Obama's State of Union Address

US President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address delivered on 25 January can be viewed as his prelude to seek second term presidency in 2012. Obama has just completed the first half of his presidency. The second State of the Union Address is like a mirror that can reflect what Obama wants to do in the next two years. In this Address, Obama urged both the Democratic Party and Republican Party to work together in improving the US economy. While he wanted all politicians from the two parties to put the nation above politics, he also warned his political rivals not to pull one another's legs when the people of the United States are suffering from economic hardship. He said that if this was not observed, then both the parties could become losers at any one time.

In this second State of the Union Address, Obama did not waste too many times and words on US foreign policy. On the Middle East Peace process, which is a hot potato, Obama did not say a word. On international affairs, the praiseworthy words of Obama in his Address were none other than telling the people that the US military mission in Iraq would soon come to an end.

Revival of Economy

The pace of the US economic recovery has been slow. The US unemployment rate remains as high as above nine percent. The high US federal deficit that cannot go down has led to continual expansion of federal debt.

The reason why the Democratic Party led by Obama could lose out in last year's congressional elections was the Democratic Party has failed to ease the people's concern about the worsening economic situation in the country. If Obama wants to pave a smooth path to run for the next presidential election, then he has no other choice but to focus on domestic economic issues.

Health Care Reform Bill
During the presidential election campaign held two years ago, Obama has made the commitment to promote the sharing of power between the ruling Democratic and the opposition Republic party. Unfortunately, Obama's health care reform bill has divided the two political parties as fire and ice. Not too long after the Republican Party regained control of the House of Representative after the 2010 congressional election, the Republicans have already proposed the abolishment of Obama's health care reform bill.

The remarks addressed to the Republicans by Obama in his latest State of the Union Address have carried with it a special message. He said that when all sectors in the society made evaluation on him and on other congressional representatives, their evaluation "will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow." Although these remarks by Obama have won applause from the whole floor, we believe while the superficial applause coming from the Democratic and Republican congressional representatives were as loud as each party could release, but the deep feelings between the two political camps were different.

The gunshot tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, shocked both the ruling and opposition parties. The poisonous atmosphere in the US political scene has raised red light. To the Republican politicians who have formed a strong force to prevent Obama from being re-elected as a second term President, they know that if they focus only on confronting and opposing the US President and the Democratic Party without considering the feeling of the people, the general public who gave them the votes during last year's congressional election might embrace the Democratic Party again in the next presidential election.

National Policy Implementation
In this regard, when President Obama urged both the parties to join hands and rescue the US economy, not only could he win the hearts of the middle and independent voters, he could also push the Republicans to a corner losing both their advancing and retreating ground. When Obama talked about his thrifty budget plan, he said "We will move forward together, or not at all." With such a statement, President Obama has warned the Republican congressional representatives that if the US Congress failed to achieve any federal budget reduction plan, the overall Congress will upset the people. In the end, no party could reap benefit or take advantage of each other.

From the contents of Obama's latest State of the Union Address; we can observe that in the next two years, President Obama will adopt a pragmatic policy based on concrete work and concrete fight in dealing with national issues. For example, in this round of State of the Union Address, Obama did not mention the legislation of the huge and massive health care plan but instead he has thrown out some proposals deemed pleasing to both the Democratic and Republican Party. This has shown Obama has not only reinforced his 'fundamental political base", he has also tried to absorb some of the Republican congressional representatives to his national policy implementation track to reduce and counter-attack strength of his political rivals.

Lack of Strength
However, before President Obama has released the full contents of his second State of the Union Address, some Republicans have already launched their counter attacks on his speech without any delay. They sent emails to the media criticizing the lack of strength of Obama's decision to freeze federal spending.

If we say this State of the Union Address released by President Obama has subtly drawn open the battlefield curtain of the next US presidential election. This is not an exaggerating conclusion.Overall, Obama's second State of the Union Address has promoted national unity. The Address has included both Obama's defense and attack strategy in dealing with his political rivals.

Sending More Troops to Afghanistan, Repetition of Mistake

The US Senate has approved the resolution for fixing time frame of the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and budget for the newly deployed troops. Despite the fact that the subject of the US forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan is the most controversial and the most disputed issue. However, most of the US senators want the immediate withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, yet the senate, has approved the $30 billion new budget for its forces in Afghanistan. Most part of this $30 billion budget will be spent on the 30,000 newly deployed US troops whose deployment in Afghanistan was announced by President Barack Obama in December 2009.

