Obama, the Nobel, and nonviolence
In response to President Obama’s ironic, in many places wrong-headed, and in other places beautifully wrought Nobel acceptance speech, I offer the text of the speech (you really should read the whole thing) and a nonviolent perspective on Obama and war that was posted a few days ago: Now that President Obama has decided on Afghanistan, what will YOU do? by my friend Heidi Unruh of Evangelicals for Social Action.
Heidi suggests five actions:
1) Pray
2) Continue to educate and advocate for global alternatives to violence
3) Be the change
4) Consider withholding or redirecting taxes that pay for war
5) Support relief and development efforts in Afghanistan
Heidi supplies resources to help you do each one.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I’m sorry, but justifying war in one’s peace prize acceptance speech goes beyond wrong-headed: it’s WRONG.
And this morning on NPR Gen. Stanley McChrystal was being interviewed about Afghanistan, & my blood ran cold when he explained enthusiastically that getting relief & development NGOs into a village or a region was part of the war strategy–their presence would prove that the U.S. & Afghan forces had taken control.
So Heidi’s points are great, but I wouldn’t be interested in supporting NGOs that allow themselves to be used in such ways.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
On the face of it, McChrystal seems to make sense: if the people’s allegiance will go to whoever can provide basic services and security, then you want to be associated with the ones who can provide those, right?
But in my reading on Latin America (years ago when I had time for such things), I learned a bit about the potential on-the-ground ugliness of such hearts-and-minds strategies.
No immediate examples come to mind. If you can point us to some, Ruth, I’d be grateful.
And do you have recommendations for identifying whom to help in Afghanistan without intermixing development and destruction?
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Gen Stanley A McChrystal’s deprecating criticism of some of the Obama administration’s top functionaries has given the president a uneviable decision: look across remarks that fringe on rebelliousness, or fire his top commanding officer at a important moment in Afghanistan. I wouldn’t want to be in Obama’s position right now, even if these two men are assembling now to talk it through. Most foolish to make public destructive remarks about your superior like that though.