Obama, Citizenship, & Cool Wars

The video above of President Obama titled "CNN-Barack Obama: "Ask bin laden about appeasement"-Like a Boss" came to me by way of a friend's facebook post. On the post were the following comments, "like a boss" and "he is so cool". This raw, unedited response by the President will feed into his swag canister when and as it finds its way to millions of viewers via social media. And for a president who epitomizes the icon of the hip, younger liberal, cool is good.

What I am going to do below, however, is argue from a few angles that this is not a Boss moment for the president. Some of my arguments are undoubtedly stronger than others and none of my opinions are set in stone. I simply hope that this opens up a discussion on war, Obama, coolness, and citizenship.

First, take Obama's statement "Ask Bin Laden and the 22 out of the 30 top Al Qeada leaders who have been taken off the field whether or not I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that" and the New York Times article “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will” which revealed attacks and strategies employed by this administration on a list of suspected terrorists. This list was supposedly leaked by the White House and the article was published right after Memorial day to (re)affirm the president's will power in making tough decisions on national security. This was to be a strategic political move by the White House for the votes of American veterans in particular. Second, there have been countless articles on Obama's civil liberties record recently (one article here: Obama's dismal civil liberties record). These recent reports coupled with the news reports I have seen on t.v. recently of the killings of Al Qaeda leaders makes clear, to me, that Obama's foreign policy in reality is not what he promised in his campaign. I will not go so far to say that he is more similar to his predecessor than not, as some are concluding. Obama's war record, however, needs to be discussed critically and not "cool-ly".

So let us look at one specific case: Guantanamo. From what I know, Obama did sign an executive order to close Guantanamo and to transfer some of the detainees onto U.S. soil. But that clearly did not fly in Congress and for obvious reasons. And since then, it appears that Guantanamo is no longer a topic of political traction and conversation. I suppose, and as Obama's own words allude to, we are not detaining people, but are rather killing them. And without detention, Guantanamo is no longer a hot issue. We are killing on foreign soil. By drone strikes. Drone strikes are immoral to me because irrespective of how advanced technology is, an innocent person or people might be killed in the process. And innocent people have been killed. The idea of flying high above one's target also takes away from the physical responsibility of seeing one's suspect eye to eye when killing them in close range. Distance softens our emotional response to state approved death; we no longer gather at the gallows to stone or hang people so we do not live the physical or emotional experience of watching the death of someone as authorized by the state/society. So we allow it to happen.

Furthermore, even though this is of little importance to me relative to the question of its morality, this kill list/strategy does not appear to be the best decision if there are alternatives. Does the administration not want intelligence from these terrorists? What about due process in the court of law? What of liberty and justice for all as we pledge in our Allegiance? For the militarists, what of retaliation in the long and short run?

I know that Obama's job is a difficult one. I give him due credit for ending the war in Iraq and pulling out American troops, and setting a timetable for the war in Afghanistan. I can understand, although I do not agree with, why the President of the United States often makes calls to kill. Obama's job as the Commander in Chief is one of the most morally suffocating jobs I can think of. And because this job is hard and would compromise my morality, I would not sign up for this job. What I am criticizing here is not necessarily the decision to kill in of itself although I detest it and the first three paragraphs have made this sentiment clear. The video above, however, shows an Obama rhetoric and disposition which can be interpreted as self-congratulating on the killing of "terrorists". And the supposed leaked list. So politics or not, I am calling Obama out for portraying a nonchalant, boastful attitude about the killing of America's "enemies" (and innocent civilians). And calling us out for finding this particular statement, cool. Let us be honest with ourselves (well, my progressive and liberal friends), should another president have made this statement, we would have gone off the deep end. When George W. Bush made a similar statement in 2001 that "he wants Bin Laden Dead or Alive", he was quickly and shamefully characterized by most liberals and progressives as a war criminal. Why have we set a different standard for Obama who speaks of this fate for 33 terrorists? You can argue that "take them off the field" does not mean Obama is killing American enemies but the NYTimes article and recent killings of Al Qaeda officials would suggest that killing, not detention has become common place. At the very least, why are we not having a discussion on what "taking them off the field" means?

Honestly, when Osama Bin Laden was killed on his compound in Pakistan last year, I felt detached from the moment in ways which I could not express or understand. A friend wrote a status on facebook later on to the effect that she believes that Osama is also a human being, with a family, and with people whom he loved and people who loved/love him and that hit the nail on the head for me. I was disappointed by the jubliance expressed by some of my friends, peers, and by countless others as depicted in the media. Same for Gaddafi. And countless others. These leaders have killed mercilessly and this is not a lamentation for them. This is as much for Obama as it is for Republicans, world leaders, judges, militarists, rebels, realists, etc. Cool wars are not cool.

I am simply asking for consistency among us who purport to be humanists. I am against violence but there are many instances in which my actions and/or words may be contradictory. I do not waiver, however, that I am against state authorized, state manufactured violence. I am a global citizen first before any other national affiliation. I understand the history that we inherit and the time that we live in, specifically, how our existence is shaped by our citizenship and with that, national borders, national interests, patriotism, and homeland security (post later on this week about statehood and violence, hopefully). I understand the gravity of the "War on Terror", of 9/11, Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, proxy wars through our support of  Israel, cyber wars in Iran, and how they all intersect with the need to protect and secure one's own. Fukuyama's The end of History and the democratic peace theory seem shaky at best. It is a conflicting existence to be a human rights activist and human life advocate tied to any state entity, period.

A proclamation by the President of the United States of America, of the kind made in the video, conscience and subconsciously reaffirms a commonly held belief that violence toward, and against one's "enemy" is the right and cool thing to do. Cool wars are really not cool. While drone strikes are far easier on the conscious and financial/legal burden of the state than detention, it should not be the status quo and it is not cool. There is something to be said about appeasement if it brings peace. I really want the old thing back. The Obama who I read once said that “we live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principle goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe and entertained.” Truly, the right to live is about empathy. Let us be harder critics of the ideals and people we adhere to and fervent defenders of all human life in general.