hide You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of University of Michigan Bentley Historical Library using Archive-It. This page was captured on 07:32:16 May 01, 2012, and is part of the University of Michigan Schools, Colleges, Research, Centers, and Institutes Web Archives collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page. Loading media information

Obama: Clark Kent at home, Imperial Superman Abroad (Engelhardt)

Posted on 04/30/2012 by Juan

Tom Engelhardt writes at Tomdispatch:

The Obama Contradiction
Weakling at Home, Imperial President Abroad
By Tom Engelhardt

He has few constraints (except those he’s internalized). No one can stop him or countermand his orders. He has a bevy of lawyers at his beck and call to explain the “legality” of his actions. And if he cares to, he can send a robot assassin to kill you, whoever you are, no matter where you may be on planet Earth.

He sounds like a typical villain from a James Bond novel. You know, the kind who captures Bond, tells him his fiendish plan for dominating the planet, ties him up for some no less fiendish torture, and then leaves him behind to gum up the works.

As it happens, though, he’s the president of the United State, a nice guy with a charismatic wife and two lovely kids.

How could this be?

Crash-and-Burn Dreams and One That Came to Be

Sometimes to understand where you are, you need to ransack the past. In this case, to grasp just how this country’s first African-American-constitutional-law-professor-liberal Oval Office holder became the most imperial of all recent imperial presidents, it’s necessary to look back to the early years of George W. Bush’s presidency. Who today even remembers that time, when it was common to speak of the U.S. as the globe’s “sole superpower” or even “hyperpower,” the only “sheriff” on planet Earth, and the neocons were boasting of an empire-to-come greater than the British and Roman ones rolled together?

In those first high-flying years after 9/11, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their top officials held three dreams of power and dominance that they planned to make reality. The first was to loose the U.S. military — a force they fervently believed capable of bringing anybody or any state to heel — on the Greater Middle East. With it in the lead, they aimed to create a generations-long Pax Americana in the region.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was to be only the initial “cakewalk” in a series of a shock-and-awe operations in which Washington would unilaterally rearrange the oil heartlands of the planet, toppling or cowing hostile regimes like the Syrians and the Iranians. (A neocon quip caught the spirit of that moment: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”) This, in turn, would position the U.S. to control the planet in a historically unique way, and so prevent the rise of any other great power or bloc of nations resistant to American desires.

Their second dream, linked at the hip to the first, was to create a generations-long Pax Republicana here at home. (“Everyone wants to go to Kansas, but real men want to go to New York and LA.”) In that dream, the Democratic Party, like the Iraqis or the Iranians, would be brought to heel, a new Republican majority funded by corporate America would rule the roost, and above it all would be perched a “unitary executive,” a president freed of domestic constraints and capable — by fiat, the signing statement, or simply expanded powers — of doing just about anything he wanted.

Though less than a decade has passed, both of those dreams already feel like ancient history. Both crashed and burned, leaving behind a Democrat in the White House, an Iraq without an American military garrison, and a still-un-regime-changed Iran. With the arrival on Bush’s watch of a global economic meltdown, those too-big-not-to-fail dreams were relabeled disasters, fed down the memory hole, and are today largely forgotten.

It’s easy, then, to forget that the Bush era wasn’t all crash-and-burn, that the third of their hubristic fantasies proved a remarkable, if barely noticed, success. Because that success never fully registered amid successive disasters and defeats, it’s been difficult for Americans to grasp the “imperial” part of the Obama presidency.

Remember that Cheney and his cohorts took power in 2001 convinced that, post-Watergate, post-Vietnam, American presidents had been placed in “chains.” As soon as 9/11 hit, they began, as they put it, to “take the gloves off.” Their deepest urge was to use “national security” to free George W. Bush and his Pax Americana successors of any constraints.

From this urge flowed the decision to launch a “Global War on Terror” — that is, a “wartime” with no possible end that would leave a commander-in-chief president in the White House till hell froze over. The construction of Guantanamo and the creation of “black sites” from Poland to Thailand, the president’s own private offshore prison system, followed naturally, as did the creation of his own privately sanctioned form of (in)justice and punishment, a torture regime.

At the same time, they began expanding the realm of presidentially ordered “covert” military operations (most of which were, in the end, well publicized) — from drone wars to the deployment of special operations forces. These were signposts indicating the power of an unchained president to act without constraint abroad. Similarly, at home, the Bush administration began expanding what would once have been illegal surveillance of citizens and other forms of presidentially inspired overreach. They began, in other words, treating the U.S. as if it were part of an alien planet, as if it were, in some sense, a foreign country and they the occupying power.

With a cowed Congress and a fearful, distracted populace, they undoubtedly were free to do far more. There were few enough checks and balances left to constrain a war president and his top officials. It turned out, in fact, that the only real checks and balances they felt were internalized ones, or ones that came from within the national security state itself, and yet those evidently did limit what they felt was possible.

The Obama Conundrum

This, then, was what Barack Obama inherited on entering the Oval Office: an expanding, but not yet fully expansive, commander-in-chief presidency, which, in retrospect, seemed to fit him like a… glove. Of course, he also inherited the Bush administration’s domestic failures and those in the Greater Middle East, and they overshadowed what he’s done with that commander-in-chief presidency.

