| 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. 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.
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. A long time dissident peace, justice and media activist, he is committed to creating a truly open and (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
Comments The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired. This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
To view all comments:
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
Michael Cavlan is pro-sham and half-truths
by R Graffos on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 1:12:11 PM
Youve got that right. Obama is the real deal.
by Steven Leser on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 2:22:43 PM
Denial is deep and strong
by Michael Cavlan on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 1:46:11 PM
At the very least, I would expect a third party and its
by Steven Leser on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 2:24:07 PM
Who do you think you're foolin'?
by JC Garrett on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 2:39:03 PM
Obama and War Funding Votes
by Michael Cavlan on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 3:07:12 PM
GOD BLESS AMERIKA , LAND OF THE FREE, STAND
by Wolfie on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 3:39:43 PM
Something's Not Quite Right
by Vicki Moots on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 9:54:54 PM
Another One Bites the Dust
by JC Garrett on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 2:53:01 PM
|

