Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama's core position on Iraq has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.
I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements.
And of course, there is the need to end the Republican reign that began with a stolen election followed by eight years of war and torture, corporate gouging, environmental decay, domestic spying and right-wing court appointments, just in case we forget who Obama is running against.
Besides the transforming nature of an African-American presidency, the issue that matters most to me is achieving a peaceful settlement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and preventing American escalations in Iran and Latin America. From the beginning, Obama's symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced again and again by his campaign pledge to "end the war" in 2009.
But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now. As I pointed out in Ending the War in Iraq [2007], Obama's 2002 speech opposed the coming war with Iraq as "dumb", while avoiding what position he would take once the war was underway. Then he wrote of almost changing his position from anti- to pro-war after a trip to Iraq. He never took as forthright a position as Senator Russ Feingold, among others. Then he adopted the safe, nonpartisan formula of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which advocated the withdrawal of combat troops while leaving thousands of American counter-terrorism units, advisers and trainers behind.
That would mean at least 50,000 Americans, including back up forces, engaged in counter-insurgency after the withdrawal of combat troops, a contradiction the media and Hillary Clinton failed to explore in the primary debates. To his credit, Obama said that these American units would not become caught up in a lengthy sectarian civil war, leaving the question of their role unanswered.
The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers' forced resignation earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.
Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:
The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer:
"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" -- two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies" -- another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.
Then there came the later "clarification":
"Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].
"I intend to end this war." [intention only].
"My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." [ Sounds positive, but "decisively" can mean by military threat in the worst case. And it's pure theatre, borrowed from Clinton, since the plans most likely will be drafted and finalized immediately after the November election.]
"And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]
Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's "secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.
It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.
What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time that public interest in the war is receeding before economic concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter demands for peace.
The challenge for the peace and justice movement is to avoid falling into Republican divide-and-conquer traps while maintaining a powerful and independent presence in key electoral states, including Congressional battlegrounds, between now and November. There should be at the least:
- A demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.
- A Democratic platform debate and plank that is unequivocal in pledging to end the war and avoid military escalation elsewhere.
- An energized antiwar voter education campaign that builds towards a clear November peace mandate to end the military occupation and shifr to political and diplomatic approraches.
- An organizational strategy to widen the base of the antiwar movement through the presidential campaign in preparation for a massive peace mobilization in early 2009.
Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the astute sense of pragmatism that led Obama to criticize the coming war in 2002. The stakes are higher now, and the enemies far more shrewd, wishing to rip asunder the Obama coalition. The peace movement assumption should be that there is no one in Obama's inner circle of advisers to be counted on, no mainstream columnist to catch his eye with a persuasive column favoring withdrawal. They never have. Only the voice of the peace voters - and the countless activists who have volunteered on his behalf - can command his attention now.
After forty years of activism, politics and writing, Tom Hayden still is a leading voice for ending the war in Iraq, erasing sweatshops, saving the environment, and reforming politics through greater citizen participation.
Currently he is writing and advocating for US Congressional hearings on exiting Iraq.
A more comprehensive bio, going back to the sixties, when he co-founded SDS and protested in the deep south
As an elected politician yourself, you should clearly understand the goal of Obama's compaign strategy: win, damnit, and end the 8 year reign of the war criminals. So far, early polls suggest his strategy might be appealing to the majority of voters that decide our national elections (like it or not).
Edwards was my dog in the fight because he was closest to a pro working class candidate (not by a lot), but in this election any old yellow dog gets my vote.
Your article at the outset gives all the right reasons for voting Democratic this year, then you turn left-wing progressive pissy--the current version of the infamous 'Infantile Disorder". Time to get your head out of the sixties and out of your rear end and stop helping the enemy. SOLITARITY doesn't mean agreeing on everything, it means uniting to defeat a dangerous war-bent common foe. Your article promotes neither solidatity nor unity, it just gives the right-wing attack machine more ammunition to use against us.
Looking back, was Nixon really the better choice for our country to end the war in '68 than the 'Hump"? Clearly, not. 40 years later and you are wrong again. In '68 I was equally wrong. Wrong for not holding my nose and voting for the Hump. Wrong for listening to our leaders of the Movement at the time.
