Memo To President Barack H. Obama

January 30, 2009 | Washington, District of Columbia | Vetting explained

Posted by:
imikel

Viewed 80 times
Shared 21 times
Last updated: April 5, 2009

iReport —

MEMO TO PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA

BY MICHAEL BUTLER

25 January 2009

During the post-election transition, before Barack Obama assumed the Presidency, I gave some thought to how I might best put my experience and insight to use for the benefit of his administration.

Every American who loves their country wants a President to succeed. We want someone to lead the way forward, finding a path through our difficulties, without commiting tragic errors to compound the problems we already face. If we care about our nation first, then regardless of party or ideology, we want someone who will represent us to the world and make us proud to be Americans, affirming the best of what we stand for. True patriotism must embrace this attitude of nonpartisanship.

So the greatest supportiiveness I can offer right now is to present an open letter to Barack H. Obama from one concerned citizen, this Memo To The President on your post-inauguration. A few words hopefully contributing toward ultimate success, for you and all of us.

Mr. Obama: I know that your team is already taking steps toward addressing our health care needs, rebuilding our economy, retooling for energy independence, investing in education and bringing our infrastructure into the 21st century. These things require public discussion, and will take time to implement. For the most part, they cannot be accomplished merely through unilateral action by your administration. But I must advise you that our security is paramount. Without this, we can neither build nor maintain.

Therefore, the most immediate task that we as a people must confront is to redefine our commitment to the so-called War on Terror. And more than anything else, on both the domestic front and in the international arena, this is a matter of national will and public understanding that your leadership alone must carry. Do not wait one month to make a speech on this issue. Better if you tackle it as soon as the dust from moving boxes has settled.

The tone set in your inaugural remarks, your actions during the first hours after taking office, and pronouncements already coming out of the White House show that you're aware of the full enormity of the situation. I've elaborated in some detail in articles published in recent years about my own views of the most productive approach, starkly in contrast to Bush policies. You're clearly on the right track, in my opinion.

You certainly don't need my assistance to outline the main points. But what I've identified in the past supposes the logic of history. I believe that there's a way to meet this challenge that we must inevitably choose, maybe not until we've tried every false path and mistaken precept; but it's the approach that must be followed if we are not to be defeated by the test.

"The logic of history" that I'm referring to is demonstrated by the example of Sully Sullenberger. It's the way to succeed through the most calamitous prospect, to play a winning hand in a zero-sum game; but it's dependent on iron obedience to a higher law, to the limitations of the strait and narrow gate.

I observe in you an understanding of this principle. It's your willingness to meet situations as they exist, not as you want them to be, not as you imagine they are or should be, and not according to some doctrinaire interpretation that predetermines your response. In contrast to recent governance, this is truly revolutionary.

This is your ability to follow the logic of history; and for this reason, there's no need for me to attempt to convince you of a comprehensive program (as I did in opposition to the "visionless quest" of the previous administration) of what true leadership means for America as a responsible member of the world community.

You may not choose the same phrases that I employ to describe this, as I've said, "Not America against the world, but America with the world, and for the world." But you're already reclaiming America's rightful place. I know you'll find good words.

You may not rename American foreign policy as I've suggested, as a "Campaign For Democracy" rather than a "War On Terror." But I'm confident that you recognize the value of entente, the necessity of voluntary cooperation and the principles of collaborative freedom that alone can achieve lasting progress in the management of global relations.

If America remains faithful to her ideals, all our adversaries will fall of their own accord, like ripe apples; because evil contains within itself the seeds of its own self-destruction. But there's a power of transcendence that endures at all times and places for those who serve the highest good, for those who follow the logic of history.

I have such assurance now in the wisdom of the American people to have appointed Barack Obama to the seat of power that there's relatively little that I honestly feel a need to say. I believe that you'll find the right answers and the tactics that work, not all at once or without false starts, but with perseverance. My motive for speaking out, therefore, is partly to make plain for others, if I can, what our new direction means. But there are three things to mention that I think may help us all reach our goals more expeditiously.

Point one. As a matter of analytical insight, the key to long-term progress in relations with the Muslim world resides in a degree of inherent conflict between Islam and democratic principles. This is not to say that Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey and other nations with an Islamic culture are not striving toward a workable rapprochement between theocratic vision and secular realities. But in each instance, there's a tension between the adherents of scriptural fundamentalism and the proponents of cultural freedom; and it's out of this tension that the destabilizing presence of "nonstate actors" like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and the Taliban emerges.

Of course, Christianity and other religions also precipitate issues of like kind, if generally lesser violence. But my concern is to suggest how we might aim our focus to change the ground of meaning in what is presently being addressed with limited effectiveness by military means. The fact that the problem has a theological basis doesn't mean there's no meaningful action, politically or otherwise, that those outside the faith can take toward influencing rational behavior.