Similarly, a part of the budget will be spent on the US troops in Iraq as well. In addition to this, the United States has approved $4 billion for the projects of reconstruction and economic support in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would be spent through the US Department of State. In addition to this, the US Congress has also approved $130 billion earlier, which would be spent in Afghanistan during the current year.

Impact of Afghan War
According to the media reports, United States has so far spent $1,000 billion on the war in Afghanistan. According to the official press releases of the Pentagon, more than 1,000 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far. The Afghan war has become a cancer for the United States. All of the US strategists agree that the United States may never succeed in winning the war in Afghanistan. They know that their opponents in Afghanistan are gaining strength with the passage of every month and every year, that the field of the battle against them is widening, that the opponents have been learning novel war tactics, that the circle of hatred against the United States is widening in the Islamic world, that the United States is cutting off from the Islamic world and human-loving parts of the world and that all of such forces are standing behind supporting the opponents of the United States.

The tension created by the United States Afghan war has now reached Sudan, Libya, Somalia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and the Western world. The battle field has extended from Asia to Africa. The current military data of Afghanistan show that the human and property losses that the United States has incurred in Afghanistan are higher than what the US intelligence and pentagon are sharing with the media.

A clear cut majority of the US people is sure about the failure of United States in Afghanistan. 80 percent of the people of the United States want the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. US Senator Tom Harkin says: "I can no more tolerate the same. Now, it is the time to rethink over this contradiction, the confusion created by the war." Another US senator of the Democrats, Chief Benjamin says: "I think that impatience has grown very much. The nine-year presence of the foreign forces in Afghanistan has shown that in spite of the increase in the number of troops to whatever high extent, winning the war is impossible without people's support."

Security Situation
At present, except the big cities, most of the parts of Afghanistan are under the control of the opponents and the writ of the government is very weak therein. Three months ago, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), through their 15,000 well-equipped troops, launched operation named 'Mushtarak' in the small district of Marjah, which is situated in the outskirts of Lashkar Gah District in Helmand. They killed dozens of civilians in Marjah and displaced thousands from there. But Marjah is still under the control of the Taliban at the moment, and the security situation in Marjah is far worse as compared to that in past. In spite of the presence of the forces of 48 countries in Afghanistan, the Taliban captured Barg-e-Matal District in Nuristan. So, what difference they would make even if they increase the number of their troops?

Our request to the United States is to welcome the joint call of its citizens and the Afghans and, instead of sending more troops to Afghanistan, to withdraw its existing troops from Afghanistan through a strategy that is logical and acceptable to all.

Political and Economic Presence
If the United States really considers Afghanistan its strategic ally, it should establish a real government in Afghanistan and should support it in becoming self-sufficient. The few billion dollars budget, which Obama is spending on the US troops in Afghanistan, are like foam on the surface of water and it would make no difference. Instead of these expenses, if the United States spends one-fifth of this budget on the security sector in Afghanistan, the later would have its own powerful Army and police structure. In that case, United States and NATO will not need to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Afghanistan and as compensation, to take back thousands of dead bodies of their soldiers. Neither would China, Iran, Russia and the Arab world form an alliance against the United States and NATO.

The Afghans want the political and economic presence of the United States in Afghanistan and they want friendship with them inside the circle of mutual respect. Afghanistan is in need of support from the United States and the Western world and it is a supporter of globalization. But the Afghan people consider the surge in the foreign troop as something against themselves and the region. They consider the troop surge as something not beneficial for the foreigners as well. It would be better if the funds spent on the foreign forces in Afghanistan are spent on the security sector of Afghanistan.

Obama Considers Health Care Reform Important Agenda of Presidency

Finally, US President Barack Obama managed to have his biggest political engineering work, which is the US health care bill, passed by the US Congress. The bill was passed with 219 supporting votes as against 212 opposing votes.

Fighting to have the health care reform bill passed has not been an easy battle for President Obama. Nevertheless, President Obama has at least won the battle. However, he and the average American people understood that this was a narrowed victory and a victory that President Obama could not be too proud about the result.

Support for Bill
There were a total 431 congressional seats in that Congress. President Obama's Democratic Party has taken up a total of 253 seats and the opposing Republican only has 178 seats. However when the voting result was known, President Obama only received a total 219 supporting votes. Apparently, there were as many as 34 Democrat congressional representatives did not abide with party line to support the Obama Government's health care reform bill. If President lost four more votes at that critical voting period, his health care bill would be rejected.

