|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.
- Advertisement -
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."
- Advertisement -
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.
- Advertisement -
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 herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.