Progress and the State of Eternal War

Two days ago, President Obama took the public oath of office for the second time. His inaugural speech, as is commonly the case with such addresses, was long on general rhetoric and short on specific policy measures. It was, no doubt, historic on several levels, not least of which was the use of the term “gay” (used to describe individuals of homosexual orientation) for the first time in such an address, and the inclusion of the Stonewall Riots alongside the Seneca Falls Convention and Selma, thus equating the struggle of homosexuals for equal rights under law with those of women and African-Americans.

It was an address that gives hope for the beginning of a truly progressive administration that will at least attempt to start the process of reversing the damage done by nearly 30 years of an almost continually rightward shift in the economic, political and social discourse of the nation. It would, of course, be naïve to think that such changes will be easy or occur quickly, especially with a still largely obstructionist Republican Congress in power.

I would like to focus on one part of Obama’s speech that I think is at the heart of what can be done to redress the failure of previous administrations, including the President’s own first term, to adhere to the values and promise of the United States.

President Obama stated that “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

For at least ten years, we have been told, in true Orwellian fashion, that we are at war. Not with a nation, or an economic system, but with an abstract concept that has an ever-changing meaning. We have been told that there is a lurking, nebulous, and existential threat to our well being, and that threat is a word: “Terrorism.”

Let’s leave aside, for now, the hypocrisy of the United States’ documented history of being a state sponsor of “terrorist” groups (both governmental and subversive) when it has suited our own policy agenda. The idea that we can wage a physical war on an abstract concept is both ludicrous and a recipe for that very state of perpetual war the president describes.

If Mr. Obama is serious about what he said in his inaugural address, there are a few steps he can take to make a concrete start if he wants to “win the peace:”

1. Most importantly, the president should immediately, and without reservation, ask the Congress to repeal the “Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists,” which was a joint resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2011, and purports to give the president the power to use the military anywhere and everywhere “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Congress specifically granted this power to be in conformity with the War Powers Act in which the Legislative Branch of our government partially relinquished its Constitutional power to declare war. This would be, of course, an act unprecedented in history, as no chief executive has ever willingly relinquished a power granted to him once it had been given. But this one joint resolution puts us, for all intents and purposes, in a state of perpetual war, a war that cannot be won due to the simple fact that it is a war on an abstract concept, and not a specific enemy.

2. The administration should call for the immediate repeal of those portions of the USA PATRIOT Act that expand the government’s powers in contravention of the 1^st, 4^th and 5^thAmendments to the U.S. Constitution. These portions include , but are not limited to: Sections 214, 215, 216 and 218, which expand the government’s power to spy on its citizens by requesting information on citizens from third parties without those citizens’ consent, search private property without notice to the owner of said property, expands the FISA exception to warrantless wire tapping of U.S. Citizens, as well as “trap and trace” searches that purport to gather only address information, but in practice result in the revelation of the content of private messages.

3. The president should explicitly repudiate the so-called “Bush Doctrine” that advocates interference with the domestic politics of foreign powers and encourages the concept of “Preventative War.” He must also publically renounce the use of “enhanced interrogation methods” (i.e. torture), “extraordinary rendition” (i.e. kidnapping) and the use of unmanned aircraft for the purposes of political assassination. These methods have caused possibly irreparable damage to the strength, standing and reputation of the U.S. as a global power that stands for the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Further, rather than achieving the stated goal of reducing the threat of attack on the U.S. these policies have created the conditions necessary for radical leaders to convince otherwise peaceful people to be complicit in attacks against a United States that is acting in an unjust manner.

4. Mr. Obama should renounce the idea of “American Exceptionalism,” as an outdated, ethnocentric, and anti-democratic concept. We must engage the world on an even footing, recognizing that our nation is, on average, no better or worse than any other, and that other countries have the right to establish and pursue their own policy interests within their own spheres of influence.

5. The president must immediately close the gulag located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and those detained there should either be charged with crimes in Federal Courts of competent jurisdiction where the evidence allows, or returned to the countries from which they were taken.

If the president is serious about ending the state of perpetual war, these actions are indispensible, and can only serve to enhance the security and standing of the United Sates.

Notice that Mr. Obama used the phrase “We the People,”when discussing the issue of perpetual war. This entails that it is incumbent upon us, U.S. Citizens, to remember the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and that if they are to have meaning, they must apply to everyone, across the board. Terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States, unless we, the people, make it one. We do this every time we compromise our core values in the name of “security” or some nebulous concept of revenge. I have never been more ashamed to be American than the night the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced, as I watched Americans dancing in the streets, waving flags and celebrating the end of another human being’s existence. The pictures could have been taken straight from some middle eastern countries celebrating the September 11 attacks. Is this what we are as a nation now? A screaming mob howling for the blood of other people, and celebrating the extra-judicial killing of a man who posed no imminent threat to our individual selves? I don’t pretend to know whether it was possible for Bin Laden to be taken alive to face due process of law. It is very possible he would not allow himself to be captured. What I do know, is that an operation that was an obvious violation of Pakistani sovereignty and resulted in the death of a human being, no matter how we, as individuals felt about that human being, is cause for sober reflection on the state our nation is in, not a wild celebration. If we truly believe in the rule of law, than we should never be happy when the law is eroded.

Perhaps our president can help lead us to these conclusions; but in the end, it is up to us to realize, that in the words of the band Rush: “Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled.”