Despite the fact that President Obama has cancelled his scheduled visit to Australia and Indonesia and absorbed the embarrassment in public diplomacy by staying back in Washington to lobby the lawmakers, he still could not convince 34 Democrat lawmakers to change their minds and support his health care reform bill. The fact that President Obama has such a narrowed victory in getting his health care bill passed by the Congress has reflected the reality that his health care reform plan does not reflect the views of the majority US citizens.

During the time when the US Congress was debating on the health care bill, the result of the public opinion poll jointly organized by the ABC television channel and Washington Post, a US mainstream media that supports the Obama administration, has shown that there were more people opposing the health care reform bill than the people wanting to support it. This public opinion poll has also shown that President Obama's health care reform bill did not get the consensus of the majority of people.

Reducing Federal Deficit
President Obama wants to use US$ 950 billion tax payer's money to implement the first stage of his national health care plan. This first phase of health care insurance expenditure can help the Obama government to reduce $138 billion federal deficit. This is a health care policy that needs to use high amount of tax payers' money to help the government to save just little money. What the government needs to do next will perhaps be to increase tax or to increase the medical fee for senior citizens. As such many people have criticized Obama's health care medical bill as a bill that can indirectly murder the elderly citizens.

President Obama has his reason to insist on his health care reform pan. He said in the United States as high as 40 million citizens were without health care insurance to protect them. His health care reform plan could allow these 40 million needy people to obtain health care insurance protection.

The Other View
In theory, the action taken by President Obama is laudable for universal medical insurance coverage for all citizens is an equitable policy. However, many American people still feel that there is this 'lazy class of people' who does not want to work hard to earn their living but want to enjoy free medical benefits. The tax payers do not agree to use their income tax to look after the lazy class of people in the society. Many tax payers are also unwilling to use their money to assist in forced abortion. These are perhaps the reasons why majority of the US people are not agreeable with President Obama's universal health care reform plan.

In fact, among the Democratic Party presidents such as Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton have all tried but could not achieve this massive health care reform plan that President Obama managed to get done. The main reason is that President Obama has insisted on his health care reform plan. He considers this health care reform agenda as his most important mission as the US President.

Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama Poses Challenge to Islamic World

Once, a character in an English movie spoke a memorable sentence. He said: "This world is moving within the circles of its own words. A person who kills a few people is labeled a murderer, but the one who kills thousands is declared to be a conqueror." Today I believed the truth of this statement. Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The entire world is aware of the services he has rendered for the cause of peace. He has increased the number of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Afghanistan as part of his peace efforts so that they could easily kill more innocent people in the region. His services in the quest for peace are countless. The US troops are promoting peace in Iraq under his leadership. However, the Iraqis are a very "thankless" people because they attack the United States and also demand that they should leave Iraq. Americans are "innocent" angel-like beings. They are only eyeing the oil reserve of Iraq, while dishonoring the Iraqi women. These innocent Americans are harming Iraq in every possible way, and are killing the Iraqi people with friendly bullets.

A similar situation is going on in Afghanistan. The US soldiers have changed their modus operandi under the command of the new General McChrystal. This US general has the blessings of Obama. Now the US soldiers do not go to deserts and jungles looking for the Taliban. They live in populated areas claiming that they are providing security to the civilian population against the Taliban. These US soldiers use populated areas as a shield for themselves, while carrying out crimes against the civilian population. It is said that they are committing these crimes to promote peace in these areas. The philosophy behind these crimes is that when Muslims obtain a first-hand experience of these acts, they will learn to avoid extremism and terrorism. These poor Americans are making so many sacrifices for the sake of peace. They are providing psychological training to the local people.

