Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?

By       Message Kevin Zeese       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   14 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 690
Become a Fan
  (61 fans)
- Advertisement -

In the last two weeks Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right.  The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable.


Some peace advocates had already given up on Sen. Obama because of his record since he came to the U.S. Senate.  His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton.  Obama did make a great speech before the war began, saying much the same thing that peace advocates were saying, but that seems to have been the peak of his peace advocacy.  Indeed, Black Agenda Report described how Obama took his anti-war speech off his website once he began running for the senate.  And since coming to the senate he has voted for Iraq funding, giving Bush hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops as well as keeping the military option on the table for Iran.


But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq.  First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.” Where would this strike force be based? Obama said “It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places.”

Of even greater concern was the 140,000 civilian troops who are in Iraq – contractors, mercenaries, whatever label you put on them they are a privatized military for the U.S.  With regard to these Obama said: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops.”  When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?” 

- Advertisement -

Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only “withdrawing” “combat” troops and ending “the war.”  Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq.  And, ending the “war” is not the same as ending the occupation.  Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq.  No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent. 

What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region “not necessarily in Iraq” who could strike in Iraq when needed.  Is this what he means by withdrawal?   

The other important speech that Obama gave focused on his broader approach to foreign policy.  In this speech, given on March 28th, Obama praised the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush.  Obama described his foreign policy as a traditional U.S. approach – certainly not the “change” he promises in his big campaign speeches saying “my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan.” 

- Advertisement -

There is lot to unravel in the foreign policy of these former presidents.  While these X-President’s are much more popular than the current occupant of the White House, which is why Obama believes tying himself to those will garner votes, each of their foreign policy strategies relied heavily on the use of the U.S. military.  Here are some highlights: 

To set the tone for their foreign policy, both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan get credit for negotiating with Iran to hold the U.S. hostages until after Reagan-Bush took power in return for military and financial assistance to Iran.  This act put their personal political ambitions ahead of the needs of U.S. citizens being held hostage.


Perhaps the best known Reagan-Bush foreign policy was the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme to circumvent U.S. law by providing arms to overthrow the government in Nicaragua.  They shipped weapons to the mullah’s in Iran in return for cash which was used to fund the Nicaraguan fighters.  This was done because the Congress passed a law preventing U.S. tax dollars being used to arm the rebels in Nicaragua.


As part of their campaign against the Soviet Union the Reagan-Bush team also armed Islamists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.  This allowed Osama bin Laden to gain a stronghold in Afghanistan and is one of the root causes of today’s military adventures.


Thus Reagan-Bush armed two current “enemies” Iran and al Qaeda.  In fact, they also armed Saddam Hussein by providing him with the makings of an array of weapons of mass destruction.  The arming of Saddam continued with the Bush-Quayle administration even after Saddam “gassed” his own people.


President George H.W. Bush was the only CIA director to become president.  As in the Reagan era, Bush I treated Saddam Hussein as a close ally.  Shortly before the Gulf War he approved the sale of an additional $4.8 million in "dual-use" technology to factories identified by the CIA as Saddam's nuclear and bio-weapons programs.  And, just before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush sold him $600 million in advanced communications technology. 

- Advertisement -

Prior to the Kuwait invasion the Bush administration sent signals to Saddam that the U.S. was not worried about a military conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.  But when Saddam sent tanks into Kuwait the U.S. responded with an aggressive aerial campaign that destroyed much of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure and a 100 hour ground war.  Bush then urged anti-Saddam forces to rise-up against Hussein and then left them hanging without U.S. support.  Then, the “peace” with Iraq led to the sanctions of the Bush and Clinton administrations which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.


The only Democrat mentioned by Obama was JFK.  Obama did not mention the less popular LBJ, Jimmy Carter or his opponent’s husband, Bill Clinton.  Perhaps because the Kennedy administration was so long ago he expects voters not to remember their militarism. And, the Camelot aura of Kennedy is one Obama aspires to.

Of course, President Kennedy must be given credit for the steady expansion of the Vietnam conflict and its escalation into a quagmire that trapped his successor.  Kennedy drew a line in the sand against communism in Vietnam saying “"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.”  Troop escalation went from hundreds to more than 15,000, the Green Berets and helicopters were both sent in.  Kennedy approved a coup which led to the killing of the prime minister and his brother in 1963 and a succession of regimes seen more and more as U.S. puppets.  Kennedy was assassinated shortly after the coup but the path into Vietnam had been laid. 

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Kevin Zeese is co-chair of Come Home America, www.ComeHomeAmerica.US which seeks to end U.S. militarism and empire. He is also co-director of Its Our Economy, www.ItsOurEconomy.US which seeks to democratize the economy and give people greater (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why I Was Among Eight Health Care Advocates to Get Arrested in the Senate Yesterday

The Seeds of Rebellion Are Taking Root, and Protests Against Injustices Are Blooming Across the Country


Ron Paul Press Conference Unifies Third Party and Independent Candidates Around Four Key Positions

Paperless Electronic Voting Machines Flipping Votes from Obama to McCain in West Virginia

Max Baucus Should Not Be Deciding Health Care for America