Obama’s Positions: Antiwar or Pro-Empire?
Posted by Mike E on July 14, 2008
by Mike Ely
Today July 14, was quite a day for Obama’s clarifications of his stand on war and empire. Two different articles appeared in the same issue of the New York Times devoted to Obama’s views — one on Iraq, the other on Iran.
We are posting some key quotes here, but will include links to the original articles since they are worth reading carefully, for context and detail.
My Plan for Iraq by Barack Obama
“Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country… As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
“In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later.”
Troops in Afghanistan Need Help, Obama Says
“As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, wrote in an Op-Ed article published on Monday in The New York Times. “We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.”… He said in a news conference here, “It’s very hard for us to bolster our forces in Afghanistan when we have such a heavy presence in Iraq.”… “I continue to believe that we’re under-resourced in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said on Sunday, speaking to reporters after addressing a Latino group here. “That is the real center for terrorist activity that we have to deal with and deal with aggressively.”
Translation:
Obama proposes redeploying combat troops troops in a slow movement from Iraq to Afghanistan by 2010, while maintaining a ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq that clearly include ongoing combat operations against any future forces labeled Al Qaeda, “protecting” those U.S. troops still unjustly in Iraq, and training an Iraqi army aligned with U.S. interests. Meanwhile he calls for escalating the U.S. invasion force in Afghanistan (starting with an initial 10,000 troops.) He endorses a timetable for this redeployment deployment — and criticizes Bush/McCain for not endorsing one.
This plan clearly implies that U.S. ground action in Iraq, U.S. air warfare in Iraq, U.S. naval intrusion in the Persian Gulf, and the use of other existing U.S. bases (bahrain and qatar) will all continue to project U.S. threat against hostile forces in Iraq and the surrounding areas. The main differences is that the numbers of ground troops will be reduced (to enable the U.S. to use them to threaten other countries).
How, by any stretch of the imagination, is any of this an “anti war position”?
What does it mean when someone like Obama says “I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that … our interests [are] protected”? PRECISELY which “interests” are these, and what defines them?
How is this anything but a plan for bolstering the U.S. empire and its hegemony by violent means (rather than dismantling it by any means necessary)?
Carl Davidson said
Why not both antiwar in Iraq and pro-Empire? It’s not our line on the war, but the NeoCons denounce it as defeatist, and the division between their two camps is deep enough to make the most of it.
Jose M (JJM+) said
Carl, I think that if anything, this article made it quite clear how Obama is not anti-war, but really, pro-empire.
It is sad to see how a lot of people that i communicate with are becoming disillusioned with Obama because of his changes on positions that people regarded as very important (and reasons as to why the voted for him!) such as the Iraq war and illegal wire tapping.
But, there are those that either are ignorant of Obama’s changes, and those that refuse to admit it.
Carl Davidson said
He’s always been pro-empire, but there’s a faction of imperialists who opposed the war in Iraq and want to cut bait and pull out precisely in order to bring stability to the Empire in that region. They’re called multilateral globalists, as opposed to neoliberal US hegemonists, and Obama’s is the instrument they’ve circled around to do it.
That’s the whole point.
Obama has never been an anti-imperialist, and I wouldn’t even want him to run as one now, because there is no majority for that among the voters. He’d lose if he did. I’m interested in electing someone we can push to end the war in the next year. Ending the empire is another matter.
N3wDay said
Hmmm, end the war in the next year? What part of the war? Partially withdrawing formal U.S. troops and leaving all the mercenaries? Is that an end?
Unless plans have changed I don’t think anything ending soon. Just getting less camera actions so the good people of the US of A don’t have to think about the horrors of war anymore.
Has Obama updated his policies (to the left) in the past 1 or 2 months?
Carl Davidson said
No, his position is pretty much the same. Start withdrawing troops right away, over 16 months, but with potential loopholes large enough to drive a war through. He really wants to redeploy elsewhere.
This is not the position of the antiwar movement. It is a position to pull out of Iraq from within the imperialist camp, and is substantively different from McCain’s. It’s Zbignew vs the NeoCons, to be more exact.
If we want to see this war end sooner rather than later, it’s our task to make the most of these differences, without prettifying them in any way, but at the same time, not dismissing them either.
Nando said
Newday pointed out that there are illusions about WHAT exactly Obama’s positions are. (And Carl seems determined to exaggerate differences between Obama and McCain… and to insist that Obama really wants to pull “troops” out of Iraq when Obama only speaks of “combat troops” ON THE GROUND. And doesn’t deal with the question of whether Obama is willing to even consider “losing” iraq — and what the meaning is of his statement of upholding U.S. “interests” there in an ongoing way.)
