George W. Obama? Or Hillary R. Bush?

Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has written probably the most sobering article I've yet seen about the prospects for the Iraq occupation, and what can be expected from Democratic presidential candidates.

Tomgram: Ira Chernus, Democratic Doublespeak on Iraq
Start with the simplest, most basic fudge.  Newspapers and the TV news constantly report on various plans for the "withdrawal of American troops" from Iraq, when what's being proposed is the withdrawal of American "combat troops" or "combat brigades." This isn't a matter of splitting hairs; it's the difference between a plan for full-scale withdrawal and a plan to remain in Iraq in a different military form for the long term. American combat brigades only add up to perhaps half of the troops we presently have in that country.

Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party's nomination in 2008.

But what does it mean to "leave Iraq"? Here's where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the US must control every strategically valuable region of the world -- and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That's been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.

So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate.


So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war -- with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts -- while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

It's depressing, but I'd recommend reading the entire article.

George W. Obama?

"The single most important job of any president is to protect the American people," he affirmed in a major foreign-policy statement last April. But "the threats we face.... can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.... The security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." That's why the U.S. must be the "leader of the free world." It's hard to find much difference on foreign policy between Clinton and Obama, except that Barack is more likely to dress up the imperial march of U.S. interests in such old-fashioned Cold War flourishes.

That delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama's message succinctly:  "His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough.... To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States."  To control everything and everyone, he wants "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.... A 21st century military to stay on the offense." That, he says, will take at least 92,000 more soldiers and Marines -- precisely the number Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recommended to President Bush.

Hillary R. Bush?
Hillary Clinton declares forthrightly: "It is time to begin ending this war.... Start bringing home America's troops.... within 90 days." Troops home: It sounds clear enough. But she is always careful to avoid the crucial word all.  A few months ago she told an interviewer:  "We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq.... What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region."  A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.

Why all these troops?  We have "very real strategic national interests in this region," Clinton explains.

You are being played again.

They are counting on getting your vote by default, because they know that people are afraid that if they DON'T vote Democratic EVEN if the Democrats will not end the occupation they will end up with the rethugs back in power.

Remember all the fearmongering that Bushco did? The Democrats are now using it against you.

BUT, if they are elected next year in spite of that fact that they continue the occupation... WHAT DIFFERENCE is there between them and the rethugs?

What difference? NONE. It won't be any different from electing rethugs.

In other words by electing the Democrats next year out of fear of the rethugs, even if the Democrats won't end the occupation, EFFECTIVELY the country will have re-elected rethugs (called democrats).

Cheerful prospect, hmmm?

Think it through. Don't vote out of fear. You have the power and the dems know you have the power. So they fearmonger.

The only hope you reading this have, the only hope any of us have, is to threaten the Democrats with loss of support if they will not use the power they have to stop funding the Iraq occupation and force a COMPLETE withdrawal. Otherwise settle in for a never ending occupation if Iraq while you watch the death tolls grow.

It's the only way to change the paradigm.

Foreign Policy in a post-Bush America

On January 20th, 2009 America's new President will face a new era of foreign policy with challenges and options different than those faced by prior administrations.  Many of these new challenges have been brewing for decades, but most were created or exacerbated by mistakes made since the turn of the century.

If American wants to maintain its position of influence over world affairs, and the privileges which that influence brings, we need to dramatically change our approach to foreign policy.  As popular as Clinton is overseas, a return to 90's style diplomacy in a post 3/20/2003 world will not be enough.  A clear rejection of the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strike and a return to coalition building is certainly a good start but we need to go beyond that.  We can no longer expect to world to accept that our intentions are in good when they see negative consequences of our actions.

We can no longer use our military might to protect our access to resources such as oil without expecting repercussions in the form international anger and angst which expresses itself as protests, or much worse, terror.  We cannot continue to negotiate trade agreements which favor our corporate interests and neglect the rights of workers abroad and needs of workers at home.  As we select a new face to govern America, we must also choose a leader who is able to reevaluate America's approach to foreign affairs and establish a new doctrine of policies which can carry us forward, repairing the damage from our mistakes and building a strong foundation for our relationships with nations around the globe.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation
End the War (On Terror)
With the 2008 elections looming, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.

A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world - reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.

Yes, at home, all this will take time and have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring real national security.

Princeton Universities Wilson School has in fact been working on devising a new cogent and workable foreign policy for America that may show promise. The Princeton Project on National Security on September 29, 2006 released their final report in the form of 96 page PDF document titled "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, U.S. National Security In The 21st Century, which according to their mission statement was developed by 400 contributors over a 2 year period, to "set forth agreed premises or foundational principles to guide the development of specific national security strategies by successive administrations in coming decades".

