The Meaning of Change
The Meaning of Change
Isaac Orr
Undergraduate/
January twentieth in the two thousand and ninth year of our Lord. Change is sweeping the nation. In fact on that historic day, I woke up to find the beard that had been residing on my face had disappeared overnight, and was replaced by a mustache. This ,however, is not a full bushy mustache sported by the likes of Mike Ditka; this is a thin wispy mustache. You know, the kind of mustache you would see on a guy wearing a big trench coat standing by a playground with an unmarked van down the street. The kind of mustache you would see on a guy with a big bag of candy all too eager to offer up to a young child as he licks his lips in anticipation.
A scary thought, no? Well, I believe times will get hairier before we have the smooth sleek shave of a Mach Three Turbo razor courtesy of Gillette as far as the condition of the country is concerned. The last eight years have been terrible. In my opinion, Bush is the third worst president in history, but enough about the past. It is time to look ahead to the change to come.
One thing I will credit the Obama administration with is eliminating Guantanamo Bay. Holding people prisoner without accusing them of anything specific is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court made the right decision in ruling that way earlier this year. But as the Grateful Dead would say, “Every silver lining has a touch of grey.” I feel that Obama will not be the Changeling that he promises to be. Let us examine a few key areas in which Barack Obama will continue the Bush legacy.
Foreign Policy
Iraq: I know I will receive flack from all of Obama’s Changelings for this, but the truth must be spoken, and sometimes the truth hurts. Obama said during his campaign that he would withdraw the troops within sixteen months of his election. That is a year and four months. So, from this promise for “change” the troops should be gone by May of 2010. But wait, didn’t Obama just give a nod of approval to Iraqi legislation that called for the troops to be completely removed by 2011? Now, if Obama were to stick to his principles, he would not have endorsed this legislation because it would have been irrelevant, because the troops were to be gone in 16 months anyway. This is an extension of the war, period. By reneging on his famous “end the war” talking point, he is betraying the anti-war demographic from which he garnered so much support.
Israel: Obama has given Israel the go-ahead to do what it wants. In an interview for the Israeli press Obama is quoted as saying:
"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction."
This smacks something awful of the Bush administration’s Israel can do whatever it wants policy. Did it ever occur to anyone that Israel is a big boy and can take care of itself? The enemies that threaten Israel’s existence do not have nuclear weapons, Israel does. My question is why do we continue to subsidize not only Israel, but other Arab countries that are bent on Israel’s destruction? This seems like a waste of money. If we are going to unwaveringly support Israel’s ability to go into Arab countries to blow up schools and hospitals, why are we using taxpayer dollars to fund those schools and hospitals in the first place?
The Stans: Afghanistan is one of Barack Obama’s top priorities. He wants to nearly double the number of troops in the country. Apparently Obama has not read his history or Milton Bearden’s work “Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires” published in the December 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs. History shows again and again that Afghanistan causes empires to crumble. Look at the British Empire for instance; they were on top of the world, in fact, the sun never set on the British Empire, as the old saying goes. They tried to occupy Afghanistan and lost big time. Fast forward to the period of 1979-1989 when the Soviets were trying to acquire warm water ports by going through Afghanistan, and we again see that Afghanistan killed the empire. So why build bridges in the “Graveyard of Empires” while our own bridges and economy are collapsing?
Remember this summer when Obama said that Pakistan was a problem, and that America may have to colonize that country as well? All of this rhetoric is so ironic that it would be almost comical, if not for the lives that will be lost and the billions of dollars squandered if such an endeavor is embarked upon. Pakistan was part of Afghanistan until 1950 when it seceded from India. The tribes that cause so much instability in Afghanistan also exist along the Durand line in Pakistan, so instead of trying to occupy and stabilize one country that is fundamentally unstable, we are going to double down and hope for a better payout? This seems as sensible as allowing Michael Jackson to be the recess supervisor at a kindergarten.
I guess if a change in venue classifies as change the word change has lost all meaning. Obama is the empty suit of change. Out of Iraq, into Pakistan, revamp Afghanistan. It seems to me like Obama wants to continue fighting unnecessary foreign wars, just not the one in Iraq, spending money we do not have, and killing U.S. soldiers. Change, change, change!
Not all change is good change, and Obama will prove not all “change” is change at all. My mustache was bad change, and I guess history will decide how good the Obama change will be. Obama is lucky he is following Bush, because it will be a tall order to fill to do things worse than he did. I do not expect Obama to fundamentally change or correct the nation. He will probably leave the USA PATRIOT ACT in place, run up government deficits (which many economists believe to the reason why the economy is in the tubes to begin with), nominate longtime cronies to cabinet positions (dipping from the old well is hardly a way to enact new and innovative policy), continue to increase the meddlesome nature of the government in the private lives of its citizens, and continue to be sneaky and covert about his doings, just the same as the Bush administration. On the bright side, we should not have to hear all kinds of accusations that America is a racist country, because we have “changed” the amount of pigment in the skin of our president.