do we send in more troops and settle in for the long haul? Set a goal of instituting a new democracy in that nation of fiefdoms? Set a goal of eliminating corruption in a government we don’t control – indeed a government that has never controlled that nation? Is the Taliban the enemy? Or is it al Qaeda? Or the heroin industry? Do we beef up our presence and start shooting everyone who might be associated with the Taliban? Or pick and choose only those who actually shoot at us, or provide funding and arms for those who do? And how do we identify them?
Or do we cut and run? We took on the Taliban, destroyed their government infrastructure, encouraged the people to defend themselves against them, and now we disappear, leaving them to fend for themselves?
Do we consider peacemaking? Using the billions we’re spending to build highways, power grids, schools, health clinics? Disarming the Taliban by competing for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people?
These are questions you can’t answer with knee-jerk patriotism. A defensive attitude doesn’t provide the answers to such a complex situation.
Pundits suggest the President’s decision is taking so long because it is based on protecting his job, his legacy. He does not want to be known for putting in place the “Obama surge”… That assumes President Obama’s main priority is keeping his job for 8 years instead of only 4. It assumes he has self-absorbed tunnel vision. Is it not possible that the President of the United States places the highest priority on determining what is the best course for America? What will work to ensure a safe and comfortable future for our children?
Let’s judge his process of decision-making when we see the results. Not the day after he makes his announcement, but 2 years from now – 10 years from now – 100 years from now. The job isn’t impressing the television pundits or quieting the defensive “no one can say anything bad about us” patriots. It’s keeping America at peace while respecting our constitution.
Don’t assume the new guy and his team have the same priorities as the previous guy.
JM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How sad it is that this country assumes the president's first concern is himself. Presidents are elected in a swell of patriotism. During elections, all we hear is how much so-and-so loves America. Voters and non-voters have opinions about who is best for the country--who will do their best for the country. And yet, once our president is elected, the pessimism returns. Why not have faith? Good for Obama for considering the consequences--good and bad--of any decision about Afghanistan. I hope he considers everything to the fullest. And I trust that he is more worried about where America and the world will be in 3 years than where his poll numbers will be. I am keeping the faith that got him elected in the first place.
ReplyDelete