[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] FW: US Senator Barack Obama and
the war in Iraq
Morton K. Brussel
brussel4 at insightbb.com
Wed Feb 14 18:23:50 CST 2007
FYI. Pretty good recapitulation of where Obama stands/lies.
--mkb
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Dave <dm.silver at verizon.net>
> Date: February 13, 2007 3:19:38 PM CST
> To: UFPJ- Discussion <ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org>
> Subject: [Ufpj-disc] FW: US Senator Barack Obama and the war in Iraq
>
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Murphy [mailto:info at cinox.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:24 PM
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: US Senator Barack Obama and the war in Iraq
>
> 13 February 2007
> World Socialist Web Site
> www.wsws.org
>
> US Senator Barack Obama and the war in Iraq
>
> By
>
> Tom Eley
>
> Barack Obama, the junior US senator from Illinois, formally
> announced his
> candidacy for US president in a speech in Springfield, Illinois on
> Saturday.
> Obama, who has emerged as a leading contender for the Democratic
> nomination
> in 2008, has already attracted a coterie of leading Democratic
> strategists,
> and insiders say there is little doubt that he can raise the tens of
> millions of dollars required to mount a "serious" campaign.
>
> Because of the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of Democratic voters,
> Obama
> has attempted to strike a critical pose toward the war in Iraq-as
> have the
> other putative frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Like
> his
> counterparts, however, he is a tried and true defender of the geo-
> political
> interests of corporate America. If elected, he would not hesitate
> in using
> military force to secure US domination of the Middle East, Central
> Asia and
> the world.
>
> Like the rest of the Democratic Party critics of the war, Obama's
> differences with Bush are over tactics-not whether, but how best,
> to defend
> US imperialist interests. Within the confines of this limited
> "debate," the
> Democratic presidential hopefuls are attempting to establish
> differences
> among themselves, and, in turn, their miniscule differences are
> magnified
> out of proportion by the media.
>
> For example, John Edwards-John Kerry's fervently pro-war vice
> presidential
> candidate in 2004-has, with considerable media assistance, rather
> incongruously attempted to stake out an "anti-war" position,
> calling on his
> rivals in the US Senate to cut off funding for Bush's escalation, a
> measure
> the Democratic congressional leadership has already rejected out of
> hand.
>
> Obama has this advantage over Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and
> Edwards:
> unlike the other leading candidates, all of whom as senators voted
> in favor
> of granting Bush authorization to illegally invade Iraq, Obama
> publicly
> opposed the invasion while still a state senator in Illinois. His
> opposition
> was of an entirely tactical character, however, based on the
> argument that
> the invasion of Iraq was simply the "wrong" war and a diversion
> from the
> "the war on terror." Since arriving in the US Senate, Obama has
> walked in
> lock-step with the Democratic Party leadership, supporting every
> appropriation for the war and criticizing the Bush administration
> only over
> the war's "mismanagement."
>
> Opposing the immediate and complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq,
> Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have all gone on record as supporting the
> "redeployment" of US troops. Two weeks ago, Obama announced a
> senate bill,
> "The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007," ostensibly aimed at
> curtailing the
> Bush administration's escalation of the war in Iraq and mandating a
> "phased
> redeployment" of American forces to commence by May 2007 and end by
> March
> 2008.
>
> Obama's press release announcing the bill was riddled with evasions
> and
> outright lies. Typical of the cravenness of the Democratic Party,
> Obama
> begins by praising the American military, stating that "our troops
> have
> performed brilliantly in Iraq." He says nothing of bloody war crimes
> committed by the US military, from the torture at Abu Ghraib, to
> the Haditha
> massacre, to the destruction of whole cities like Fallujah.
>
> To explain the military failure, Obama has invoked the shibboleth
> employed
> by the entire political establishment: that the US military has been
> unwittingly caught in the crossfire of "somebody else's civil war."
> In fact,
> the civil war in Iraq pitting Shiite against Sunni and Kurd is the
> result of
> a conscious US policy to divide and conquer the country as well as the
> shattering impact of two US wars and 12 years of economic sanctions.
>
> In his press release, Obama takes pains to reassure the ruling
> elite that
> his "phased redeployment" will continue "protecting our interests
> in the
> region, and bringing this war to a responsible end." In the coded
> language
> of official American politics, a "responsible end" can mean only
> one thing:
> the total subjugation of Iraq, in one way or another, and the
> expropriation
> of its enormous oil wealth, delicately referred to by Obama as "our
> interests in the region."
>
> Indeed, Obama promises that his purportedly complete withdrawal
> "allows for
> a limited number of US troops to remain as basic force protection,
> to engage
> in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security
> forces." This "antiwar" proposal is reminiscent of Richard Nixon's
> "Vietnamization" of American involvement in Southeast Asia: the US
> would
> pare down its direct "combat" involvement-Obama is careful to call
> for a
> "redeployment" of only "combat" troops-and turn over the dirty
> grunt work of
> imperialism to "Iraqi security forces"-that is, American-trained death
> squads. US troops would still "engage in counterterrorism," or bloody
> bombing raids and swift collective reprisals against Iraqi
> resistance to the
> country's semi-colonial status.
