Angryindian provided a link to 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)
Onward!
Image Credit
6 comments:
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million people, the support of China, and a nuclear arsenal.
I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?
My extended state of hopelessness concerning real "change" being achieved by candidates invested in keeping the status quo intact prevents me from being disappointed over things like this.
How's that for a run-on sentence?
Peace to you and yours,
Shusli
Hi Shusli. I am with you sista. I harbour no hope in terms that vest "change" from inside the US government.
I am not convinced that he can get elected.
But as it goes now it seems that Obama can do no harm even to those of conviction who should be frothing at the mouth over his FISA vote, his flip flopping on campaign funding, his conservative victimization of Black families (men in particular), Pakistan, Iraq, Iran ... etc.
All very interesting nontheless :0)
Peace sista,
Ridwan
The comment from John Maszka above is spam. But the argument is interesting at the very least and intended to lure readers to his blog where he is selling his books.
Ridwan
You know, I was not at all surprised by Obama. He's made some good speeches, but most are intended to get him elected as that is what folks do in those positions, say whatever will make them popular to get them elected. I've heard many stories from and about men on how they've lied to women to get them to have sex with them. Not all that different except thousands, if not millions, of lives are at stake.
Obama has been talking about killing a lot of Afghani's during his bid for the nomination. Move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and kill lots more folks there.
However, the corporations that own the U.S. government are the ones who will call the shots. And Obama will obey like he is supposed to or they will work around or through him. Obama is not change just like Bill Clinton was not a good president. In the age of hopelessness and despair, folks here in the U.S. will believe in any savior. Anything so they don't have to claim their own power.
And just like the rest, he will be genocidal; maybe less than McCain, definitely less than Hillary IMO.
The collapse will bring change. It will probably not be pretty for many, but it will bring change, real change.
Hey there Eugene. Thanks for looking in brother.
If Obama gets elected he will further the genocide for oil mentality.
Sad but true even if McCain gets elected. Genocide is genocide and the US is very exerienced.
By the way, I really got a kick out of your post on the Pope in Australia. Right on brother.
Peace and struggle,
Ridwan
Post a Comment