You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, October 31, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Norman Solomon
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 16 January 2013
Obama made no mention of King during the Inauguration four years ago—but since then, in word and deed, the president has done much to distinguish himself from the man who said “I have a dream.”

King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

Article image

A simple twist of fate has set President Obama’s second Inaugural Address for January 21, the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

Obama made no mention of King during the Inauguration four years ago -- but since then, in word and deed, the president has done much to distinguish himself from the man who said “I have a dream.”

After his speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, King went on to take great risks as a passionate advocate for peace.

After his Inaugural speech in January 2009, Obama has pursued policies that epitomize King’s grim warning in 1967: “When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.”

But Obama has not ignored King’s anti-war legacy. On the contrary, the president has gone out of his way to distort and belittle it.

In his eleventh month as president -- while escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a process that tripled the American troop levels there -- Obama traveled to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he cast aspersions on the peace advocacy of another Nobel Peace laureate: Martin Luther King Jr.

The president struck a respectful tone as he whetted the rhetorical knife before twisting. “I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King,” he said, just before swiftly implying that those two advocates of nonviolent direct action were, in fact, passive and naive. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama added.

Moments later, he was straining to justify American warfare: past, present, future. “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason,” Obama said. “I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.”

Then came the jingo pitch: “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

Crowing about the moral virtues of making war while accepting a peace prize might seem a bit odd, but Obama’s rhetoric was in sync with a key dictum from Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Laboring to denigrate King’s anti-war past while boasting about Uncle Sam’s past (albeit acknowledging “mistakes,” a classic retrospective euphemism for carnage from the vantage point of perpetrators), Obama marshaled his oratory to foreshadow and justify the killing yet to come under his authority.

Two weeks before the start of Obama’s second term, the British daily The Guardian noted that “U.S. use of drones has soared during Obama’s time in office, with the White House authorizing attacks in at least four countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It is estimated that the CIA and the U.S. military have undertaken more than 300 drone strikes and killed about 2,500 people.”

The newspaper reported that a former member of Obama’s “counter-terrorism group” during the 2008 campaign, Michael Boyle, says the White House is now understating the number of civilian deaths due to the drone strikes, with loosened standards for when and where to attack: “The consequences can be seen in the targeting of mosques or funeral processions that kill non-combatants and tear at the social fabric of the regions where they occur. No one really knows the number of deaths caused by drones in these distant, sometimes ungoverned, lands.”

Although Obama criticized the Bush-era “war on terror” several years ago, Boyle points out, President Obama “has been just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor.”

Boyle’s assessment -- consistent with the conclusions of many other policy analysts -- found the Obama administration’s use of drones is “encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent.”

In recent weeks, more than 50,000 Americans have signed a petition to Ban Weaponized Drones from the World. The petition says that “weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs or chemical weapons.” It calls for President Obama “to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his ‘kill list’ program regardless of the technology employed.”

Count on lofty rhetoric from the Inaugural podium. The spirit of Dr. King will be elsewhere.



Author pic
ABOUT Norman Solomon

Norman Solomon is an American journalist, media critic, antiwar activist, and losing candidate in 2012 for the United States House of Representatives. Solomon is a longtime associate of the media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

What Obama has done or is

What Obama has done or is doing is in line with the American political culture whose basis lies in power and domination. But any lip service by the U.S. power elites to the so-called ‘American values’ and ‘promoting democracy’ abroad (!) is part of that political culture where rhetoric and propaganda have to be used repeatedly before the global audience. In the eyes of American warmongers and the corporate interests that rule America and the global American Empire, this in-itself provides them with a moral basis for their actions and their policies. In a nutshell, the killing of people abroad ranging from individual cases of assassinations to organised slaughter of hundreds, thousands and even millions of people by America in Vietnam and Iraq can all be justified by pointing to a higher cause which USA stands for. During the Cold War, it was ‘defending the free world’ and after the end of the Cold War, it has become ‘war against terror’. Therefore, Obama and his allies are continuing their global peace mission!

Obama is a warmonger. Mali is

Obama is a warmonger. Mali is next. Mali is very important to the AFRICOM strategy to control Africa. Northern Mali (West Sudan until independence in 1960) is loaded with strategic minerals, and, as usual, Mali needs to be controlled because it is a main transhipment spot for cocaine traveling from South America to Europe. Over and out.

Great article, true to

Great article, true to King

What King did, and notable by its rarity, is see the whole picture: that civil (read human) rights at home were/are directly related to human rights overseas, that the same oppressive power structure that depends on varieties of wage slavery (and abuses, especially to the health of workers and to gross negligence about "enternalities," as in the Gulf oil fiasco) is inevitably tied to imperial expansion, whether for resources, geopolitical leverage, or cheap labor.

King tied Vietnam to civil rights and to economic rights, indicting an entrenched power structure that benefited by not changing. How tragic that Obama speaks for that power structure, making it impossible to distinguish one party's president from another. To equate Obama with Bush, even make him worse, is quite an observation considering that Bush will go down as one of our worst, most costly presidents, in all ways.

Obama is perfecting the "peace through constant war" refrain that now typifies American policy for a century. Thanks for the article, Norman. Just missing out on winning a Congressional seat hasn't tarnished your strong writing abilities. So, where's the next King with a national protest constituency?

RB

This is why I argued people

This is why I argued people shouldn't vote for Obama just because he was "the lesser of two evils" (see: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/12/on-wasting-your-vote/ ).

keeps him from joining

keeps him from joining jfkmlkrfk prematurely, truely, falsely

You forgot MX.

You forgot MX.

The drones "only" killed a

The drones "only" killed a few thousand. All the other stuff caused several million to die in those same wars, although over a longer period. Strategy number two in the US war against Iraq deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of babies in the 1990s.

By Obama's logic, any mass killing is justified so long as a few killers "valiantly" sacrifice their lives in the process.

Extremely insightful. I do

Extremely insightful.

I do hope Norman Solomon runs again for Congress.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...