Obama, the Pentagon and change: who is pulling the strings?

  It was the former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower who, on leaving office, warned about what he called "the military-industrial complex," that is, the close ties between the Pentagon and giant corporations. Eisenhower, a general, certainly knew what he was talking about. President Barack Obama, nudged into the Whitehouse this year promising reform in the midst of a financial crash and a world-wide outcry against what were considered abusive policies of the previous conservative George Bush Administration. But, as history has shown, change is a fickle dream: when it appears to have arrived, it quite often has merely put on other clothes.

    This can be observed internally in view of the difficulties of Obama’s Administration to sell the idea of a minimum medical coverage for the estimated 47 million who have no health insurance. The status quo, the American Medical Society and the lucrative interests involved in the business of taking care of people’s health are more than suspicious of change. Even many potential users of the service oppose it on the argument that it would be expensive or simply because it would involve State mingling in the economy.

    Abroad the ups and downs of change can be seen on various fronts. 

    The initial idea of the new administration was to favor dialogue over force in Washington's often conflictive relations with "unfriendly" nations--a notion in sharp contrast to the Bush Administration’s view that "problems" such as terrorism should and could be met mainly by force, a sort of modern version of the biblical notion of a tooth for a tooth. However...

    Obama has modified some aspects of the economic and political blocade of Cuba, but has once again, almost mechanically, renewed the embargo, enforce since 1962 and the longest in modern history. Among other things the embargo prevents the commercialization of agricultural products and medicine. The Cubans call that a policy of genocide. In any event, it is well known that embargos impose far more suffering on the general population than on the political leadership.

   True. Washington officially decried the recent military coup in Honduras. But...A number of the key military officers involved in the take-over were trained in U.S. military schools, where Cold War era notions of anti-communism and counter-insurgency policies are still rampant. Likewise, deposed president Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped and taken first to a U.S. military base in Honduras before being deposited outside the country. Hondurans and Central Americans remember countless cases of U.S. military and political meddling in the area, and giant corporations such as the United Fruit Company have had their share of pressure politics. The question arises: Does the U.S. really support the return of the constitutional president, or is there a more complex manoevre afoot to delay and complicate the ability of Zelaya or other progressive minded politicians to bring about change in the country? Is a democratic government tolerated only if it fits into U.S. geopolitical shoes?

    Colombia. In view of the struggle in Latin America between independent minded governments (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and to a lesser extent Chile, Argentina and Brazil) and conservative pro-U.S. regimes such as those in Colombia, Perú and Mexico what is the real meaning of the announced intention of the Pentagon to beef up its presence on more than half a dozen military bases in Colombia? Officially, the move is described as a policy aimed at keeping track of drug traffiking in the area. That would be done with ulta-modern technology and troops stationed at seven military bases in the country. Less officially the increased military presence is said to be also pointed at the FARC leftist guerrilla movement in the country and at other leftist or non-conventional movements around the continent. Not a few observers wonder why the U.S. relies on military presence and millions of dollars of military aid abroad, rather than attempting to control the drug traffiking market within U.S borders.; also geo-political factors are mentioned: the Amazons, the area’s rich water, mineral and hydro-carbon reserves...the never-ending question of who is to control natural resources and for what purpose.

    With respect to the "war" against terrorism, there have been unclear signals in various directions. On the one hand, the decision to shut down the base at Guantanamo, where prisoners have been held without charges and subject to physical and psychological abuse for years, and important improvement in the legal status of the detainees. On the other, the refusal of the Obama Administration to persecute military or CIA persons involved in the abusive practices. If those involved in torture and abuse of detainees can enjoy impunity for their actions, what does that imply for the future?

    Obama has complied with his promise to phase out U.S. presence in Iraq--in order to beef up military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the Taliban and other groups of fundamentalists. Yet the same basic policy seems to be in force: the notion that massive military might is effective in struggling against movements of this kind. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. fatalities continues to rise, popular opinion in the U.S. grumbles, in Afghanistan "intelligent" bombing missions and "mistakes" take their toll of civilian lives.

    The basic difficulty the U.S. confronts, under Obama, Bush or whoever, is what means are best suited to protect and expand it’s economic, political, cultural and geopolitical interests around the world. The same question has been posed throughout history by diverse empires or "powerful nations" attempting to survive in a complex and ever changing world. Although change is fickle, it usually comes only when those in power find it necessary. What is certain is that the U.S. will continue to sell its view of the world, although it will have to do so with a growing number of contenders, from China to the Middle East and Latin America. Translated, this means: how to maintain and improve the "American way of life" at home and at the same time prevent nations or groups of nations around the world from taking the lead. Pragmatic U.S. theorists no doubt are asking: what means are most apt to achieve that end? What changes are necessary to keep the system from falling apart? Only history has the answer to those questions.