DISPATCHES FROM AMERICA Obama the realist ... or reckless
By Dmitry Shlapentokh
Barack Obama, a leading Democratic candidate for the US presidential
nomination, made a startling statement recently. He said that if he were
president and received credible information that Osama bin Laden was hiding in
Pakistan, he would strike, regardless of permission by Pakistan authorities.
Wall Street Journal commentators approved, saying that Obama has begun to sound
like a good neo-con. They added that "realistic thinking" regarding foreign
policy has even begun to
seize people such as Obama, who is seen as being on the left wing of the
Democratic Party.
Still, one could question whether Obama's statement is an indication of
rational thinking. And the problem is not with Obama, but with the US public in
general.
Since the beginning of George W Bush's presidency, the leading figures in US
political and intellectual life have been making strong statements and, of
course, engaging in similar actions. On the eve of the Iraq war in 2003,
conservative Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan praised the preemptive war
strategy and praised the US as a tough-minded and tough-acting Mars, which he
juxtaposed to a feeble and naive Venus - Europe.
Later, a Foreign Affairs magazine article stated that the US had such nuclear
predominance that it could easily decapitate the decaying Russian and fledgling
Chinese nuclear forces using preemptive strikes. Still later, as tension
increased with Iran over its nuclear program, the US elite started to advocate
a preemptive strike, arguing that since Iranian nuclear facilities might be
placed in deep underground bunkers, a nuclear strike might be needed to destroy
them.
Critics of these theories insist that these irresponsible statements about
preventive war, especially nuclear war, are just the predilection of a narrow
circle of intellectuals known as neo-conservatives who believe that the US can
remodel the world by using its military superiority. Obama's recent statements
indicate that this view is not merely limited to conservatives, but has spread
among a considerable segment of the US public. And this poses very serious
problems.
War has been, unfortunately, a way of life for millennia and will not go away.
All powers, especially nuclear powers, should take into account all the
scenarios of war, including the possibility of preventive nuclear war. This
implies that the leaders and society in general should understand the
implication of these actions. Any US preventive war against Iran would lead to
a jump in oil prices and the increased danger of terrorist attacks on a greater
scale.
A strike against Pakistan, a nuclear power, as advocated by Obama could lead to
the collapse of President General Pervez Musharraf's regime and increase the
chance of nuclear weapons being acquired by terrorists. And any nuclear war -
even the most "successful" from a US point of view - would be an unimaginable
catastrophe.
Those who plan such events should prepare the country for the implications. In
fact, this was done by American and, of course, Soviet leaders during the
coldest period of the Cold War. Nothing is being done in the present-day US,
and most of the public, regardless of political affiliation, seem to believe
that even after a preemptive nuclear war, business would be basically as usual,
with small adjustments.
This indicates that not just the conservatives but a larger segment of the US
elite, in fact of US society, have a strong irrational streak in their
collective subconscious.
The danger is not just that the United States is the only nuclear superpower.
The US dollar is the major global reserve currency, but at the same time the US
is the major debtor, running up trillions of dollars' worth of debt with no
idea of how it can be repaid.
Moreover, the continuing depreciation of the dollar against the major
currencies, from the euro to the recent "wooden ruble", indicates that
geopolitical irresponsibility and often open irrationality can well affect US
economic moves.
For example, Senator Hillary Clinton, the other major Democratic Party
contender for the White House, recently proclaimed that US economic policy
should not be decided in foreign capitals, especially Beijing, and that she
would prevent cheap Chinese goods from entering US markets. She and, of course,
the segment of the US electorate she represents seem oblivious that such
actions could cause the Chinese and others to retaliate - to sell huge amounts
of US Treasury notes and dollars and possibly trigger a global dollar selloff.
These statements and many US actions indicate that irresponsible money brokers
engage in reckless behavior, oblivious of the chance of failure. This could
have dire implications for the US economy and, because of the US role in the
global economy, the entire global economic arrangement.
A preventive strike against a nuclear power, use of nuclear weapons against any
power, or similar irresponsible economic actions could lead to the US economy
collapsing, just as the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center collapsed
on September 11, 2001.
The rubble from such an attack would cover the world. And in fact the recent
plunge in US and global stock markets might be a portent of what could be
expected if the US elite - and the US public - continue to behave like cowboys
from Hollywood movies.
Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of
East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles (2005).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
