continuity disguised as change

Published on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 by Black Agenda Report
Endless War
by Margaret Kimberley
Why are more Republicans happy with Obama's policies on government secrecy, wiretapping, non-withdrawal from Iraq, unqualified support for Israel and a host of other policies than most of the Democratic party's own base?

What do they know that many of us don't, or perhaps do not wish to know?
“There will still be American troops in Iraq, up to 50,000 of them.”

If John McCain and other Republicans are happy about an Obama administration initiative and Democrats are not, it is safe to say that something very bad is taking place. That something is Obama’s announcement that he will continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

Of course, the president didn’t actually use any of those words. In a speech delivered at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Obama announced, “…by August 31, 2010 our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

As always, the president chose his words very carefully. The parsing was so clever that it fooled many people into celebrating when there is no reason for joy. There will still be American troops in Iraq, up to 50,000 of them. “As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.”

It isn’t clear how “conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions” will not be considered combat. Congressman Dennis Kucinich pointed out the obvious problem with the president’s words. “You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can’t be in and out at the same time.”

“Obama never expressed any intention of fully withdrawing from Iraq.”

Obama’s one time political rival, Republican senator John McCain, was extremely pleased with the president’s timetable and with the level of troop commitment. “I believe that the administration should aim to keep the full complement – 50,000, as briefed by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen – and not succumb to pressures, political or otherwise, to make deeper or faster cuts in our force levels.” While McCain and other Republicans waxed enthusiastically, Congressional Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, who are not known for progressive politics, expressed concern about the number of troops scheduled to remain in Iraq.

While Democrats openly questioned the president’s policy, Republicans were enthusiastic supporters. During the presidential campaign John McCain was excoriated by Democrats when he said the United States should continue its presence in Iraq for 100 years. It was easy to sneer at the hapless McCain, but the Obama plan could lead to an American presence that may not last 100 years, but for a very long time nonetheless. The snickering directed at McCain should also have been directed at Obama, who never expressed any intention of fully withdrawing from Iraq.

His statement at Camp Lejeune was a repetition of his words on the stump as a presidential candidate. He reminded his foolishly smitten yet now disappointed supporters that he was an anti-war candidate only in their dreams. “Well, what I would say that is that they maybe weren't paying attention to what I said during the campaign.”

The damage done by the complete capitulation of many progressives to Obama is now bearing fruit. He is able to dismiss them and his own party without suffering any political damage. He said as much in a PBS interview with Jim Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: You're not the least bit uneasy over the fact as John McCain and John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House, have praised your plan while the Democrats are criticizing it?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, I don't - I don't make these decisions based on polls or popularity. I make the decisions based on what I think is best.

In other words, the Democrats can go to hell. He doesn’t care what they think. He doesn’t have to care what they think because they gave him carte blanche to say and do anything he wanted during the campaign. McCain and Boehner are now his cheerleaders and Democrats have to be happy with whatever their leader deems to be acceptable.
“Many more will die in the name of fighting terror.”

Dennis Kucinich, among those who can be ignored, made another important point about the Obama plan. “We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history where war was waged under false pretense against an innocent people. Taking troops out of Iraq should not mean more troops available for deployment in other operations.”

The other operation is of course in Afghanistan, where an additional 17,000 troops are headed. Afghanistan is also under occupation, its civilian population is the target of U.S. military action that has killed thousands of human beings. Many more will die in the name of fighting terror, and to benefit the same corporations that will turn their country into another cash cow for war profiteers.

Barack Obama proves that there is only one political party in this country when foreign policy decisions are being made. George W. Bush may no longer be in the White House, but because of capitulation to the Obama administration, his grand plan for endless war will be a reality for a very long time to come.

© 2009 Black Agenda Report
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.Com.


there are a couple of telling quotes from obama in this piece. firstly, he is quoted as saying that maybe the people who thought he was anti-war "weren't paying attention to what i said during the campaign." this is true. during one of the debates, obama said that he would never hesitate to use military force. of course, one should always hesitate before using military force. furthermore, he said that he would strike pakistan, send more troops to afghanistan, continue to blindly support israel, and said that a nuclear iran was "unacceptable." sadly, many progressives insist on seeing and hearing what they want to see and hear. so, if they are anti-war, then the candidate they support is also anti-war, even if he is really pro-war. with such an approach of blind cheerleading, progressives will never get anywhere, but that seems just fine with many of them. they are more akin to sports fans who root for the home team, than to true progressives who challenge pro-war agendas, regardless of who may happen to further them.

later in the piece, obama is quoted as saying "i don't make these decisions based on polls or popularity. i make them based on what i think is best." this is the kind of remark that got liberals seriously pissed off when bush would make it, but i haven't heard a word from them on this obama remark. when bush made it, he was branded "authoritarian," "fascist," and the like. think about it: "i don't make these decisions based on polls and popularity." ie, "i don't care what people think." essentially, it doesn't matter what the majority of americans want. this is a shocking remark, considering that obama stressed the power of everyday people, change, and other quasi populist rhetoric during his campaign. but that was bullshit. this is reality. yes, most of us want troops home, but what of it? we didn't make the decision to start the war, and we surely won't make the decision to end it.

furthermore, obama makes decisions based on what he thinks is right. what? is he the only decision maker? is he a king, or a dictator? is there not a congress and a senate? are there not millions of americans who elected him? do they not count anymore? sadly, it seems they only counted before the election. afterward, not so much.

these are scary comments. they are no less scary coming from obama than from bush.