October 23, 2008
Obama as a War PresidentBy Philip C. Bom
Many Americans view Obama as the peace president who will end the war in Iraq. On the contrary, he will be Commander in Chief for an endless cluster of global wars. These battles will be his way to fulfill his promise to "change the country and change the world." The greatest casualty will be America.
Obama does not oppose "all wars." (The Audacity of Hope, 294, AH) Hand-in-hand with the U.N.'s New Millennium mission of perceived "new threats," a President Obama will actively seek out wars: against global warming; against global poverty and pollution; against diseases; and against human rights abuses.
Global warming has become a convenient avenue to promote the globalist agenda. Obama's party platform propagates fear-mongering scenarios relating to the
In the light of these end-of-the-world scenarios, Obama is on a global crusade, a global war to end all wars.
Ironically, presidential candidate Obama criticizes traditional American foreign policy for being moralistic. Yet, his global mindset is moralistic and legalistic. His planetary policies are grounded in a new "global neighborhood ethic" of solidarity, economic justice, and redistribution of wealth.
He supports the 1995 Commission on Global Governance proclamation that the "global ethic of common rights and shared responsibilities ... would provide the moral foundation for constructing a more effective system of global governance." His platform pledges "to support reforming key global institutions -- such as the U.N. Security Council ...so they will be more reflective of 21st century realities." Such reform will mean the end of our veto power as a nation state. One can expect Obama to endorse the establishment of a new global environmental court to prosecute the multinational corporate polluters for crimes against humanity's planet.
Furthermore, Obama goes beyond the Clinton-Bush agenda of "nation-building." He seeks "a world that stands as one" and will focus on building a global community. In a global "society of nations," there is no need for a State Department to defend nation-state interests. He will restructure the State Department into a global trade and development agency to promote economic democracy and to assist the U.N. in its management of global prosperity for the sake of human peace.
In addition, as Commander-in-Chief, Obama will fundamentally change our military. He believes the "...structure of our armed forces will ultimately matter less than how we decide to use those forces." (AH, 307) Obama condemns the invasion of Iraq yet endorses the U.N.'s evolving revolutionary doctrine of the right and duty to intervene in domestic affairs, globally and regionally.
Like the 2004 U.N. report on perceived new threats, Obama will make global development the first line of defense. According to Obama's platform "We will rebuild our armed forces to meet the full spectrum of needs of the new century." The US military will be restructured into a police force to protect American people, deal with various global "threats," and carry out expanded humanitarian missions.
The platform promises to "elevate the Chief of the National Guard to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." From there, it is a small step for mankind to use the National Guard as planetary guardians to safeguard, for instance, the Amazon rain forests as part of the global commons.
Under an Obama presidency, human rights will include the right to food and the right to clean water, plus the duty to intervene. A restructured military will be busy with short and long-term food wars and battles for clean water.
To implement the new economic and environmental rights for "human" development, Obama promises to create a "Civilian Assistance Corps," a partnership of government and non-government professionals "to help others build more just and secure societies...." (Foreign Affairs July/Aug2007, FA) Such a global peace corps amounts to a new salvation army.
Obama has a mission to fully implement the U.N. agenda of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" and "freedom to live in dignity." (In Larger Freedom Report 2005) In truth, it is a global socialist agenda to enlarge EQUALITY -- social equality, economic equality, and gender equality. He views freedoms from fear and want as "prerequisites for all others" versus the American perspective that religious freedom is foundational. (AH, 317) Apparently, extremism in defense of the U.N.'s "larger freedom" is no vice and moderation in defense of economic justice is no virtue.
Obama is no JFK, but he expects Americans to pay any price (sharing our riches, endless battles) and share the burdens to build a "just and secure" global village. By the end of an Obama administration, all Americans will be weary war veterans suffering battle fatigue, and lives will be lost.
From his utopian pedestal, Obama is largely blind to the heart of man. He believes that "...extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict...." (FA) He fails to understand that stable nation-states, governed by global ideologies, like Iran and Venezuela, are still the root cause of wars and international insecurity. Obama may know where Indonesia is located, but apparently he does not yet know the real reason for the "coup and the purge" of the 1960s (AH, 273). Such lack of knowledge will be a major pitfall when dealing with China if he should become president.
American voters face a clear and critical choice. They can vote for war-tested senior Senator McCain who believes in multinational action and will work with the U.N. to maintain international peace and security. Or, they can select a junior, utopian Senator Obama who has dreams of becoming a global savior.
McCain may preside over the demise of America as a superpower. However, Obama will decisively preside over the withering away of the USA as a nation state. There will be no need for historians to argue about who lost America.
Philip C. Bom is a professor of International Politics at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA.