Bill Van Auken's undressing of Obama's pretense that he is the anti-war candidate who will remove the US from its war(s) in the so called Middle East.
Van Auken writes that:
"Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as an “antiwar” candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a “major speech” on national security and the US war in Iraq.I find it amusing, as Van Auken points out, that Obama is now focusing his version of the war on Osama bin Laden. In recent days Obama has said again that a redeployed war in Afghanistan, and a possible invasion-incursion into Pakistan, will be to find Obama.
Speaking before a backdrop of massed American flags at the Reagan Building in Washington, Obama made it clear that he opposes the present US policy in Iraq not on the basis of any principled opposition to neo-colonialism or aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the Iraq war is a mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the global strategic interests of American imperialism.
What emerges from the speech by the junior senator from Illinois is that the November election will not provide the American people with the opportunity to vote for or against war, but merely to choose which of the two colonial-style wars that US forces are presently fighting should be escalated.
As in his op-ed piece published in the New York Times on Monday, his call on Tuesday for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq was linked to the proposal to dispatch as many as 10,000 troops to Afghanistan to escalate the war there.
The thrust of Obama’s speech was a critique of the Bush administration’s incompetence in pursuing an imperialist strategy, combined with an implicit commitment to advance the same basic strategy in a more rational and effective manner once he enters the White House.
He summed up his policy as “a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq’s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.”
Is this not where Bush's war on the innocents started after 9/11? Did Bush not associate Saddam with Osama bin Laden? Did we not find out that there was no link between the two?
Why then is anyone listening to Obama when he drums up an expanded war in Afghanistan? Where is the evidence that the US and NATO are fighting Osama's Al Qaeda in Afganistan?
Obama has merely stepped-up to the age-old tired doctrine of war as foreign policy. He is far from the anti-war candidate progressives and others are clinging to so desperately.
As I write here John McCain appeared on BBC television saying that finding Osama bin Laden will be a major priority of his presidency.
Maybe McCain and Obama can join 'forces' and find Waldo too ;0)