There are of course “differences” between Obama and McCain (and between the two parties). They are not simply tweedledee or tweedledum. But the issue is the nature of those differences, and importance of pressing for the victory of one over the other.
But let’s leave that aside for the moment, since the issues there are pretty clear and out-there for anyone who reads this thread closely.
But there is another, a second, illusion that is also involved.
Carl (and Progressives for Obama) wants to rally the alienated left to encouraged the alienated sections of the population to register and vote for a wing of official politics (that they openly and even proudly acknowledge as imperialist and pro-empire). And they do so by proclaiming that it matters for us WHICH empire we have, which policies rule this empire that is destroying humanity and the future. And they do this by implying that this alienated left can cause those alienated sections to “make a difference.”
Carl thinks that there are significant differences between the ruling class on this AND THAT THE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE WHICH OF THEM WINS OUT. In other words, there is the idea here that WE (somehow) get to decide if it is line of Zbignew or the NeoCons that gets to deploy “the troops.”
This is (imho) a point that is worth engaging deeply — because Carl’s belief is the official view of ‘how democracy works.” I.e. sure, they acknowledge there is a “political class,” or “a political establishment,” or a inside-the-beltway world, but they (meaning the propagandists for this system) insist that ultimately the people decide. And ultimately all the disputes and errors come before the people to be resolved.
And this is, I believe, false in every way that matters. And it is (in addition) also false that if “we” (in this case “the left”) through ourselves behind one or another side that “we” can help make that difference.
We need to actually expose why it is not true that “the people decide.”
Let me start here: This ruling class, which slaughters hundreds of thousands from the air, hunts down opponents for assassination, which bend and breaks small countries with sanctions, which goes eyeball to eyeball with rival empires over minor footholds of advantage…. THAT ruling class does not roll over, every four years, and allow the ordinary millions of the United States decide the key issues that matter (including decide how to resolve disputes INSIDE that ruling class.) It is not how it works. It is the opposite of how it works.
Every four years, they trot out their favorites, vet them in public, accept auditions for top posts, wean out the flawed ones, and then unleash an electoral circus that teaches the public HOW TO THINK. It is not mainly a process of the people PICKING the new rulers, but mainly of the people being asked to legitimize the rulers picked for them.
There are, of course, complications. The actions of the people in 1967-68, made it impossible for Lyndon Johnson to run again for a second term. And there are many other levels on which the views and actions of people impact the outcome of official elections. (Who doubts that the 1992 LA rebellion played a big role in eclipsing the first Bush and elevating the first Clinton.) But the mechanism by whichthat happens is the impact of popular moods and discontent ON THE DECISIONS OF THE RULING CLASS.
People don’t MAINLY influence those things “at the ballot box.”
And the idea that massive voter registration by the poor, Black and leftwing would “shift” official politics, is not just wrong, or “an illusion,” but really qualifies as a strategy designed to lead people away from real change and real possibilities.
Carl Davidson said
There’s a good ’straw man’ graphic on this site somewhere, Nando, and it seems appropriate here.
‘Ultimately’ is a word that belongs to you in this context, not me.
Likewise with ‘all the disputes and errors come before the people to be resolved.’ I wouldn’t even argue this for the expanded democracy under the D of the P. Just putting workers in charge hardly makes everyone angels, although it differs considerably from having any other class in charge.
Interesting, though, after putting all this out, you sort of pull back at the end with your note about ‘complications,’ leaving a little opening whereby, under certain conditions, people can and do make a difference in the electoral arena.
Am I right?
Well, if so, that makes my whole point.
For the record, I’m of the view that we live under the bourgeois democratic form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, ie, we have a dollarocracy, primarily one dollar, one vote, not one person, one vote. We have ‘the best democracy money can buy,,’ which is still preferable to the fascist form of bourgeois rule, precisely because of your ‘complications,’ ie, the people, at times, can intervene and sometimes make a difference at some level, especially where the camp of our adversaries is divided and in disarray.
I notice you didn’t take a stand on the substantive points:
Is there a division at the top on Iraq?
Does it matter?
Did I describe it, even if shorthand, relatively well?
Should we deal with it or ignore it?
Does it matter to you, and the people themselves, who wins in 2008?
Do you think the electoral arena should be bypassed as an arena of struggle, or should we engage it in various ways, even with the playing field tilted against us?
You’ll have to get a little more serious, if you want a serious discuss on this matter.
Nando said
Carl: Thanks for responding substantively. And thanks for the list of questions at the end.
I will respond when I have a moment (which I don’t right now)… and I think that may help zero in on some of the issues and differences.