Tag Archive: military


WHEN TIMES WERE GOOD: Dr. Cornel West & President Obama during 2008 campaign

As President Obama is gearing up for his 2012 campaign and election, Dr. Cornel West has created a name calling and mudslinging crusade attacking the president. There is nothing wrong with a valid discussion about how the president can improve his polices as it relates to poor people and Black people. But to turn the discussion into a circus and shouting match with other esteemed African American leaders, makes our community appear elementary and silly.

 

Dr. Cornel West, professor of African-American studies at Princeton University

Dr. Cornel West is a respected scholar and author, who is a

Political & celebrity media giant Tavis Smiley & Dr. West

African-American Studies professor in Princeton University’s Department of Religion, and has also taught at Harvard. His credentials are impeccable, and the educated intelligentsia in the African American community respects his volumes of work. He is considered a leader on race relations in America, and he is in great demand in mainstream media for his thoughts and theories.

During President Obama’s first campaign, Dr. West was involved in over 60 campaign events supporting the president. But once President Obama was elected, there was an ideological divide between the president and Dr. West. This problem was exasperated when Dr. West did not receive tickets to the Presidential Inauguration, and the president did not appear at a Tavis Smiley event during the campaign.

 

Once the president was in office, it appeared that there was a disconnect between Dr. West and the president, and things between the two got worse. Dr. West has consistently announced to the media that he is profoundly disappointed with President Obama’s policies. He has also questioned the president’s backbone, moral consistency, and fairness to working and poor people.

Many scholars, mainstream and Black agree with Dr. West’s attacks on the president for not launching an aggressive plan on poverty and jobs. With over 90% of Blacks who voted for President Obama in the first election, a large percentage feels that the president could have done more for the African American community.

Nevertheless, it appears that Dr. West has a personal vendetta against the president and his administration. He is constantly calling the president a technocrat, and asking what does he stand for. Dr. West does acknowledge that President Obama is better than John McCain, but the rest of the discussion appears to be negative.

From my personal standpoint, Dr. West is not wrong when he criticizes the president, but it is necessary to present a balanced discussion, which does not degenerate into name calling and mudslinging. The media has accepted Dr. West as a legitimate leader and spokesman for Black political thought. Spending his time criticizing and tearing down the president’s policies could force the independents and the different minorities to not vote in 2012.

NAACP president Benjamin Jealous

Reverend Al Sharpton

Political leader and radio personality Dr. Boyce Watkins

 
 

 

 

 

It is time for Dr. West, Rev. Al Sharpton, NAACP, Urban League, Black politicians, Black media personalities, business and community leaders, Dr. Boyce Watkins, and other scholars to get behind closed doors, resolve their differences, and develop a Black political agenda for 2012. This agenda must be comprehensive and address the core and fundamental problems that impact our community.

Dr. West at BET Hip Hop Awards show in 2007

Shouting, name calling, and mudslinging makes us look unprofessional, silly, and elementary. President Obama is not confined to working people or Black people, but must include all classes and segments of the population. He has a responsibility to the military, Wall Street, the middle class, international corporations, as well as the man on the street.

The 2012 election will be here very quickly, and now is the time to get organized and mobilized for the campaign. Dr. West was has the opportunity and the ability to help mobilize the poor and minority community to support the President for re-election. Moving beyond derogatory rhetoric will improve the image of President Obama, and help get him elected to a second term.

 
Advertisements

On Monday, March 28, 2011, President Obama held a nationallytelevised speech where he

President Obama

attempted to give his plan, strategy, and reason for bombing and intervention into Libya. Based on his explanation, the bombing of Libya was necessary to save lives and promote freedom. It is a limited invasion in terms of time and scope and the international coalition has prevented massacre.

Without America leading this global coalition, Gadhafi would have showed no mercy on his people, and he had already compared the rebels and demonstrators to “rats.” In certain parts of the country, Gadhafi had turned tanks, bombs, and soldiers on innocent citizens, and the people need food and medical supplies.

As a result of the conditions, the United Nations initiated a “No-Fly” zone, an arms embargo, and put a global freeze on Libya’s billions of assets. There are certain Arab countries that are also supporting the “No-Fly” zone, but there are others that do not support the bombing of a sovereign country.

Libya has Africa’s largest oil reserves, and certain countries believe that the “vital interest” in Libya. There are other countries in that region in the world where citizens are being murdered and not allowed to demonstrate and protest, but the existing government is still supported by the United States.

Last week there was a London Conference where 36 countries and the UN Secretary General Bar Ki-moon, which was hosted by Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron.

