Bush’s Deficit, Obama’s Second Term
When the death of Osama bin-Laden filtered into our ears, I had some friends discussing the same issue of the futility of using maximum force as a means of resolving conflicts. Some argued that 9/11 was uncalled for, because there would have been better ways of resolving any issues if there was. However, others posited that the West is the orchestrator of terrorism as evidenced in Grenada, Vietnam, the Korean War, and recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them asked: Is war not an instrument of diplomacy? Not quite so, another retorted – but most of the time war is used as a last resort. I said in Nigeria war is indeed not a weapon at all. On the contrary, what successive administrations have used over the years is to afflict the people with hunger, massive poverty, insecurity of lives and property and unbridled executive peculation. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction.
Clausewitz therefore argues strenuously that “War is a continuation of policy by other means; it is a political instrument as the use of force involves both power and influence. The use of raw force itself has dreadful consequences. However, history is replete with the deployment of war as an instrument of diplomacy. Most countries in the Mediterranean and the Middle East paid tribute to Egypt because she maintained her prime position in military supremacy. Later the centre shifted to Greece during Alexander the Great who through a policy of Hellenization, culturally and linguistically assimilated even the Jews in Diaspora.
Before 1776, Great Britain was the foremost naval power while France since Napoleonic times had evolved the most sophisticated infantry. But the independence of the United States of America upset that balance of power. At last Napoleon invaded Russia in 1912 and was the undisputable strongman in Europe until he was humbled first at Trafalgar and finally at Waterloo in 1815.
In the first decade of the 20th century, Japan became a power in the Far East. Northern China, Korea and Thailand were either annexed or subjected to the status of vassalage. During the same period, Germany was the greatest capitalism in Europe. Whereas Japan was humbled by the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Germany was defeated by the Allied powers. Hitler of Nazi Germany and the arrowhead of the third Reich, Emperor Hirohito of Japan and the Halana leader Benito Mussolini – the fascist hero were all leveled by the dynamics of history.
In spite of the existence of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and a surfeit of cruise, ballistic missiles around the world And because the world yearns for collective security as against Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the use of force can only be legitimized when permitted by the United Nations either individually or collectively for self-defense or against aggressors of international law. This was what the UN approved against North Korea in 1950 and in Iraq in 1991. However, the U.S. aggression against Iraq in 2003 was not approved by the U.N. The action of the U.S has created the impression that age-old animosities are better settled with brute force or the atom bomb. That is why Pakistan and India are vigorously pursuing the armament race at a very huge cost even at the point of neglecting very pressing domestic. If the atom bomb is the key, why will the Persians not look for it at all cost and why is America crying wolf where none actually existed.
However, other countries have used force even though it was not convenient to do so. China used force in 1962, 1947 and 1971 against Pakistan. The United State perpetrated atrocities at the Guantanamo Bay operations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and under the cover of the cold war, America elevated global terrorism to its apogee with a view to vilifying Soviet interest and the much-dreaded proletarian internationalism that was adumbrated by Marxist-Leninist ideology. It was the duplicity of the United States and the capitalist bloc that made Havana and Hanoi to succumb to the whirl wind that was socialism.
America wrecked havoc in Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and Cuba under the rubrics of curbing terrorism. Because of America's belligerence, China adopted isolationism as a foreign policy ideology. However, when the Soviet Union was intact, America's excesses were checked if not contained. But with the advent of Gorbachev which initiated the strange terminology of Perestroika and Glasnost, the globe became uni-polar with America as the only super power dictating the pace of world diplomacy. That is why today, the opinions of Russia. France, China and all members of the Security Council do not command as much respect as that of the US and Britain. Only the United States has to hold sway because of the inexhaustible stockpile of nuclear warheads. That is why none of the world powers could challenge the United States even when US is waging an unjust war against Iraq. It is an unjust war because the United Nation did not approve of it. Most political analysts believe that the America's aggression against Iraq was not prompted by the latter's refusal to disarm but to further its political interest in her Middle East Diplomacy, and other hideous economic interests.
The allegations that President Saddam Hussein was financing the AI Qaeda network have not been authenticated. The much dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have not been found. There seems to be no correlation between the Saddam Hussein regime and the activities of Al Qaeda, as his death even intensified the sinister acts of the network. The United States acted on the basis of false security report and the Bush administration finds it difficult to re-trace its steps because of the shame that America has been disgraced in Babylon. Also, the world is not ready to disarm because the disarmament process was on before White House and Downing Street decided to pound Iraq, not even sparing civilian targets. This act is a brazen violation of Article 45 of the Vienna Convention of 1961. But why will America not get away with it in a uni-polar world?
America led an unpopular war against Iraq under the guise of curbing dictatorship, tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East. Having removed Saddam and extinguished his regime, America and her allies are now working hard to foist their will on the Iraqi people. This bravado has offended the sensibilities of the various religious sects in Iraq, leading to sectarian violence and bloodletting.
