The Obama Doctrine

The endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama nearly 6 months ago by the most accredited and reputable geostrategist Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski  as well as numerous former President Clinton’s aides and advisors testify to the originality as well as strategic clarity of the senator whose vision of hope and of change is bound to set in motion a re-orientation of the international diplomatic and political climate in ways that are at variance with the current Bush administration’s practice which has since 9-11 been devoted to the exclusive use of military power at the expense of diplomacy and political conciliation, hence the proliferation of international disdain for the United States as well as a heightened prospect of asymetrical challenges thereto. It is thus the understanding of the situation and its dynamics that has decidedly propelled Obama to a new thinking divorced from the business-as-usual mentality characterizing the Washington political class.

These endorsements, hence, are an inestimable bonanza for the Obama campaign that had arguably suffered a significant setback following an interview and a major policy speech in which he came close to enunciating a military-diplomatic doctrine encapsulating his thinking with regard to the imperatve of striking a balance between diplomatic practice and military necessity. It is hardly surprising, then, that Obama’s stance on unilateral action in the event of Pakistan’s failure to act against terrorists operating within its borders, as well as his non-use of nuclear weapons raised eyebrows within the elitist circles of the foreign policy establishment. For them the U.S. ought to maintain a position of strategic ambiguity regarding its use of nuclear weapons, never mind that its overwhelmingly preponderant nuclear capacity and perceived recklessness with which it excercises its military power have created an incentive for other nations to develop their own countervailing options of deterence or defence. From Obama’s perspective, however, it means breaking away from the current paralysis caused by fear of, and aversion toward America, and coming to grips with the imperative of the reoriantation of the international community to a new environment that proceeds from the presumption that to change the international mindset you’ve got to change the environment that has spawned the negative view of the U.S. in the first place. In this sense, then, the question as to whether an American president could or could not use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances ceases to be purely a matter of American domestic politics as it evokes broader questions of countervailing response to the U.S.—strategic, or, tactically asymtrical—as well as nuclear proliferation. It goes without saying, then, that Obama’s thinking has far-reaching significance consequent to future non-proliferation efforts as much as it potentially has domestic as well as international resonance, not only because it seems to chart a clear-cut and unambiguous repudiation of weapons of mass destruction, and impunity of those bent on harming America, but also because it crystallizes an imperative for viable strategies for the maintanance of both American national security and world peace.

A Catalytic Impact on White-Black relations

For months since the inception of her candidacy Hillary Clinton had been running a flawless and highly disciplined campaign which led some to prematurely draw conclusions of her inevitable coronation as most electable Democratic candidate substantively endowed with all the gravitas and toughness required in the rough and tumble of American politics.

Assured of her contrived and carefully orchestrated aura of inevitability, the so-called black leaders—including the likes of Congressman John Lewis,  former Jimy Carter’s U.N. ambassador Andrew Young,  South Carolina state Rep. Harold Mitchell ,etcetera—deserted Barack Obama in droves. Due to their opportunistic disposition, they denied themselves the opportunity to make history rather than being just spectators in an event that will have a long-lasting impact on racial relations in this country, irrespective of whether Obama loses or wins the primaries. Oprah Winfry is one of the very few African Americans who has the courage to seize this moment.  

The mere fact that Obama’s candidacy is offering a realistic presidential alternative says a lot about the prospects of a turn-aroud in racial attitudes that could go a long way toward remaking racial relations in America for the better. That eventuality would undoubtedly  represent a prelude pivotal to a more caring and considerate society.

Hillary, those who live in glass houses must not throw stones.

The former president, and Hillary’s strategist-in-chief, Bill Clinton seem to believe that he can attack his wife’s rivals with impunity simply because he is not running himself, never mind that he is virtually running the Hillary campaign and is also proxy for its ever-escalating negative attacks against her democratic rivals. Thus he is not above the political fray (nor should he be) even as he is presumed as such by his apologists and therefore immune from attacks. He cannot have it both ways, as has always been opportunistically expedient for him for as long as he has been in politics. Yet given his scandalous past you would think he would be less disposed to personal attacks, if  for no other reason than the unwitting revival of his raunchy past which concomittantly will compromise Hillary more than she has already compromized herself by throwing stones at Barack Obama while she herself lives in a glass house.  As her poll numbers have plummeted, her negative attacks through her surrogates have intensified by the day. Without doubt her negative campaigning has all but eroded her moral ground, making her a fair game to the inevitable Republican assault which will assume such vitriol as we have’nt seen in American politics. Mrs. Clinton would well be reminded that, “what’s good for the geese, is good for the gander”, and “those who live in glass houses must not throw stones”.

Republican Candidates save Face

As it should be borne in mind that there are cynical elements out there who would only associate with you so long as you satisfy their selfish interests, and then ditch you once they deem you to have outlived your usefulness to them. Just like some major Republican candidates who recently turned down the invitation to debate before Hispanic  and Black for no discernible rationale other than what can only be explained as an effort on their part to impress and pander to the basest and racist instincts of their bigotted constituencies. After refusing to talk to African American as well as Hispanic audiences, these pitiful, self-maginalized candidates seem to have concluded it is now in their best interest  to appear before “minority audiences”. So, on Dec.10 they appeared at the Spanish language debade despite their usual anti-immigrant hysteria which had precluded them from appearing in a previous Hispanic debate. My guess is that they are going to try appear before a black audience as well, to save face, and I urge organizers not accomodate such a schedule otherwise you will be complicit to their racially driven shenanigans. For heaven’s sake when are we going to learn to stand up for something?