It’s true that, with President Truman’s decision to go to war in Korea in 1950, Congress’s constitutional right to declare war (rather than rubberstamp a presidential announcement of the same) went by the boards. So there’s a distinct backstory to our present imperial presidency. Still, in our era, presidential war-making has become something like a 24/7 activity.

Once upon a time, American presidents didn’t consider micro-managing a permanent war state as a central part of their job description, nor did they focus so unrelentingly on the U.S. military and the doings of the national security state. Today, the president’s word is death just about anywhere on the planet and he exercises that power with remarkable frequency. He appears in front of “the troops” increasingly often and his wife has made their wellbeing part of her job description. He has at his command expanded “covert” powers, including his own private armies: a more militarized CIA and growing hordes of special operations forces, 60,000 of them, who essentially make up a “covert” military inside the U.S. military.

In effect, he also has his own private intelligence outfits, including most recently a newly formed Defense Clandestine Service at the Pentagon focused on non-war zone intelligence operations (especially, so the reports go, against China and Iran). Finally, he has what is essentially his own expanding private (robotic) air force: drones.

He can send his drone assassins and special ops troops just about anywhere to kill just about anyone he thinks should die, national sovereignty be damned. He firmly established his “right” to do this by going after the worst of the worst, killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan with special operations forces and an American citizen and jihadi, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen with a drone.

At the moment, the president is in the process of widening his around-the-clock “covert” air campaigns. Almost unnoted in the U.S., for instance, American drones recently carried out a strike in the Philippines killing 15 and the Air Force has since announced a plan to boost its drones there by 30%. At the same time, in Yemen, as previously in the Pakistani borderlands, the president has just given the CIA and the U.S. Joint Operations Command the authority to launch drone strikes not just against identified “high-value” al-Qaeda “targets,” but against general “patterns of suspicious behavior.” So expect an escalating drone war there not against known individuals, but against groups of suspected evildoers (and as in all such cases, innocent civilians as well).

This is another example of something that would be forbidden at home, but is now a tool of unchecked presidential power elsewhere in the world: profiling.

As with Bush junior, the only thing that constrains the president and his team, it seems, is some set of internalized checks and balances. That’s undoubtedly why, before he ordered the successful drone assassination of Awlaki, lawyers from the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council, intelligence agencies, and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel held meetings to produce a 50-page memorandum providing a “legal” basis for the president to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen, a document, mind you, that will never be released to the public.

In truth, at this point the president could clearly have ordered those deaths without such a document. Think of it as the presidential equivalent of a guilty conscience, but count on this: when those drones start taking out “behaviors” in Yemen and elsewhere, there will be no stream of 50-page memorandums generated to cover the decisions. That’s because as you proceed down such a path, as your acts become ever more the way of your world, your need to justify them (to yourself, if no one else) lessens.

That path, already widening into a road, may, someday, become the killing equivalent of an autobahn. In that case, making such decisions will be ever easier for an imperial president as American society grows yet more detached from the wars fought and operations launched in its name. In terms of the president’s power to kill by decree, whether Obama gets his second term or Mitt Romney steps into the Oval Office, the reach of the commander-in-chief presidency and the “covert” campaigns, so secret they can’t even be acknowledged in a court of law, so public they can be boasted about, will only increase.

This is a dangerous development, which leaves us in the grip — for now — of what might be called the Obama conundrum. At home, on issues of domestic importance, Obama is a hamstrung, hogtied president, strikingly checked and balanced. Since the passage of his embattled healthcare bill, he has, in a sense, been in chains, able to accomplish next to nothing of his domestic program. Even when trying to exercise the unilateral powers that have increasingly been invested in presidents, what he can do on his own has proven exceedingly limited, a series of tiny gestures aimed at the largest of problems. And were Mitt Romney to be elected, given congressional realities, this would be unlikely to change in the next four years.

On the other hand, the power of the president as commander-in-chief has never been greater. If Obama is the president of next to nothing on the domestic policy front (but fundraising for his second term), he has the powers previously associated with the gods when it comes to war-making abroad. There, he is the purveyor of life and death. At home, he is a hamstrung weakling, at war he is — to use a term that has largely disappeared since the 1970s — an imperial president.

Such contradictions call for resolution and that should worry us all.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s as well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book is The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books).

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.

Copyright 2012 Tom Engelhardt

Mirrored from Tomdispatch.com

0 Retweet 2 Share 14 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments | Print

§ 8 Responses to “Obama: Clark Kent at home, Imperial Superman Abroad (Engelhardt)”

  • Rich Guy says:

    Why no mention of contractors.? Bringing back the draft may be the only way to end wars of choice.

  • A Fed Up Nobody says:

    Support the dozen or more Congress members that want to impeachment President Obama for sending military and drones into foreign countries, starting wars without the approval of Congress per the US Constitution.

    It’s late and I present one example of a dozen or more impeachable actions by Obama.

    Goggle: “Past 24 hours” and similar to: impeach* Obama Libya, for 2,260 results.

