Radical Obama: Anti-American Militarism

Who wrote this?

Indeed, the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What the members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience — that of war. But then, there are some things we shouldnt have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.

Give up? Radical student Barack Obama:

During the campaign, I wrote a piece called Why Wont Obama Talk About Columbia? — The years he wont discuss may explain the Ayers tie he keeps lying about. So now, nearly six months into the Obama presidency, the mainstream media has finally done a bit of the candidate background reporting it declined to do during the campaign — other than in Wasilla — and whaddya know? The New York Times unearthed a 1983 article called, Breaking the War Mentality, that Columbia student Barack Obama wrote for a campus newspaper. The article shows that Obama dreaded American militarism and its military-industrial interests, while effusing enthusiasm for the dangerously delusional nuclear-freeze movement.

But surely Obama has come a long way since his college days, right?

President Obama, however, has mixed feelings about the missile-defense plan. The New York Times reported in March that the president “sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help him stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.”

The Russians, for their part, have intimated that there will be no “resetting” of their diplomacy unless the United States drops the missile-defense plan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has suggested that, in light of developments in Iran, Russia may be amenable to a plan involving Russian collaboration of some kind or another. But anything other than token cooperation would quite obviously be undesirable from the point of view of both the United States and Poland. The Russians, sensing this, have poured cold water on the idea.

If the president scraps missile defense for Poland, or if he drags his feet in implementing it, he will have done more than leave an ally in the lurch and raise doubts about the value of American promises. He risks giving the impression that America is wavering in its commitment to the “liberties of Europe.”

Sigh! Sadly, here is the naivete!

In the interview, the president described his agenda as the best way to move forward in a turbulent world.

“It’s naïve for us to think,” he said, “that we can grow our nuclear stockpiles, the Russians continue to grow their nuclear stockpiles, and our allies grow their nuclear stockpiles, and that in that environment we’re going to be able to pressure countries like Iran and North Korea not to pursue nuclear weapons themselves.”
And how does Obama propose to deal with Iran and North Korea? How else? Negotiations!
“We tried the unilateral way, in the Bush years, and it didn’t work,” a senior administration official said recently. “What we are trying is a fundamental change, a different view that says our security can be enhanced by arms control. There was a view for the past few years that treaties only constrained the good actors and not the bad actors.”

Beyond the first step — deep cuts in American and Russian arsenals — is an agenda that has already provoked stirrings of discontent at home and abroad.

So, as the evil dictators of the world are rushing to arm themselves with nukes, America is drawing down. Wishful thinkingdangerous wishful thinking. God help us!