Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Imperialist Right Threatens Obama on Iraq
Robert Kaplan is a throw-back to the late nineteenth century imperialists who believed in the inherent right of the United States to dominate the lesser breeds and believed that the manly art of war is good for civilization. In Imperial Grunts he talked without a trace of irony about the glory of U.S. soldiers taking up "the white man's burden."
Kaplan formed a one-man cheering section in late 2002 for the Bush project to take over Iraq and use its military bases to dominate the rest of the region. He confidently assured his readers that setting up a new government would be no big problem once the United States military was in control of the country. "Our goal in Iraq," he wrote, "should be a transitional secular dictatorship that unites the merchant classes across sectarian lines and may in time, after the rebuilding of institutions and the economy, lead to a democratic alternative."
That political insight ranks alongside Paul Wolfowitz's belief that Iraqi Shiites wouldn't mind foreign troops occupying Najaf and Karbala, because he didn't think Iraq had any holy cities like Saudi Arabia.
Kaplan is also a political attack dog for the imperialist right on Iraq. In his latest column he admonishes Obama that must change his stance on troop withdrawal from Iraq or face serious political consequences this fall. He suggests that Obama will become Iran's candidate if he does not accept the Bush administration position that the United States must maintain a major military presence in Iraq for the indefinite future.
Here is the full text of Kaplan's rather heavy-handed warning to the Obama campaign:
"A precipitous withdrawal may be the last chance the Iranians will have to dominate Iraq to the degree that they had thought possible in 2006. If Obama heads into the fall campaign without visiting Iraq, without acknowledging progress there, and without altering his time-table for withdrawal, the Iranians may decide to help his electoral chances by initiating a new spate of bombings."
The real point of Kaplan's warning is not what the Iranians will do about Obama. It is what the imperialist right will do about him. They are quite desperate to implicate Obama in the coming debacle in Iraq. They would prefer to have him share the responsibility for the existing policy. If he refuses, however, they evidently feel the need to create a new narrative which says that Obama and the Democrats are enabling Iran to snatch victory from the jaws of the defeat.
Kaplan is clearly hinting that the imperial right, which now controls the White House but McCain's campaign as well, will tag Obama as Iran's candidate in the fall. The further implication of this threat, of course, is that he will also be blamed for having "lost" Iraq to Iran.
The idea of linking Obama's troop withdrawal plan to the Iranian position in Iraq makes no sense objectively, but it is the logical political response by those who led the United States into a disastrous war. By doing so, they would hope to divert public attention from the Bush administration's central problem -- the fact that its invasion of Iraq put Iranian surrogates into power in Baghdad by removing Iran's primary enemy, Saddam Hussein, thus clearing the way for a Shiite state.
Those U.S.-sponsored elections in 2005, which were so glorified by the Bush administration and the U.S. media, made the Iranian leaders salivate. They opened the door for the Shiite political parties and paramilitary groups created by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to get state power. The Bush administration had no choice but to play ball with the pro-Iranian Shiites in 2004 and 2005, because it desperately needed the help of their paramilitary forces to help fight off the Sunni insurgents.
Ever since then, the Bush administration and its imperialist right-wing allies have had to deny the obvious reality that the Iraqi regime we were supposedly protecting from Iran was actually a joint U.S.-Iranian condominium.
Kaplan's scenario of Iranian-orchestrated bombings before the election is, of course, utter nonsense. Rather than trying to stoke a war between Shiites and the Americans, Iran has simply convinced its Iraqi Shiite friends, whom Iran trained and put in its payroll in the 1980s, to ensure that the Bush administration's proposal for long-term access to Iraqi military bases is rejected.
Dick Cheney lavished praise on Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the major pro-Iranian political party, for his cooperation when he went to Baghdad in March, but leading figures in that same party are now attacking the Bush administration's proposal for a U.S.-Iraq "framework agreement" as legitimizing U.S. occupation. So is Prime Minister al-Maliki's own Dawa party.
