"Peace" movement counting on Barack Obama to curb War on Terror
During his visit to Afghanistan, Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama has promised Afghan presiden Hammad Karzai that he will fight terrorism "with vigour".
In fact, Obama promised to undertake a complete approach to Afghanistan.
"Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector," said Agha Sherzai, the former governor of Khandahar.
Obama has enjoyed great praise from numerous portions of the anti-war movement as well as Iraqi politicians over his plans to withdraw from Iraq.
But in terms of the Afghanistan conflict, one can rest assured that the so-called peace movement must consider Obama way off the reservation.
Obama has committed himself to the Afghanistan conflict in a very encouraging manner, suggesting commit up to 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as well as allowing US forces to pursue insurgent fighters into Pakistan if necessary.
In particular, the Canadian "peace" movement must feel a certain twinge of betrayal. They had to have been counting on Obama to undermine the War in Afghanistan by withdrawing American troops from a conflict that, all too often, they can't tell apart from Iraq.
Some have already begun to target Obama, denouncing his "right-ward" "imperialist" turn.
But for those still clinging to Obama as their great hope for an anti-war, pacifist foreign policy, one has to wonder: precisely what will they do if he stays the course in Afghanistan?
Of course, the abject irony of the so-called "peace" movement advocating foreign policy stances that would -- and have proben to be -- detrimental to global peace and security, has already been covered at length.
There's no question that the peace movement will need another messiah. Considering the ultimate political fate of their previous anti-war messiah, Jimmy Carter, it becomes apparent they'll be waiting a long time yet.
To make matters worse, the alternative presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain -- is supportive not only of the war in Afghanistan, but also the war in Iraq. Evidently, the alternative to Obama is no better for the "peace" movement, and a great deal worse. There is, of course, always Ralph Nader, but that's a slim hope at best.
The "peace" movement may not like it, but it seems that realism will continue to prevail in foreign policy.