>
> Even here, however, Obama hedges his bets, offering this all-inclusive
> caveat: if prior to his plan taking effect, "the Iraqis are
> successful in
> meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush
> Administration,"-that is, if in the meantime Bush's plan for
> crushing Iraqi
> resistance achieves temporary success-"this plan also allows for the
> temporary suspension of the redeployment"-that is, a massive
> deployment of
> US troops will remain indefinitely within Iraq proper, rather than
> redeploying to neighboring states.
>
> Obama endorses and recycles as his own all of Bush's "thirteen
> benchmarks"
> for "progress" in Iraq. Among them, Obama singles out the demand for
> "eliminating restrictions on US forces." In other words, the
> Pentagon should
> be given an even freer hand to drown the Iraqi resistance in blood.
> Obama
> also demands the Iraqi government reduce "the size and influence of
> the
> militias"-that is, fully confront the powerful Al Mahdi militia.
>
> And where, according to Obama, shall American troops be redeployed?
> The
> troops would be sent "to Afghanistan; and to other points in the
> region"
> along with a "residual US presence [that] may remain in Iraq for force
> protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of
> international
> terrorists." In other words, in addition to the continued presence
> of US
> troops in Iraq, Obama supports greater US military involvement
> throughout
> the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa.
>
> Where Obama's plan breaks ranks with Bush is on the question of
> diplomacy.
> He calls for launching a "comprehensive regional and international
> diplomatic initiative-that includes key nations in the region-to help
> achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the
> civil war in
> Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional
> conflict." The
> formulation "key nations in the region" is a coded reference to
> Iran and
> Syria, which the Bush administration has singled out as opponents of
> stability and as likely targets for escalation.
>
> Obama is no opponent of military action against Iran. Like Hillary
> Clinton,
> he has consistently argued that the war in Iraq has been a
> diversion from
> "real" threats such as Iran. Obama has in the past called for missile
> strikes against Iran should it not buckle to American economic and
> political
> pressure. (See "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for
> missile
> strikes on Iran")
>
> Rather, in his tacit call for diplomacy with Iran and Syria, Obama
> is lining
> up with sections of the ruling elite that fear an escalation of the
> war and
> its implications for the long-term interests of American
> imperialism and for
> the stability of "friendly" authoritarian regimes such as Jordan,
> Egypt,
> Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
>
> Obama is an unapologetic advocate of the use of American militarism to
> advance US geo-strategic interests around the globe. In his recent
> book, The
> Audacity of Hope, he puts his stamp of approval on the Bush
> Doctrine of
> endless illegal preemptive wars and calls for boosting US military
> spending
> to confront the dangers to US geo-political interests posed by
> Iran, Russia,
> China and North Korea. For Obama, just as much as for Bush and
> Cheney, the
> US military must be made ready for combat around the world: "But
> our most
> complex military challenge," he says, "may not be staying ahead of
> China.
> More likely, that challenge will involve putting boots on the
> ground in the
> ungoverned or hostile regions where terrorists thrive."
>
> The "war against terrorism" is a code word for never-ending US
> military
> interventions to secure control of oil and other strategic
> resources. One
> region Obama has in mind is Africa, which has become the venue for
> a renewed
> struggle between the great powers for raw materials, markets and
> influence.
> Last summer, Obama conducted a five-country tour of Africa, which
> included a
> visit with US troops at a counter-terrorism base in Djibouti-which
> played a
> key role in the recent US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.
> Following
> his tour, Obama told a forum organized by the Congressional Black
> Caucus
> Foundation that the US was making a costly mistake by not competing
> with
> China in Africa.
>
> The US Senator, who has been a prominent advocate of US
> intervention into
> oil-rich Sudan under the humanitarian cover of "saving" the
> population of
> the Darfur region, complained, "The Chinese are everywhere throughout
> Africa. They are building roads . . . bridges . . . government
> buildings . .
> . hospitals." He added that Chinese efforts were building good will
> and
> establishing relationships that could allow them to corner the
> market on the
> continent's natural resources, particularly oil. "We're not doing that
> because we don't think it is important and, over time, that's going
> to have
> an enormous impact on us," he warned.
>
> --
>
> See Also:
> Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes
> on Iran
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml
> [1 October 2004]
>
> =======
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml
>
> =======
>
> ***************************************
> This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to
> discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.
>
> List guidelines:
>
> This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group. Please sign
> your postings with your name and the name of the group to which you
> belong.
>
> Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the
> ufpj-news at yahoogroups.com list. If you wish to engage others in
> discussion around a particular news item, campaign, or concept,
> please write a brief intro above the item you forward that can
> serve to focus discussion. This will ensure that the list is a
> useful tool for communication and debate between UFPJ member groups.
>
> We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want
> people to be attentive to overposting. A good guideline is to
> limit your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances.
> Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will
> not be tolerated.
>
> Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list
> administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for
> discussion that makes space for a diversity of voices.
> _______________________________________________
> Ufpj-disc mailing list
>
> Post: Ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc
>
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: Ufpj-disc-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-disc/
> brussel4%40insightbb.com
>
> You are subscribed as: brussel4 at insightbb.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070214/7d2eaedf/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list