First Barack Obama upsets Hillary Clinton in Iowa, then Clinton ekes out a narrow win in New Hampshire – since the Democrats still appear to be split, why does this Republican believe Obama possesses the global leadership skills and vision that America, and the rest of the world, will need if we hope to resolve many of the problems we are currently facing or will soon be confronting? Well, let’s review some of the reasons I have mentioned in previous columns over the past year.
Back in 2002, America was still grieving the victims of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on the two most visible symbols of America’s economic and military supremacy around the globe, the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. As a nation, the US was struggling to adjust to being a victim of pseudo-religious political violence on a massive scale. But once Americans had grieved the loss of life and gotten over their shock, the vast majority also became very angry. Americans wanted to hit back at the terrorists who had so viciously assaulted us and expected the US government to do so.
So the US sought and received a large measure of international support for the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan and its efforts to topple a Taliban regime which was providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The US government’s initial military response, involving the use of a small number of Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan, recognised that one can’t attack a network of terrorists like al-Qaeda with a field army.
But this judicious use of a small number of troops didn’t do much to garner the kind of media publicity in America that the Bush Administration was looking for. So Bush, Cheney and their neo-conservative allies decided to go after a bigger and much less elusive target – Saddam Hussein.
Thus, the decision to turn what was a Special Forces counter-terrorism guerrilla operation into a media-heavy conventional war served a purpose, but it was not one related to effective counter-terrorism strategies. Rather, it was an effective political strategy which helped Bush win re-election, but at a huge cost in terms of money, lives and military power.
The Bush Administration began by seeking international support for the invasion of Iraq, just as they had done in Afghanistan. President Bush and his minions basically manufactured evidence to justify a decision that had nothing whatsoever to do with fighting terrorism.
When most other countries in the world questioned the rather dubious evidence and reasoning of Bush and his ideologues, Bush then decided to convince Congress and the American people to allow the US to act unilaterally, if he felt it was necessary.
Of all of the main candidates, Republican or Demo-crat, Barack Obama was the only one to take the politically unpopular stand of publicly and vocally opposing the US invasion of Iraq. Some of Obama’s political advisors believed that he should remain silent because speaking out against a looming invasion that was very popular would hurt his chances of being elected to the US Senate in the upcoming 2004 elections. But Obama ignored this advice.
In 2002, he spoke at an anti-war rally in Chicago and explained why he was against the war, saying: “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda [in Afghanistan] through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and with a homeland security program that involves more than colour-coded warnings.” I believe Obama’s decision to speak out against a politically popular Iraq war was a clear demonstration of his strongly held principles, keen insight and good judgement.
None of the other Presiden-tial candidates, with the exception of John McCain, have so publicly and repeatedly demonstrated both a commitment to principles and a willingness to tell Americans what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear. More than anything else, that to me is the mark of a true leader.
Obama truly believes in the American proposition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a constitutional democratic government with limited powers. He has been quoted as saying: “I believe in American exceptionalism… [but not one based on our] military prowess or our economic dominance. Our exceptionalism must be based on our Constitution, our principles, our values and our ideals. We are at our best when we are speaking in a voice that captures the aspirations of people across the globe. We can’t entirely remake the world. What we can do is lead by example.”
Someone asked me recently who I believed had been America’s most inspirational Presidential leaders. I quickly cited Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F Kennedy as examples, when she stopped me in my tracks and said: “Didn’t they all die in office?” “Yes,” I replied, “and two of them were assassinated.”
Hmm… what a scary thought. Is that because I had never really thought of it that way before? Regardless, next week I will continue explaining why I think Barack Obama is an inspirational leader of the kind that only comes along once in a generation, the kind that both America and the world at large so desperately need.
Charles Laffiteau is a lifelong US Republican from Dallas, Texas, and has recently completed DCU's postgraduate programme in Globalisation, International Relations and Conflict
