World’s Religious Leaders Mourn the Obama Escalation in Afghanistan
by: Rabbi Michael Lerner on December 3rd, 2009 | 9 Comments »
Many of the world’s religious leaders in attendance at the Parliament of World Religions taking place in Melbourne, Australia, are in partial mourning for the dream of a new world that President Obama promised, and decisively torpedoed in his announcement of major escalation of military forces in Afghanistan. While the conference sessions have officially ignored current political developments, the hallways are filled with heated discussions of the widespread disillusionment with Obama.
For political activists, the issue of Afghan escalation is primarily framed in terms of Obama’s failure to learn the lessons of Vietnam: one cannot win a war against a population that has been fighting for many decades for its own independence. No matter what America’s stated war aims, the people of Afghanistan perceive the American military presence as generating far more violence and destruction than they faced before the U.S. got involved.
For feminists anxious to protect the rights of women, the capitulation to Islamic fundamentalism in its treatment and denial of rights to women by the current Afghan government, which America is pledged to support, undermines any picture of the US actually providing a long-term strategy that would defend women’s rights.
And for working and poor people in the US who are told that serious health care reform would not only hurt the interests of the health insurance corporations and the medical profiteers (poor dears!) but also increase the deficit at a time when it must be reduced, the willingness to put hundreds of billions of dollars into war making with the deficit suddenly forgotten makes many wonder about distorted priorities once again.
For the religious leaders of the world assembled in Melbourne Australia for the Parliament, all these issues are quite salient. Yet what comes most directly to mind for many is the fundamental warp in the Obama Administration’s understanding of what could actually succeed in providing homeland security.
One reason many global religious leaders celebrated the outcome of the 2008 election was the perception fostered by the Obama campaign that the new President really understood that militarism and the use of force to achieve American objectives should be relegated to the dustbin of history, at least until every non-violent strategy has been exhaustively tried. We believed we had heard a clear message that Obama recognized the need to end global poverty and the suffering it has generated as the first step that must be given time to work before military options are embraced.
That approach was given teeth by the vice chair of the Progressive Caucus of the House of Representatives, Keith Ellison, who has worked with the Network of Spiritual Progressives to develop a Domestic and Global Marshall Plan (DGMP). The DGMP would have the US take the leadership in bringing the advanced industrial societies of the world to commit 1-2% of their Gross Domestic Product each year for the next twenty to once and for all end global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education inadequate health care, and to repair the global environment.
It seemed obvious to religious leaders that the meltdown of the global economy and the obvious role played by the ethos of selfishness and materialism presented the new President with a once in a lifetime opportunity to remake the global economy in ways that would redistribute wealth to the poor, thereby generating the very consumer demands that could rebuild the global marketplace by taking the monies that were not being spent and putting it in the hands of those whose immediate needs for food, clothing, housing and basic material needs would generate a global economic revival and end unemployment.
But the only way that could happen would be for the Obama Administration to have put its full energy behind a new approach to homeland security. Obama would have had to teach Americans that lasting security could come from generosity, whereas the strategy of domination of others had proved futile and a guaranteed loser.
Even when Obama started pouring trillions into the hands of Wall Street banks and investment firms there was still a hope in the religious world that he would remain faithful to the peace-oriented insights he had articulated during his campaign.
No wonder then that the global religious leaders convening in Melbourne are expressing dismay to each other. They have long known what Obama seems not yet to have absorbed in a serious way: that the path to peace must be a path of peace, and that you cannot bomb and kill your way to security. This simple insight is the one thing shared by most of the world’s religious traditions, and it is to testify to the path of peace that thousands of religious leaders are assembled here to affirm a truth that Obama and the world must take seriously,
If you agree with this perspective:
1. Send this to everyone you know, and to your local and national media and to your elected Congressional representatives
2. Attend the Tikkun Conference to “Support Obama to BE the Obama Americans Voted For”
- in San Francisco, University of San Francisco, mini-conference, President’s Day, Monday, Feb. 15
- in Washington D.C. Full conference June 11-14, 2010
- More info: click here
3. Join the Network of Spiritual Progressives



Rabbi Lerner’s article has been added to my favorites’ column list under Tikkun Daily. Thank you Rabbi Lerner!!!
