[Peace-discuss] Obama "more dangerous than his predecessor"

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...the new Commander in Chief is still not about to radically change, let alone 
reform, the US’s long-standing role in the Middle East ... Obama is simply 
candy-coating the delivery of US imperialism in the region. Given the lack of 
opposition to Obama’s policies back home, it is becoming clear that he may well 
be more dangerous than his predecessor when it comes to the US’s motivations 
internationally.  Had Bush pushed for more military funds at this stage, the 
antiwar movement ... would have been organizing opposition weeks in advance, 
calling out the neocons for wasting our scarce tax dollars during a recession on 
a never-ending, directionless war. But since Obama’s a Democrat, a beloved one 
at that, mum's the word ... we are in for many more years of war and bloodshed, 
funded by US taxpayers and approved by a Democrat-controlled White House and 
Congress."

	June 18, 2009
	These Are Obama's Wars Now: Democrat Approved
	By JOSHUA FRANK

It’s time to toss those Obama t-shirts in the trash.

On Monday the Democrat controlled House voted 226-202 to approve a rushed $106 
billion dollar war spending bill, guaranteeing more carnage in Iraq and 
Afghanistan (and lately Pakistan) until September 30, 2009, which marks the end 
of the budget year. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill’s first 
draft last month, with the final vote on a compromised version to occur in the 
Senate sometime in the next couple of weeks.

The majority of opposition in the House came from Republicans who opposed an 
add-on to the bill that would open up a $5 billion International Monetary Fund 
line of credit for developing countries. This opposition in the House led Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday to quip, “It'll be interesting to see what 
happens here. Are my Republican colleagues [in the Senate] going to join with us 
to fund the troops? I hope so.”

No longer can the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan rest at the feet 
of George W. Bush alone. This is now Obama’s War on Terror, fully funded and 
operated by the Democratic Party.

The bill that passed the House on Monday, once approved by the Senate, will not 
be part of the regular defense budget as it’s off the books entirely. Following 
the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has passed similar emergency 
spending bills to finance US military ventures in the Middle East. The combined 
“supplementals” are fast approaching $1 trillion, with 30% going to fund the war 
in Afghanistan.

In addition to the latest increase in war funds, Obama is also asking for an 
additional $130 billion to be added on to the defense budget for the new fiscal 
year starting on October 1. The president is upholding his campaign promise to 
escalate the war in Afghanistan, which also means increasing the use of remote 
controlled drone planes in neighboring Pakistan that are to blame for hundreds 
of civilian deaths since Obama took office last January.

Despite Obama’s historic (albeit rhetoric filled) speech in Cairo, the new 
Commander in Chief is still not about to radically change, let alone reform, the 
US’s long-standing role in the Middle East. A master of his craft, Obama is 
simply candy coating the delivery of US imperialism in the region. Given the 
lack of opposition to Obama’s policies back home, it is becoming clear that he 
may well be more dangerous than his predecessor when it comes to the US’s 
motivations internationally.

Had Bush pushed for more military funds at this stage, the antiwar movement (if 
you can call it that) would have been organizing opposition weeks in advance, 
calling out the neocons for wasting our scarce tax dollars during a recession on 
a never-ending, directionless war. But since Obama’s a Democrat, a beloved one 
at that, mums the word.

Certainly a few progressive Democrats are dismayed by what the Obama 
administration is up to, but how many of these Democrats that are upset now will 
be willing to break rank and oppose their party when it matters most, like 
during the midterm elections coming up next year? Obama had the majority of 
antiwar support shored up while he ran for the presidency, with absolutely no 
demands put on his candidacy. And not surprisingly, antiwar progressives have 
little to show for their fawning support.

All this begs a few questions: If not now, when exactly will Obama’s policies be 
scrutinized with the same veracity that Bush’s were? When will the media end its 
love affair with Obama and hold his feet to the fire like they did Bush once the 
wheels fell off the war in Iraq? When will progressives see their issues as 
paramount and oppose Obama and the Democratic Party until they embrace their 
concerns?

If these questions are not answered soon, we are in for many more years of war 
and bloodshed, funded by US taxpayers and approved by a Democrat controlled 
White House and Congress.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How 
Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along 
with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the brand new book Red State Rebels: Tales 
of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in July 2008.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank06182009.html