President Obama's speech reflected accountability not to his base, the extraordinary mobilization of people who swept this anti-war and anti-racist candidate into office, but rather to the exigencies of Washington's traditional military, political, and corporate power-brokers who define "national security."
Obama's caving in to the pressures of Pentagon to escalate the war in Afghanistan will inevitably mean weakening his programmes at home and losing the support of the broad progressive coalition that brought him to power.
The Israel discourse has changed, and Americans no longer wholeheartedly support militaristic policies in Israel. There is room for debate on these issues, and politicians should fear hiding from it more than they fear addressing the issues.
The recently approved multi-billion-dollar U.S. economic and military aid packages for Pakistan suggest that the US policy of prioritising security policy over development remains unchanged. This could lead to Pakistanis becoming even more hostile towards the United States
The UN has huge role to play in Afghanistan, but when it is trying to do this under the conditions of occupation it is inevitable that it is going to be seen as part of that occupation, not as part of the solution.
This article analyses the intersection of torture, aggressive war and Presidential power in the 21st century, with particular attention to the current US Constitutional crisis and related international humanitarian/human rights law.
There are more than a thousand foreign military bases worldwide which have become the infrastructure for imperial wars and have severe social and environmental impacts locally that have prompted growing resistance.
Obama's Cairo speech shifted the discourse, away from justifying reckless imperial hubris, unilateralism and militarism and towards a more cooperative and potentially even internationalist approach. It is the task of people across the US to mobilise and turn that new language into new policies.