Beginning in 1993, for example, I proposed a World Intercultural Conference For Middle East Peace, designed to address the basic questions of global interdependence in an international dialogue forum. Although I was successful at that time in launching a community-wide movement to develop my idea, with enthusiastic support of many civic and religious leaders in the Buffalo, New York area, lack of funding ultimately stalled my efforts. The point remains that there are innumerable direct and indirect means of affecting the dynamic of enmity in our intercultural relations.

Within the Bush administration, as you may be well aware, there has been, at best, a confused approach to the actual problem. For many in the Arab world and elsewhere, Bush's actions elevated latent hostilities to the status of a global culture war. The change of American leadership will not, in itself, entirely realign the situation. But recognizing the true nature of the discord, I believe, can help us negotiate both a common prosperity with Islamic nations, and collective spiritual advancement.

Point two. As a matter of strategic action on the domestic front, it's imperative that the Obama administration should make the case emphatically and often to show how upholding America's ideals makes our nation safer. Though this statement was made with reference to the closing of Guantanamo by Robert Gibbs at his first official meeting with the press, nothing to substantiate the opinion was offered. This position must be repeatedly explained and reinforced with fact and example, and your personal declarations on the subject are essential.

The debate will not be resolved this week, this year, or even within the term of this Presidency. But events will inevitably occur that test America's determination, casting doubt and threatening to undermine our commitment to principle. I harbor little concern that you'll waver in your own beliefs during the next four years, but this is one area where I believe open dialogue at the earliest opportunity will pay extensive dividends, in public and Congressional support, in how we're viewed by the world, and in laying the groundwork for these policies to be continued by future administrations.

Toward these ends, I would point out the need to proceed in a deliberate manner over a sustained period of time. The voices of opposition are already clamoring to assert that Bush "kept us safe," whatever fault we may find with his methods. The fact that 9/11 occurred on his watch is conveniently dismissed. We'll never know whether that catastrophe may have been preventable if Bush had been more vigilant and more aware from the outset of his Presidency. But we must show clearly that heightened security does not, in itself, mean we are safer.

A fortified America, like the Green Zone of Baghdad, is no safer if its relationship with the surrounding world is not founded on principles of peace. In Baghdad, security has been enhanced by engaging the people of Iraq to share the purposes of self-determination being defended by our soldiers; and so it is for America in our relations with other lands and peoples. We provoke and legitimize retaliation by committing crimes against criminals; and we defend ourself most effectively against those who would attack us in the name of a just cause by becoming, ourselves, the champions of justice.

There are many layers of implication to the distinction between fortification and real security, and the relationship between our safety and our ideals. As a theme of the Obama presidency, these ideas will have impact on a broad range of issues. They must be at the heart of any attempt to involve the nation in shared sacrifice, or any mobilization that engages nonmilitary families in any aspect of our common defense. And they are key to engaging the world community, as we seek to address other nations in a new spirit of collaboration.

But our efforts will be undermined in the event of another major terrorist incident on American soil, if there's a perception that our government has not done all that can be done to protect American citizens. Therefore, maximum public understanding and support for the policy is as important as implementing it; and spelling things out immediately is not too soon.

Point three. Some of us noted immediately after September 11, 2001 that we were then facing an unusual, perhaps unique and possibly unprecedented challenge for existing systems of jurisprudence. The need for establishment of a special legal process to handle terrorist suspects with fairness, justice and a measure of international legitimacy was obvious from the start.

In the peculiarly isolationist mentality of the Bush administration, the concept of world opinion or involvement in these matters was unthinkable or irrelevant; and among their many monumental failures of planning was an apparent delay of several years before the questions even began to be meaningfully addressed. Ultimately, decisions were made with little or no public knowledge or input.

As a result, things that might have been done straightforwardly earlier in this decade are now almost impossibly complex. As in many other areas, the new administration is hampered by the necessity to take responsibility for mistakes that were authored by George Bush, including mismanagement of case files and violations of prisoners' human rights.

But in our efforts to clean up the mess at Guantanamo, the requirements which ought to have initially guided us still remain. This includes the recognition that what we call terrorism is still an international police problem, and that countries besides the United States have a stake in administering justice in such cases. While I'm not an expert in such matters, I'm a generalist who looks for the larger patterns in things. Perhaps there's something I can intuitively suggest that others can refine, clarify and build upon.

Our focus with regard to other governments now should go beyond simply attempting to repatriate former Guantanamo inmates, but should ask what the needs of those nations might be in their dealings with similar issues. Possibly we can create mutual advantage, building a better mechanism for international justice that offers usefulness for situations besides our own.