We cannot bomb and kill ourselves to security.
G. K. Chesterton has said, “Jesus speaks sanity to a world of lunatics.”
We have right now in Washington, D. C. lunatics running our asylums.
Your emphasis on the column above is on Obama. You thought that he could solve the world’s problems such as war. But war is not a cause; it is an effect. Obama is a national president. World wars started in 1914. Actually they were “inter-national” wars. Nothing was learned after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles itself exposed the dilemma. Treaties between so-called sovereign states are not law. They are rigid, static agreements between states which maintain the right to wage war “as a final option.” Society is based on common agreements among individuals which become codified in enforceable law. States maintain a condition of anarchy between them which in turn breeds war. In brief, Obama, in short, cannot extend law beyond the USA. The US Constitution in Article 2, Section 2, provides to the president, as the “Commander-in-chief,” command of the army and navy “when called into the active service of the United States…” In short, he no longer represents the sovereign people but only the state itself AGAINST OTHER STATES. He thus becomes a virtual dictator with “discretionary powers.” This article contradicts the Ninth Amendment which refers to “unenumerated rights retained by the people.” This means, in short, that THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN AND NOT THE STATE. (Note the first three words of the US Constitution: “We, the people…” Put into the context of the 21st century when communication is virtually instantaneous, when time and sitance have collapsed to make the world itself a “global village,” you still think in 18th century terms in spite of your religious beliefs of one God, humanity, Thy Will be done on earth….etc. ,etc. World citizenship and world government, as Einstein pointed out, is the obvious answer to world war. Ask yourselves, why do nations fight? Answer: BECAUSE THERE’S NO LAW TO STOP THEM!
GROW UP!
Yes, this is a sad and unfortunate violation of US values and historic priorities of protecting life above all else. We mourn with you! As I was reflecting on the wars around the globe, in Gaza, Africa, and other places, I wonder if we might use Joanna Macy’s process of presence, breathing through the feelings of sadness and powerless, dismay and anger,….. at the unspeakably terrible loss of lfe in war- countries, land, young people, loss of innocence, loss of control. loss of value and honor……She suggests, I think.
we face the despair and mourn the losses and then join together to confront the war machine, analyze the systems that create such possibilities, make changes, and change our own perspectives.
.
What if we personally, communially,nationally ritualized our grief and took responssibility for stopping the violence to ourselves, to each other, and to Earth rather than passing on our saddness, losses, hurts in the cycle of abuse. If we grieved with Israel about the holocaust and ritualized hat grief, perhaps the wars wouldn’t need to go on, also in Afghanistan, Africa…..
klMonroe
While I agree with your dream for the world Martin King and Obama both embrace, I think you fully misunderstand the reality of how to get there. You can’t judge where Obama is trying to help the world go, by slicing and dicing his journey into your version of that reality and how to embrace its evolution. I say this as one who worked closely with Dr. King, and also discussed some of these very issues with him. If this comment is not given the same exposure you give to those who agree doggedly with you, I will continue to wonder about the sincerity of your real purpose.
Obama seems to continue the misguided policies of Bush. The idea of achieving peace by violence is ridiculous. We are trying to prove a point just like we did in Viet Nam after the French got defeated in Dien Bien Fu. We are much better. So we get beaten a little later.
The Russians got beaten in Afghanistan so the United States will show the world. For the glory of the presidency
Obama’s intense rationality perhaps prevents him from appreciating more creative and progressive approaches to conflict.
Educating kids, healing people, and supporting infrastructure is a visionary solution, coming from a wholistic, not rationalistic, point of view.
Hey, first I want to say great blog. I don’t always agree with your opinion but it’s always a great read.