As Barack Obama's anti-war rhetoric is blasted around the country in his attempt to seal the Democratic nomination, his real position on U.S. militarism is being revealed discretely to his political, military, and corporate colleagues.
Two recent examples prove beyond any doubt that Obama is in total conformity with the U.S. ruling class on the issue of maintaining - or even expanding - the role of the military in the Middle East. This of course is the complete opposite of what he tells those who fill stadiums to hear him speak.
General PetraeusThe first example came on April 7th, when both the top U.S. diplomat and military man in Iraq - Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus - came to testify before two separate Congressional committees. This was an opportunity, the Obama and Clinton campaigns boasted, for the two potential nominees to show they have the ability to perform as the country's Commander and Chief. It was quickly evident that during the questioning, both candidates were operating from the vantage point of the military and the U.S. financial interests it protects, not the millions of people who have hopes that either candidate will end the war, as they've both promised.
When questioning both Crocker and Petraeus, Obama did not demand that all the troops should come home immediately; nor did he even suggest that they come home quickly. He made this more than clear when he announced he was against a "precipitous withdrawal." His comments about a "phased withdrawal" were vague enough to be interpreted as meaning that the Iraq war will continue in a similar fashion for years to come. The likelihood of this actually happening later increased, when Obama said that it would be "stupid" to ignore the advice of those commanders "on the ground." The commanders' recommendation in this case was that after taking the "surge" troops out of Iraq, troop levels should be maintained, to be followed by an indefinite "wait and see" period.
Especially disconcerting for those of us who oppose the war were the numerous saber-rattling comments made by Petraeus and Crocker against Iran. Obama did nothing to point out the dangerous implications of these remarks, but instead added fuel to the fire by claiming that the invasion of Iraq was an especially bad idea because of how much Iran has benefited (not because it was and continues to be a war of imperialist aggression).
His "alternative strategy" to defend the fundamental "strategic interests" of U.S. imperialism was summarized by Obama himself: "... We have to think about more than just Iraq, that we've got issues with Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and our singular focus on Iraq I think has distracted us." There is not even a hint of anti-war sentiment expressed here.
G.W. BushAnd this leads us to yet another example which utterly destroys any notion that Obama is against the war's continuation or expansion. President Bush was so pleased with Petraeus' war-mongering testimony, that soon thereafter, it was announced that Petraeus would be made the head of the U.S. Central Command, where he would be in charge of operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. Petraeus is not only a consistent proponent of Bush's "war on terror," but has a unique military specialty: counter-insurgency operations (in fact, he wrote the Army's guidebook). This more than suggests that there will be future military attacks and consequent occupations that will require his particular expertise. Obama's response to Petraeus' nomination? An enthusiastic endorsement: "I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq ... My hope is that Petraeus would reflect that wider view of our strategic interest."
If he is eventually elected President, the contradiction between Obama's public anti-war face and his real pro-war beliefs will lead to shock and disappointment for millions of people who take his campaign promises at face value. The need for a political alternative to the two-parties of big business will thrust itself onto the working class' agenda once again.
Thank God real progressives who oppose the war and refuse to be corporate Democratic Party apologists, such as Air America and the Nation magazine, we have Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
www.michaelcavlan.org
Michael Cavlan , RN, was an Official Green Party Observer for the 2004 Ohio Re-Count.
He was the Green Party Candidate for US Senate 2006 and is a Candidate US Senate
2008 Seeking Green Party Endorsement in Minnesota. See www.michaelcavlan.org
Using your deceptive style for promoting trumped up allegations, I shouldn't have to do anything in the body of my comment to support the above subject line. You have not detailed in your diatribe the totality of what was said and under what circumstances, nor do I feel like highlighting them here. You have used your pen to defame a candidate by your spurious title and to a greater extent have used it to promote your name toward your candidacy. As I remember, green stood for honesty once upon a time....you do it a disservice.
by
R Graffos (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 1:12:11 PM
Especially from those who masquarade as being progressive, anti-war and yet refuse to hold the Dmocratic party and it's leadership accountable for their complicity in the illegal, immoral war and occupation of Iraq.
This is what your Emperor looks like with no clothes.
by
Michael Cavlan (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 263 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 1:46:11 PM
Obama is not even close to being "pro-war." He has been consistent since before the invasion of Iraq that it would be foolish. Any president who would not take the military leadership's views and recommendations into consideration would be an idiot. But he will make the final decisions based on the best information he has at the time.
He already has a detailed plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, and he will follow that plan unless the situation forces a change in plans. This is nothing but prudent logic that only a fool could ignore.
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 2:39:03 PM
In the US Senate Barack Obama has virtualy the same voting as Hillary Clinton.
In regards to War Funding, his voting record is the exact same. Both Obama and Hillary both voted for all the War Funding Bills, except for the last one. That time, they both waited until it was guarenteed to pass, THEN voted against it.
Your Emperor has no clothes. Sorry to tell you.
by
Michael Cavlan (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 263 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 3:07:12 PM
I'm a pretty new member of OEN, so maybe I'm not fully aware of how things go here, and I hope I'm not violating the rules. But...
I usually get a little antsy when I see "quotes" of something a person supposedly said, without any link to a website, or a citation, that would corroborate the quote. It isn't unheard of for a snippet of conversation to be taken out of context, which often distorts the meaning, so I like to see what was said, in its context.
So, I took a good quote, and plugged it into Google, trying to find the source.
Following the links of some of the search results, I came upon an article on the website of Socialist Appeal dot org, whose tagline is: Marxist Voice of Workers and Youth. The article, "Barack Obama & the War" is attributed to Shamus Cooke, and was posted on Friday, 23 May 2008 -- three days ago.
Imagine my surprise, when I started to read that article, and realized that it is the same as the one posted here on OEN. Word-for-word, with two exceptions:
1. The last paragraph of the article posted here, is not in the one on the other site.
2. The last two sentences of the other article are not in the article here.
Despite having read, re-read, and re-re-read the article Mr. Cavlan has posted here on OEN, I cannot find any link to the article published three days ago, nor do I note any other form of attribution.
It's certainly making me go "Huh?"
by
Nursevic (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 9:54:54 PM
Good eye, there. I believe "candidate" Michael Cavlan, while possibly not "pro-war," is most definitely "pro-plagiarism." I don't think he'll be submitting any further "articles" to Op-Ed News.
Mr. Cavlan was correct about one thing though:
"Denial is deep and strong. Especially from those who masquerade..."
But, hey...the Greens might see this as another form of recycling!
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 2:53:01 PM
9 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 (