And as we move to redefine our commitment to the so-called "War On Terror," we have an opportunity to recall the role of military power in this struggle, as it existed before the failure of follow-through in Afghanistan and the pre-emptive violation of Iraqi sovereignty embroiled American forces simultaneously in two hot wars. Regardless of the extent of destruction, what we call terrorism is criminal activity; and the use of military force originates from the necessity of large-scale police action. Our soldiers on the ground in these operations are, in principle, an arm of the law. Remembering this is useful, and may have bearing on the question of how to structure judicial authority to prosecute some of these cases.

What I'm suggesting is that the Guantanamo puzzle is a little piece of a much larger picture, and that we ought to see as much of the context as possible before we jump into a too-narrow solution that will prove inadequate for the next major test. Our view should include general consideration of the existence of "nonstate actors," organizations fielding transnational militias that manage to evade the jurisdiction of any single government, and are potentially more powerful than some nation-states. Sometimes, of course, these groups have assumed political rule; but their nature remains unchanged. If terrorism in its current guise is a symptom, nonstate actors are the underlying condition that our judiciary must learn to treat.

At the risk of removing this perspective too far to be practical for any useful conclusion, I'd like to offer a capsule summary of the moral and spiritual evolution of our species. Our beginnings are in tribal conditions; and there's a moral constitution intrinsic to this arrangement. Out of infancy, through childhood and adolescence, we have progressed in feudal and national systems, with concomitant moral development. Within the past hundred years or so, the rise of global institutions has prepared the way for a climactic accomplishment that is, I believe, the true meaning of our current crisis.

The "new age" of which you spoke in your inaugural is no metaphor, but a manifest revolution in consciousness that we stand on the threshhold of. The onset of our maturity as a young species - putting aside those "childish things" - includes the recognition of a new moral principle implicit in humankind's gradual embrace of global democracy.

I've been observing this process for a couple of decades. Many great thinkers (Tony Blair, in recent memory, for one) have been reaching to grasp the principle of justice that defines the integration of a global community. We are coming to understand that point at which the collective rights of humankind supersede the sovereignty of an individual nation, and take precedence over the right of any governemt to commit transgressions against its own people.

I bring this into our present conversation because I see a convergence: with Guantanamo, nonstate actors, rogue nations and criminal dictatorships; and as you are seeking the means to deal with the first problem, I'd advise you to keep an eye toward the larger scheme of things. Not least, because these other challenges are all going to land on your desk in time to come, in one form or another.

I believe that the point of practical convergence through which we can make progress with all these issues simultaneously is in the framework of the United Nations.

Consider, if you will, that the U.N. General Assembly and its Security Council are a little like the U.S. House and Senate, like two chambers of a modern legislature. But to the extent that the U.N. exercises executive authority, it is weak and dependent on member nations. Real U.N. executive authority functions in a kind of dispersed system. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, proscribing sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein unless certain conditions were met. The United States then took unilateral action, waving this resolution as a justification for war, and commenced invasion. For at least the flicker of that historical moment, in one sense it was as if the United States took upon itself the responsibility to act as the executive branch of a world government, enforcing the will of a planet-wide legislative assembly.

But at least one of the fifteen signatories of that resolution, Syria, has adamantly maintained that no such authorization was ever intended or given by that vote. The fact that there's no arbiter of appeal for Syria in these circumstances, no corresponding Supreme Court to parse the wording of a Security Council resolution, seems to indicate a structural flaw in the present organization of this global institution.

Whether the U.S. would have acknowledged the judicial authority of the World Court or any other body in such a case is another matter, but there would be no wiggle room for escaping the moral judgment of humanity for those who undertake lawless military adventures, even a rogue superpower.

Of course, the U.N. passes resolutions all the time to condemn illegitimate military actions, without any binding authority whatsoever; and this isn't going to change anytime soon. But for example, Israel has not gone to the U.N. asking permission before an invasion. The U.S., on the other hand, felt obligated to act in concert with humankind's collective moral authority. Some might say it was a cynical, manipulative use of that body; but I think rather it was a dysfunctional partnership.

In conclusion, then, as we're taking responsibility for the mess at Guantanamo, I ask you to consider how to strengthen the United Nations against a repetition of this sort of occurrence; and perhaps, we'll find along this route a way to hold nonstate actors accountable for the sponsorship of international terrorism.

Mr. President, I offer these thoughts and suggestions on the navigation of our ship of state in the swirling waters of our time, along with my congratulations on your arrival in your new home, my thanks for all that you've already given and achieved, and my humble dedication to remain,

At your service,

Michael Butler

Posted in Assignment:
World Economic Forum in Davos

Share this on:

del.icio.us

StumbleUpon

Comments

iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

What is iReport?

Share

Tell a story, offer an opinion, say what's important to you.
Discuss

Join the conversation on the day's big issues.
Be heard

The best iReports get vetted and used on CNN platforms.

iReport is a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from users. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the "CNN" badge. MORE...

CNN iReport