    “Despite promising otherwise, Barack Obama committed U.S. military resources to overthrow Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi without any kind of congressional authorization whatsoever and without citing any evidence that Libya under Qaddafi was a threat to the security of the United States. Furthermore, Obama brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,””

    link to infowars.com

    “One problem in regard to this movement concerns the use of our military. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power “To declare war,” but last year that restriction was ignored under Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

    Ten members of Congress filed a lawsuit against the President because his administration failed to seek congressional approval for military action in Libya, which is a violation of the War Powers Act.”

    link to examiner.com

    Obama, Congress and both parties have been failing Americans for over 30 years.

    Occupy Elections

    • zandru says:

      Impeach President Obama? Seriously?

      Frankly, I’d prefer bringing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al to justice. Of course, it’s always easier to attack and savage a Democrat – the Republicans are by definition on board and you can even get most Democrats to join in.

      That isn’t where you’re coming from, is it, Mr. Somebody?

    • super390 says:

      Did G. H. W. Bush get Congressional authorization to overthrow the government of Panama? Not that I approved of that, but did he?

  • rfjk says:

    Engelhardt’s got it wrong, not in his characterization of Obama as ‘Clark Kent at home – Imperial Superman Abroad,’ but that he and fellow lefties proverbially can’t see the forest for the trees.

    The left is so thoroughly blinded by their ideological conniptions they can’t see their ‘man,’ when they got him.
    Should Obama be exactly everything Engelhardt want’s him to be, this prez or any would wind up more hated than Bush and either impeached or assassinated.

    And the US is not an empire yet. I haven’t seen the mass executions and imprisonment of Congressmen, judges, federal, state and local pols and authorities that would presage and herald the end of the republic. There are still 3 functional branches of government, though these agencies don’t work as lefties imagine such should, not to mention the vast cacophony of governance across the landscapes of America. This may be news to some, but the US is still a republic with all the political limitations, travails and cautions an astute politician needs to know and master to survive domestically.

    The real Obama is the guy who came out of the gates from day one, who got his ass handed to him when he found himself abandoned by his own party and disenchanted left when the man proved he was just that…a man…not Moses or some god. What this prez has proven to me is that for all his youth and inexperience he is a quick study and learner, who can “take a licking and keep on ticking.”

    And he sure as hell played a big part in preventing a global depression, that would have been infinitely worse than the 30′s with all of us like rats in the bottom of a barrel, fighting over the last handfuls of corn. I could go on, but I don’t want to write a book.

    • super390 says:

      Actually, a democracy can be an empire. Besides the now-forgotten Athenian example, there were the French 3rd and 4th Republics, which may make an interesting comparison with what Engelhardt is talking about: paralyzed at home, with no way for leaders to distinguish themselves except by staking far too much on wars of colonial maintenance. Recall what happened when DeGaulle tried to pull the plug on Algeria; the colonists and military attempted a coup.

      With the help of racism, a democracy might be the most dangerous, irresponsible empire of all. We should know better than this by now.

  • Ann says:

    I don’t suppose these people have ever noticed that the drone strikes are limited to countries such as Pakistan and Yemen. Pakistan, of course, provided Bin Ladin with a safe haven. Yemen is a basket case currently in a state of upheaval and civil war with rather substantial Islamic Jihad sympathies. When the FBI entered the country to investigate the USS Cole bombing, they were met at the airport by a military unit, guns locked and loaded and aimed at them. Their lives were literally in danger during all the time they spent there because the military itself had and has divided loyalties. All countries, even the US, have the right of self defense under international law. These countries take whatever aid they can from the US and in the case of Pakistan that aid is substantial and then support either openly or behind the scenes forces such as Al Qaeda in Yemen and the Haqqani network in Pakistan that attack Americans citizens and American troops. So the US has the a choice. Aggressively pursue these people or withdraw. And keep in mind that the last time the US withdrew those countries were used as bases to train and direct suicide attackers who then attacked New York, London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai. It would seem to me that this is a covert war that is being carried on by both sides. So, what would you prefer? An open war? I think Obama is pursuing the best option the US has right now in terms of keeping these people from attacking us. Do you suppose if we made a request of Pakistan, under International Law, to hunt for and extradite Osama Bin Ladin to the US for trial for the murder of 3000 Americans, that they would oblige. Oh, wait. We did ask, didn’t we?

  • Fred Roellig says:

    I’d prefer prosecuting these wars in such a way so that civilian casualties do not exceed American military deaths, Ann. If your problem with the terror attacks you mention is the fact that they kill innocent people, then how do you justify our killing even more innocent people than these terrorists did,in our reaction to these attacks. It would seem to me that perhaps you place a higher value on American lives than the lives of the people of the countries you mention.

    Furthermore, I would prefer prosecuting these wars without breaking international treaties we have signed and without breaking international or national law. The few civilians these guys have killed do not justify our running like whipped dogs away from our ideals.

    Finally, here is a bit of reductio ad absurdum for you. Simultaneously exploding all the nuclear weapons on earth would kill allot of bad guys, Ann. Think about it. It really really would.

§ Leave a Reply