Spring Break
Obama: The next Nixon?
Gregory Allison | Guest Columnist
Issue date: 3/11/09 Section: Opinion
The similarities are unbelievable.
Compare the scenarios of Nixon and Vietnam with President Obama and Afghanistan. In 1968, Richard Nixon ran on an election platform of ending the war in Vietnam and, as usual, the peace candidate won. No one knew though that in Nixon's head he believed to end the war he was to first expand it.
President Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia, which was protested all across America and led to the Kent State massacre. Many more troops died so there would be peace four years later. Today, President Obama ran on the election platform of removing American forces from the Middle East.
Although Obama claimed to remove troops from Iraq in around two years, he has moved the date back to 2012. Bases are being built in Iraq as well as an American Embassy that is bigger than the Vatican.
It seems unlikely that 2012 will be the real year of withdrawal for American troops. Why does President Obama keep the troops in the almost peaceful country of Iraq? Iran is the key. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a threat to peace in the Middle East even though it is likely he will be voted out of office for his poor economic policies. It should not matter that Iran threatens its neighbors because it does not threaten America in any way. Even if Iran was a threat to American soil, do we need to constantly have troops in Iraq just in case?
We have many allies in the Middle East, and keeping American troops in their homeland will only anger them and radicalize them further.
A more pressing matter is the troop increase in Afghanistan. Not only is President Obama spreading the war throughout Afghanistan, but beyond its borders to Pakistan. Obama has continued firing missiles into our ally's land and killing civilians. If Obama was to send a mass amount of troops into Pakistan would Americans protest against their "hero's" policies? Would there be civil unrest and National Guard units sent to calm down protesters?
The idea of creating peace with more violence is, in my mind, an irrational thought on the part of Democrats and Neoconservatives alike. If Obama pulls a Nixon, then Americans should protest because spreading wars only leads to more death and destruction, not peace.
Gregory Allison is a freshman exploratory major and guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.
Compare the scenarios of Nixon and Vietnam with President Obama and Afghanistan. In 1968, Richard Nixon ran on an election platform of ending the war in Vietnam and, as usual, the peace candidate won. No one knew though that in Nixon's head he believed to end the war he was to first expand it.
President Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia, which was protested all across America and led to the Kent State massacre. Many more troops died so there would be peace four years later. Today, President Obama ran on the election platform of removing American forces from the Middle East.
Although Obama claimed to remove troops from Iraq in around two years, he has moved the date back to 2012. Bases are being built in Iraq as well as an American Embassy that is bigger than the Vatican.
It seems unlikely that 2012 will be the real year of withdrawal for American troops. Why does President Obama keep the troops in the almost peaceful country of Iraq? Iran is the key. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a threat to peace in the Middle East even though it is likely he will be voted out of office for his poor economic policies. It should not matter that Iran threatens its neighbors because it does not threaten America in any way. Even if Iran was a threat to American soil, do we need to constantly have troops in Iraq just in case?
We have many allies in the Middle East, and keeping American troops in their homeland will only anger them and radicalize them further.
A more pressing matter is the troop increase in Afghanistan. Not only is President Obama spreading the war throughout Afghanistan, but beyond its borders to Pakistan. Obama has continued firing missiles into our ally's land and killing civilians. If Obama was to send a mass amount of troops into Pakistan would Americans protest against their "hero's" policies? Would there be civil unrest and National Guard units sent to calm down protesters?
The idea of creating peace with more violence is, in my mind, an irrational thought on the part of Democrats and Neoconservatives alike. If Obama pulls a Nixon, then Americans should protest because spreading wars only leads to more death and destruction, not peace.
Gregory Allison is a freshman exploratory major and guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Val
posted 3/11/09 @ 3:26 PM EST
First of all, the battles in Iraq are FAR from "almost peaceful." If you really think that peace has been attained there, you need to do some more research. (Continued…)
VigilanteX
posted 3/11/09 @ 7:47 PM EST
@ Val: How about not blaming George W. Bush for everything that is wrong with this nation. He didn't mess everything up by himself. He had a Congress, that was both controlled by Democrats and Republicans that continued to fund this illegal and unethical war. (Continued…)
Val
posted 3/12/09 @ 12:28 AM EST
Mike Gravel is a politician I support. Ron Paul, however, is a lunatic with policies that would never in a million years work if implemented.
But that's a whole different can of worms, and I don't argue with Libertarians. (Continued…)
Mary Jo
posted 3/12/09 @ 9:44 AM EST
Hold on folks, all of you have it wrong. In 2005, Obama announced that he would indeed continue the battle in Afghanistan. I know. Why? Because I researched both candidates in the latest election regarding the issues of the wars. (Continued…)
Post a Comment