The Bold Paradox
The Nobel Peace Prize should not be Barack Obama's desert alone, although it is true that his services for the promotion of peace should be acknowledged. The drone attacks on Pakistan, the efforts to separate Baluchistan from Pakistan, all these services should be appreciated. But we must not forget that people before Obama also did a lot of such work. They, too, played a key role in promoting peace. How could we forget the services rendered by George W Bush? He is the spiritual father of this process of peace. Have we forgotten the "crusading" words, which slipped out of his mouth? Bush deserves this Nobel Peace Prize much more than Obama. Bush was the one who landed the US troops in Iraq and, then, showed them the way to Afghanistan. He taught the US troops how to spoil a situation. These were the miracles of his presidency. Why was Bush deprived of the Nobel Peace Prize? Don't you think people who sent the US forces to Vietnam deserved a Nobel Peace Prize much more than all of these men? They were also promoting peace through the barrel of a gun. Why were people like Truman, who promoted peace by dropping nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, deprived of the Nobel Peace Prize? Today, when Obama has been awarded a peace prize, we are waking up to the realization that his predecessors have been unjustly ignored. No one gave a hoot for their efforts for peace. Now the world has a chance to make up for that mistake. Therefore, the world must acknowledge their efforts for peace and award them the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously so that their souls can rest in peace because their services for peace have, at last, been appreciated.

Obama and Hitler
The services for peace performed by Obama were also performed by Adolf Hitler. But Hitler is denounced by all and sundry. Let us resolve that from today onward no one will denounce or denigrate Hitler but will, instead, praise him. And there is no need to project Genghis Khan as a historical villain. This poor guy promoted peace in the world in his own style, except that his efforts were incorrectly interpreted by prejudiced historians. A new award should be launched under his name, which should be given to every such person who brings peace to millions in the Genghis Khan style. The decision to give a Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is a great decision; it is a lesson for Muslims as well. And that lesson is that Muslims should also try to promote peace the way the Americans are doing, since it the duty of Muslims to contribute to the promotion of world peace. And no one will appreciate these efforts of Muslims unless they also give such sacrifices as are being given by Americans in their quest for peace.

The 9/11 incident was a very small scale action. Next time thousands of Muslims should participate in such an action. Only then will the world recognize their services for peace. Minor attacks do not make a difference. If Al-Qaida is getting weak, it should be strengthened. If the Taliban have become lazy, it should be encouraged. Next time Muslims should do all those things, which were done by Obama. Try to become a conqueror and, then, treat others like a conqueror. In the past this prize was awarded to those persons who had done extraordinary services for world peace or for service to humanity. But Obama has not done anything to promote peace in the world. Rather, he is responsible for ongoing wars in the world. He has only made promises, but done nothing concrete to bring peace to the world.

Rise to New Political Tussle
The 9th October nomination of President Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize has given rise to a new political tussle in the United States. Many prominent leaders of the Democrats believed that Obama was facing political problems for the past few months. The opposition was critical of his policies, but his nomination for the Peace Prize was a trump card for him. The paper said that the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama was like a political support and encouragement for him. The Republican, its supporters, and the Norwegian Committee have criticized Obama and the judges of the nomination committee, because they cannot fathom what particular services have justified his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. The impartial intellectuals and analysts have also expressed shock over Obama's nomination for the Peace Prize. They also said that this important prize which, in the past, was given only to deserving persons after very careful consideration, has now been given to a person who has not done anything remarkable for world peace.

David Miller, a senior US official who was part of the Middle East peace talks, said that he was shocked over this nomination, and was unable to understand under what criterion the committee had nominated Obama for this Prize. He also said that the action by the jury had diminished the prestige and honor of the Nobel Peace Prize. It seems that they made this decision under some kind of pressure. Michael Steel, president of the Republican National Party, said that President Obama had not done anything remarkable for peace to deserve this nomination. He said that the reputation and authority of Obama have shadowed the efforts of many people who have done a great deal in the past for peace. Members of Obama's supporting party, the Democrats, responded to Steel's objections by saying that President Obama was sincere in his efforts for world peace and, on this basis, he was awarded the Peace Prize.

US Congress Criticism

The leftist parties in the US Congress have criticized Obama's nomination. According to them, although Obama has been awarded the Peace Prize for his flexible position, he has weakened the US position of strength throughout the world. Stephen Hess, a renowned analyst of presidential election campaigns, and a research fellow at Brookings Institute, said that there was no precedence for such an award.

In the past this Prize was given only to those who had rendered great services for world peace, where such services were clear and obvious before all.

Is it an Investment in Obama?
However, Obama's nomination shows that the nomination committee has made an investment in Obama because Obama has not done anything except making promises and announcements about his policies. Michael Steel, chairman of the National Republican Party, asked what services Obama had rendered to deserve the Peace Prize. This question was not limited to Michael Steel alone; rather, most of the Americans were asking the same question. According to them, Obama had made many promises and policy statements about world peace, but he had not done anything concrete to fulfill these promises to make him worthy for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize for Obama poses a challenge for the Islamic world.