Your leadership during Viet Nam was personally inspiring and your greatest contribution to date. Time to exert that same leadership to defeat our common foe, not write divisive articles that confuse and fuel the ignorance of the latter-day infantiles.
Comrade Tom, one Nader is one too many in 2008. We don't need two. Vote early and vote often, my brother.
by
James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 56 comments)
on Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 2:11:22 PM
I quote from a relevant article, which is one page on a web site:
Most Americans do not know about certain pieces of history that are very important to be aware of right now, particularly with regard to how the founding fathers of the United States of America felt about religion.
You see, they wanted not only to establish freedom of religion. They wanted to establish freedom from religious bigotry. They wanted not only to ensure that no religious sect or denomination could rule. They wanted to ensure that no religion could rule. Their values were universal, common to all religions, and based on the universal divine imperative that I discussed on the page titled Real Spiritual Values.
That is especially important now because certain leaders of the so-called "Christian Right" have been and still are making false claims about the intent of the founding fathers, and they have succeeded to the extent that being a Christian has become a litmus test for being president.
After all, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has now identified with misguided and bigoted "Christian" leaders like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson and Franklin Graham, and McCain has claimed that America is a "Christian nation." Not only that, Democrat Barack Obama has resorted to talking about the role his Christian faith played in his community work to "fulfill God’s will," and do "the Lord’s work." That is not only pandering to the bigotry of the "Christian Right," it is in direct violation of the intent of the founding fathers.
End of quote
The article goes on to discuss the real intent of the founding fathers regarding religion, and quotes them to make the point.
It also discusses politics, economics, right-wing suppression of dissent, etc. It's really quite fascinating and informative.
Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is only doing what is politically expedient. That's what they have to do to get elected. And. of course, that's what's wrong with partisan politics.
If you want to stop the game, and the winner-take-all divisive partisan contest for monarchial presidential power, just read this, and you'll know what to do.
Regardless of who wins the partisan competition for the throne, they won't last long as "king." Becuase the true king rejects and abdicates the throne, and enables us ALL to share the power, the wealth, and the domain.
And his message isn't boring. It's inspiring and informative, and about time!
I READ REFORMATIONCOMINGSOON AND IT WHATS SHOULD BE , BUT WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THESE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS TOGETHER, THAT THINK THE SAME WAY OR HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO THINK AND HELP, WHILE TRYING TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY'S AND PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE, IF IMPEACHMENT WAS ON THE TABLE, FOOD WOULD NOT BE THE PROBLEM. I THINK FIRST THINGS FIRST, IMPEACH THESE WAR CRIMINALS. AND THEN OBAMA, OR MC-CAIN WOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT FOLLOWING BUSHS AGENDA.
by
RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments)
on Sunday, July 6, 2008 at 6:53:23 AM
The messenger has "built" it, and it is now but a matter of time before enough people get the message.
His rejection was prophesied, however, and it will end. Here are just a couple of references to him.
Jesus said: "For as the lightening that lightens one part under heaven shines unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the son of man be in his day. But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected by his generation." (Luke 17:24-25)
Traditional Christian belief is that Jesus was speaking of himself there, but that misunderstanding was because Jesus did speak of himself when he said something very similar. That is, Jesus said of himself: "this son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain."
However, while Jesus certainly was rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and he certainly did suffer and was slain as a martyr and sacrificial lamb of God, his suffering was not first or beforehand. It was only at the very end of his life and after his mission was fulfilled, whereas the modern son of many has suffered and been rejected first.
And Jesus spoke of the modern son of man in other ways. For instance:
"I tell you the truth; It is to your advantage that I go away: for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in me [or my teachings]; of righteousness, because I go to our Father [to heaven] and you see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. For he shall not speak of himself [but serve only as messenger]; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he declare, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall declare it to you." (John 16:7-15)
Read this article, Prophecies About the Messenger:
Who know WHAT Rahm Emmanuel will let Obama Say in August. Rahm of the lets help out the pro war democrats in the 2006 elections, so we will stay in Iraq. HIS CHOSEN lost by a greater percentae as compared to the non RAHM Select. Then there was that Grass Roots Orator Chuck Schumer in the Senate...... JUST HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO WE NEED THE DEMS ARE PAID TO BE A FALSE OPPOSITE!
by
Nathaniel Heidenheimer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Sunday, July 6, 2008 at 1:14:35 PM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