The American led invasion of Iraq precipitated a civil war and every day scores of people are sent to their untimely demise. In spite of this crude and barbaric act, an adamant President Bush is bent on perpetuating this horrendous carnage, and wants Congress to fund the war. The whole of America mourned the gruesome Virginia massacre in which an irate and paranoid Cho abbreviated the earthly life of 32 people including Professors. The massacre is nothing compared to the genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, where human life is not worth more than a chicken. If the whole of America could shed tears for the Virginia University of Technology victims, then the trauma of the innocent women and children in Iraq could better be imagined.
The Bush administration attached not even an ounce of value on human life. Rather than atone for the sins of perpetrated against the civilian women and children in Iraq, the President desperately searched for a war Czar – who according to White House, would remove the bureaucracy involved in carrying out swift instructions. No administration, not even the Richard Nixon era displayed such a degree of foolhardiness in the management of America's foreign policy
Another knotty question is how the Obama administration would use multilateralism as a linch-pin to re-launch American diplomacy. He has been able to achieve with some success. A school of thought posits that President Obama is an under-achiever in that he has not fulfilled one of his main campaign promises closure of Guantanamo Bay, even though he ordered that Guantanamo be closed. While his undivided attention to domestic issues is desirable, America role in the world scene seems to be diminishing. Why not, when there are lots of domestic issues such as unemployment the economic melt-down. Obama has not delivered on his economic promises such as the reduction of the high energy and healthcare costs and unemployment rates.
Following the Democrats' midterm disaster, there was much talk about whether Obama was doomed to dwindling approval numbers in a single-term presidency. The media was also abuzz with speculations that Obama was so weakened by the defeat that a liberal candidate could emerge and challenge him to a spirited primary contest in 2012. This may not be true after all.
As at March 13, 2009 - President Obama's approval rating is lower than George W Bush's at the same point. According to a Gallup poll Obama's net approval rating at the one month point of his presidency (+39) is lower than George W. Bush's was (+41) at the same point in his first term. At this point Obama has a 63% approval and 24% disapproval compared to Bush's 62% approval and 21% disapproval. Just two months after the Democrats lost 63 seats in a midterm President Obama's approval rating has suddenly spiked in recent polls. In the current TPM Poll Average, Obama posts an approval rating of 47.9% compared to a disapproval rating of 47.3%. It marks the first time Obama has notched a net positive in the TPM average since May 18, when that split was 47.7% to 47.6%. Virtually every pollster has tracked at least a nominal improvement in the President's approval rating over the last month or so, including a 13-point net approval swing in the latest Marist poll.
From all indications, American is beginning to see changes in the reform agenda of Barack Obama. Obamaniomics holds that increased spending will spur economic growth by boosting research, innovation, and education. Therefore, a five-year freeze in some discretionary spending, plus cuts in defense has inoculated some financial discipline in the system. On the whole the $3.7 trillion budget proposal would produce a $1.1 trillion deficit for fiscal 2012 year less than this year's projected deficit of $1.65 trillion.
In a statement credited to him in a middle school in Baltimore, Obama echoed his State of the Union emphasis on “winning the future” and investing in areas – like education – that will boost US competitiveness globally. Separately Monday morning, Mr. Lew said the proposed budget would reach the administration's goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of Obama's first term. The Republicans are throwing-in the spanners to ensure reforms are stonewalled.
On the tax-increase end of the equation, Obama proposes ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry, amounting to $46 billion over 10 years, and reducing the rate at which high-income individuals can itemize deductions in areas such as home-mortgage interest and charitable donations. These tax increases account for one-third of the projected $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. The other two-thirds come from spending cuts. Administration officials say that the savings from limiting the tax deductions of high-income earners would be used to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from affecting more middle-class families over the next two years- campaign promises you may say, but these are some of the reasons Obama will secure a second tenure. It is difficult to know if President Obama has done enough because of the rickety economic credentials of his war loving predecessor. Verily, Obama could have done much better in the aspect of job creation, growing the economy, industrialization and resuscitating the middle class.
On the home front, President Obama has done enough use both macroeconomic and political means to push through fundamental reforms to build the economy of the United States, restore the middle class and provide job opportunities for Americans. In spite of the electoral setback in the Democrats are pushing for Obama's second term victory. On the foreign scene, he pulled America out of Iraq, and embarked on a draw-down in Afghanistan. The neo-Arab revolution sweeping through the Maghreb may be a diplomatic triumph that would work to Obama's advantage. The aftermath of the regime change in Libya,
What is glaring now is that former President Bush's governance deficit and diplomatic somersaults have assisted in pushing for Obama's second term. Americans are wiser now and if Obama could not create enough jobs to absorb the rising wave of unemployed people, at least Americans can live in peace, plan with the resources at their disposal without having to fund several senseless wars. President Obama is an epitome of peace and progressive America and he deserves a second term in office.
Idumange John