The Princeton Project's report is here.



In 2008 either the Democrats or the Republicans will take control of the Executive Branch and the Presidency, and therefore the administration of US Foreign Policy.

The purpose of this post is to highlight the need for, and to ADVOCATE for a drastic overhaul of US Foreign Policy.

My own politics are best described this way: I am not at all concerned with which party "wins" next year. I want the occupation ended as soon as possible so that the fewest Americans and Iraqis die. Preferably none. Period. I also see the occupation as a specific instance of the more general doctrine of preemptive war - really imperialist hegemony - that the neocons and rethugs want to pursue. I want the specific instance ended and the mindset behind the general doctrine made politically and socially unacceptable and people who hold that mindset treated as pariahs, so that no matter which party is elected it will not happen again.

A new and sensible Foreign Policy framework is something that is badly needed if America is to move forward as a respected and respectable member of a community of nations, and avoid creating terrorism and tragedies like 9/11 in future.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention:

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.(3) The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.
NOTE: Ira Chernus, besides blogging at The Smirking Chimp, is also the author of the book: Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror And Sin:
In an ambitious effort to clarify a complicated issue, Ira Chernus tackles the question of why U.S. foreign policy aimed at building national strength and security has the paradoxical effect of making the country less safe and secure. His answer: The "war on terror" is based not on realistic appraisals of the causes of conflict, but rather on "stories" that neoconservative policymakers believe about human nature and a world divided between absolute good and absolute evil. The root of the stories lies in these policymakers' terror of the social and cultural changes that disrupted American society during the sixties. The neoconservative stories portray those responsible for change not simply as political opponents, but as enemies or sinners acting with evil intent to destroy American values and morals--that is, as "monsters" rather than human beings.

Exploring both secular and religious components of this political ideology, Chernus shows that after 9/11 the Bush administration transferred the story from a domestic to a foreign stage. The goal of the war on terrorism is to keep on fighting monsters forever, to give Americans a global arena where they can show that they still believe in eternal moral values and have the strength to resist the winds of change. Traditional conservatives support the war on terrorism because its story mirrors their own stories about a war against sin. Liberals accept an endless war against foreign evil because they fought the same kind of war against communism for forty years. They act out old stories that feel familiar and safe, rather than finding new policies that would actually make us more secure. This turns the United States into a national insecurity state.

[Cross-posted at OOIBC & Daily Kos]
< The GOP Talking Dolls | The Failed History of Impeachment, Part I: When Impeachment Works >


Would you support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008 (or an earlier date), it will not fund the Iraq War?
Yes 100%
No 0%

Votes: 3
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Barack Obama (none / 0) (#1)
    by LiberalsAreSuperDuper on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:01:56 AM EST
    I'd give Obama the benefit of the doubt for now. The man is running for president and he has to avoid dove-like rhetoric (doves don't win presidential elections). When the war was popular, Hillary was 100 percent on the bandwagon. She can't jump off now. Her campaign is trying to do a little revisionist history voodoo magic to try to get people to forget her past votes. It won't work. Obama '08!  

    You've nailed it. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:16:13 AM EST
    Giving them the benefit of the doubt is the problem.

    Alternatives??? (none / 0) (#3)
    by LiberalsAreSuperDuper on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    Your alternative is what? Voting republican? You have to play the cards you are dealt.

    That is a rather disenguous comment. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:06:21 AM EST
    Did I suggest voting republican? Be honest with your comments.

    The post is about not voting out of fear, and about a need for a rethought and retooled Foreign Policy.

    Measure Number: H.R. 1591

    Question:  On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1591, As Amended )
    Vote Number:     126    Vote Date:     March 29, 2007, 10:36 AM
    Required For Majority:     1/2    Vote Result:     Bill Passed
    Measure Title: A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

    Clinton (D-NY), Yea  
    Obama (D-IL), Yea  

    If you have to vote for someone, at least try to find someone who is opposed to funding Bush's Iraq Occupation, is willing to buck the tide and try to change the Foreign Policy paradigm.

    Deal the cards instead of just obediently and fearfully playing cards dealt from a stacked deck. At least be able to say you made a stand and said this is where I draw the line.

    Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies


    ...or even a rather DISINGENUOUS comment (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by LiberalsAreSuperDuper on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    What pressure? (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:03:10 PM EST
    How do you pressure a two-party monopoly?  

