At the beginning of summer, I had decided to write more articles that would make for some good light reading in this column, first because many readers requested this and expressed their aversion to political pieces, second because Arab political news these days may make the reader's life miserable, and third because it's summertime. Of course, satisfying people is an impossible quest, and I encounter proof of this every day. For this reason, I was not surprised to quickly receive a message from a reader saying that he has read my article, but that he did not like the topic, and that I had wasted his time in the process. To him I say forgive me, but add that he did not have to continue reading and waste his time. He could have understood the gist of the article from the first paragraph, or the first 20 seconds of reading it, and he then could have stopped and checked many other articles in the newspaper, or go back to playing video games or cards with his friends, or other such important matters. I wish for the reader who objects to what I write, which is a right for him, not to object if we disagree, but to object if we agree on something. If I disagree with a reader, then this means that he may find something new and useful in my views, or that he may be able to rebut them and highlight the flaws in them, with the result being that an exchange of opposing views ensues and benefits everyone. However, if I wrote an opinion that is also shared by the reader, I would have indeed wasted his time. Now if a helpless Arab journalist is complaining, then just imagine the position that the American President and leader of the Western democratic world, i.e. Barack Obama, finds himself in today. Last month, Obama declared he would reduce the number of U.S. troops [in Afghanistan] (which he himself had increased two years earlier) and said he would withdraw 30 thousand soldiers before the presidential elections in November 2012, and the rest by the end of 2014. Immediately after this, I read a few dozen articles, half of which claiming that Barack Obama is a neoconservative and a warmonger, with the other half claiming that he is a defeatist and that what's needed instead is to wage new wars, against Iran, Syria and Libya (with a land invasion to follow the airstrikes). In truth, the first half had opposed the surge in troops in 2009, while the other half had claimed at the time that the number of additional troops was not sufficient. Is he Barack Hussein Obama, who was born in the state of Hawaii, or is he Barack Krisol, or Wolfowitz or Abrams then? While the American right was attacking the President without end, I received an e-mail message from a peace group that said that the President's announcement that he would withdraw some troops ‘is insufficient', and that the group wants Obama to end the war more quickly. I want to say to both the advocates of war and its opponents that their stances will not change anything on the ground. The United States has lost all George W. Bush's wars, the war in Afghanistan, the war on Iraq and the War on Terror. If Obama immediately pulls out the U.S. troops, he would be admitting defeat, and if he postponed this he would be putting off this admission. The fact of the matter is that the United States has lost both in war and peace. The American and subsequent global financial crisis, which erupted in 2008, cannot be seen in isolation from the costs of war. I read the figure 3.4 trillion dollars, and also 7.3 trillion dollars. Both figures are accurate, as the first includes declared costs, and the second includes undeclared costs as well. Another figure that is rather indisputable is the figure of 14.3 trillion dollars, which is the allowable debt ceiling for the U.S. government, a ceiling that was already reached last May. If this ceiling and/or taxes are not raised, the United States could default on its debts. In other words, it would follow in the footsteps of Iceland, Ireland and Portugal. But bear in mind that these countries were truly unable to repay their debts, while the United States, which alone accounts for a quarter of the global economy, can indeed make good on its debts. If I am to describe the situation in a different manner, I would say that the Republican Party, or the war gang in and around the George W. Bush administration, had brought about this debt (and lost all its wars). This gang is now opposed to repayment, to the extent that the administration is seeking to levy taxes on the top earning rich people, whom Bush had given tax cuts at the expense of the poor, and also on oil companies and hedge funds. Such measures are opposed by the Republicans, who are deceiving the American victims of their policies. I reiterate here that if I personally, within the scope of my limited work, cannot please people, then how can Barack Obama? The prophets themselves did not please all the people they were sent to. In fact, the Lebanese poet of the Diaspora Rashid Salim Khoury (Al-Sha'er Al-Qarawi), who carried the banner of Arabism and Arab unity from South America to Lebanon, objected once to the calls for peace in Jesus Christ's teachings, and addressed him by saying: Spare us the torment of oppression, not of hellfire, if you could And bring us a new bible to teach us defiance, not submission [email protected]