British Prime Minister David Cameron

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

This conference tried to work out a plan to get rid of Gadhafi. The media gave the impression that all the major countries are supporting this NATO coalition, but only two African countries: Tunisia and Morocco, attended the conference. The entire African Union refused to attend the London Conference, along with China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

As the Libyan conflict continues to intensify, it is obvious that the strategy and plan must be continually made “up on the fly”. During President Obama’s speech on the Libyan conflict, he was adamant that there will be no ground troops, and the leadership of the military operation is no longer under the control of the United States.

But many American citizens do not believe President Obama when he says that his administration will not attempt to overthrow Gadhafi by force. “To be blunt,” said Obama, “we went down that road in Iraq.” Nevertheless, it appears that President Obama is following in President Bush’s footsteps and the Libyan strategy is starting to get messy.

Dr. Boyce Watkins from Syracuse University has surveyed over 650 African Americans and 27% are against President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya. There were 24% who supported the action, and 49% who were undecided. As this conflict drags on, it is a recipe for confusion and spending money that we don’t have.

Many African Americans are starting to not trust President Obama, and skeptical of our military and government. Many believe that we should stop trying to police the world and concentrate on the problems at home.

Minister Farrakhan and many African American leaders are criticizing the United States government for launching military action against Libya without justification. They have accused America of just wanting Gadhafi out of the picture to secure oil interest and set up a puppet government. They are asking for a ceasefire on all sides in Libya, and let the people vote on whether Gadhafi should remain in power.

This is a good idea, but in Libya there will be no peaceful transfer of power. Gadhafi has demonstrated that he will murder to stay in power, and President Obama has stated that he desires a regime change.

In the final analysis, whether we agree or disagree with President Obama, history is not on the side with Gadhafi. He will probably leave and live in a friendly country with his billions, or he will die in his country trying to stop the movement of freedom.

In Lisbon, Portugal during the third week of November 2010, there was a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). At this summit, the leaders of 48 countries decided that there would be no pullout in Afghanistan in July 2011. There are 150,000 troops deployed in this U.S.-led war, and the United States has 115,000 to 120,000 troops in the country.

At this NATO summit, it was decided that the target date for the end of this war would be at the end of 2014. In 2011, it would be the beginning of a transitional period where the Afghan troops would begin to take a more active role in the security of their country.

Presently President Obama, U.S. officials, and NATO leadership has decided to remain vague about their departure from Afghanistan. The U.S. has decided that NATO will play a larger role in the conflict, but the bigger question becomes, “Who are the U.S. and NATO really fighting?”

The U.S. has decided to partner with the Afghan forces; the majority of the Afghan soldiers are either new or they are paid Taliban soldiers who have decided to join forces with Americans, where they know they will be getting paid. Many experts believe in the entire country, there are only 200 to 250 Taliban soldiers fighting in the country.

Since 2001, there have been 1.6 million U.S. military personnel that have been deployed in the Afghan War, with the cost in the trillions of dollars. Some American soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan three or four times; after nine years, it is not stopping.

Many thought that the purpose of NATO Summit was to decrease the size of the troops, but instead they have decided to become more entrenched. President Hamid Karzai who is increasingly upset by the Western Troops presence will continue to get rich along with his family by remaining in power.

There has always been an allegation that the Karzai family is involved in selling drugs, but it has never been substantiated. Nevertheless, with other illegal charges surrounding the president, the U.S. remains one of the president’s prime supporters.

The Afghan country has no air force and navy, but the U.S. and the NATO forces have decided to remain in Afghanistan and train the police and troops, even though there is a trust factor. These Afghan troops and police can decide at any time they are going to quit and walk off their post. They can slip back in to their village and never be heard of again.

The U.S. and NATO can call this a war, but when there is no definitive enemy, it is hard to define if your strategy is winning or losing. For President Obama to tell the country that he is keeping our country safe by fighting the Afghanistan war is fraudulent and ridiculous.

The real reason for the NATO summit is for the countries to get on the same page and develop a strategic partnership. The world is changing and it is important that the alliance is internally cohesive, and strengthen the security and prosperity for all the member countries. By enhancing the cooperation of Europe and other Western countries, the United States does not have to stand alone, and can extend the Afghan War into 2014.

At the summit meeting in Lisbon, NATO leaders adopted a new “Strategic Concept” that will serve as a roadmap for the next ten years. The new “Strategic Concept” offers partner countries around the globe more opportunities for dialogue, and commit NATO to reinforce cooperation with Russia.

We all thought the Afghan War would end in July 2011. Maybe you can figure out why our president needs three more years to end the Afghan War, because I sure can’t.

Check out more PRESIDENT OBAMA WATCH articles at blogspot.com