    If you vote for a D or an R, a military-industrial fueled foreign policy and all the bloodshed and instability that goes with it rages on.  Until third party candidates get votes instead of snickers, there is no vote winning pressure, that game is rigged.

    D and R take big money from the makers of laser guided missiles, not people looking to foster peace....no economic pressure to use.

    Physical pressure might work, but that requires numbers, sacrifice, and risk.  Most people are contemplating their next luxury purchase, not US foreign policy or protest.    

    What the Bush Regime portrays (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    as a noble effort to make the world safe from terrorism and bring democracy to the Middle East is actually a vicious war of empire to deepen the U.S. stranglehold on the Middle East and Central Asia --a war that is part of a broader effort to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable imperialist empire.

    This goal is not viewed as capricious or incidental by those in charge--whether Democrats or Republicans--rather it flows from the deepest needs and drives of their system: U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and global dominance is crucial for U.S. capitalism's ongoing functioning and U.S. global power.
    So when Bush says, "Even if you thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now," he's expressing a fear -- from an imperialist viewpoint - that a U.S. pullout would leave the empire weaker. And he is saying this in opposition to other forces in the U.S. ruling class who, also coming from an imperialist viewpoint, now think it's a big mistake for the U.S. not to withdraw.

    This whole dynamic of riding the anti-war vote to power, then voting to fund an ongoing war while claiming to be ending it, reflect the conflicting necessities the Democrats face. As representatives of U.S. imperialism, they are committed to maintaining U.S. global dominance. Yet they fear the U.S. is sliding toward a strategic debacle of epic proportions and may already have lost the war in Iraq.  So they're trying to find a way to extricate most U.S. forces and reposition and strengthen the U.S. in the region.

    And they're trying to carry out this "redeployment" while making clear to the world and the powers-that-be in the U.S. that they can be just as tough and ruthless as Bush.  At the first Democratic Party candidates debate, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards forcefully responded to a question about terrorist attacks with declarations that they'd act "swiftly" and "strongly."

    At this debate Sen. Mike Gravel briefly spoke some unwanted truth when he condemned the other candidates for refusing to rule out an attack on Iran, exposing that "no options off the table" is imperialist-speak for a preemptive nuclear strike.  He said: "And I got to tell you, after standing up with them [the other Democratic candidates for President], some of these people frighten me--they frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices...

    "I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States, there will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral, and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy."

    Meanwhile, the Democrats also have to try to maintain the loyalty of their supporters (to both the party and the system), millions of whom have turned against the war and are furious at the Democrats. So we get all the talk of carrying out the "will of the voters" and "moving to end the war"--while horrendous crimes continue to be carried out in Iraq and they do nothing to really put an end to the war.

    by Larry Everest, ZNet, May 10, 2007

    Oh God (none / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:21:54 PM EST
    not here too:

    What difference? NONE. It won't be any different from electing rethugs.

    That is simply not true.

    Da#*ed Right! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:45:04 PM EST
    It sounds so witty, feels so good to pronounce the two dominant parties the same, but all know it isn't nearly so simple as all that.  

    1)Like probably 90% of the regulars to this site, I agree the Dem Congress should set a timetable for defunding, and stick to it no matter what.  But there is a HUGE difference between having STARTED the occupation of Iraq and struggling to end it. Always harder to get out than to go in, don't ya know.  And it is disingenuous, imho, to equate Democratic reluctance to do this with initiating Warfare.  

    2)Without question, chances are much, much, much higher of the United States government invading other countries, starting more wars, if a Republican wins the White House in 2008.

    3)I know this is a post about foreign affairs and the study in absurdity that has from the beginning been US involvement in Iraq, but really, before signing off on such a broad assertion we ought to consider the domestic side of the equation.  Vast differences there as well.  

    Were you equal parts embarassed and frightened by the makeshift lemonade-stand stunt Bush and the Congress pulled with respect to Terri Shiavo?  Are you worried that Bush might get a third SCOTUS appointment?  Does gay rights matter to you?  Health Care?    

    The Dems are corporatist A-Holes, but they aint the same as Repubs.  Not by a long site.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:40:37 AM EST
    "The party I vote for so rarely lives up to its ideals, but the ideals the opposing party similarly so rarely lives up to are repugnant to me, so what am I to do?" (anonymous voter, political party irrelevant)

    PS: I believe that's "long sight" not "long site"...


    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:25:28 AM EST
    It is "long sight."  My bad.  And good to hear from you, sarcasmo