Now that the beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion and overthrow of Saddm are joining with Iran to reject the Bush administration's military demands, those who led this country into war must know that they stand to be blamed for having sacrificed all those American lives for the political benefit of Iran.
The political ploy of shifting blame for the failure of an imperial venture to the other party is an old story in American politics. Remember Henry Kissinger's masterful 1975 set-up of the stab in the back by the Democratic Congress, even as the old Saigon regime was already fleeing in panic? Kaplan is using the threat of yet another round of blame-shifting to blackmail Obama on Iraq.
This is only the first indication of just how ugly this campaign is likely to get on Iraq.
Dr. Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on U.S. national security policy who has been independent since a brief period of university teaching in the 1980s. Dr. Porter is the author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press, 2005). He has written regularly for Inter Press Service on U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran since 2005.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
27 Comments so far
Show AllPOET: Excellent post. Truth is, we cannot know someone's potential until they rise to it, or fall into disrepute (BUSH). Given the constraints of our political system (two party at present), and the cost of letting another naked neocon BENT ON war seize office (as unitary exec/commander in chief with NO checks or balances operating, his crimes assisted by a Supreme Court that is as far removed from justice as was our "Intelligence" in its pre-war run-up to the current debacle in Iraq and spreading) we can vote for Nader or deal with the pragmatic "choice" before us... Obama could rise to the occasion, and once in office, wear a bullet proof vest, use a chemical strip to test his beverages (in former days, a court lesser would taste the drink first), and shake off the fiscal shackles that got him there. We hope.
I love Nader and I'd much rather have Nader, Kucinich or John Edwards, but the thought of someone as OBVIOUSLY INSANE as McCain at the helm is like inviting Frankenstein to dinner.
barksnotbites
Dennis is The Man. Unfortunately most Democrats disagree and voted for the pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-status quo McObama or McClinton. I heard many Clinton supporters would rather vote for McSame than Obama. What that means is that many so-called Democrats are really Republicans.
My pizza guy Ramon, whose dad was a doctor and is really smart says McCain is going to win. Ramon may be right. It is entirely possible that if the Republicans don't win they can easily just steal the election. Remember when Bush did that not one single Democrat could be found in the Senate to sign on to having the matter investigated.
My best guess is that the Republicans have put something into the water on the hill that causes Democrats to act like craven, cowardly, spineless pussies that give the Republicans even more than they ask for. I think if I were single and looking for a girlfriend I'd definitely be looking for one myself. Man would I have my way with her.
Haha Tailcap: Since my spinal injury, there is only one suppository that will keep me from vomiting. Unfortunately there is nobody running for PRes that can do the same. Dennis Kucinich is the only one that makes it all seem better.
Poet June 21st, 2008 3:29 pm
This coming election is as much (if not more) about "we the people" as it is about the candidates we are forced to choose between.
Myth: You are forced to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican.
This common self-shackling mentality, by even poets no less, is the reason 3rd party candidates have never stood a chance and continue to be marginalized regardless of how worthy they are.
When, in a "democracy" more or less, 50% of the eligible voters, vote......and only 50%, more or less of that group put a party (or person) in office we have what we condemned the Soviet Union of practicing for more than 75 years:
"TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY!"
Wake up, America!
For me, there is a lot of irony in the second paragraph. There was a transitional secular dictatorship running Iraq that had united the economy. Its name was Saddam Hussein! He got too big for his britches a couple times, and Iran, and later the US, straightened him out. Iraq had wealth and talented, educated people and would have eventually liberalized and possibly become a real secular democracy.
Just wasn't good enough for our neocons. They wanted to grab Iraq and make it their own before it became the next Turkey.
"Whooops, I thought I was on Commondreams, but it's "Destroy Obama's Credibility Week" on some rabid site I don't recognize."
Could it possobly be that there are many who did and do not ascribe the credibility to Sen. Obama that you fanatically do?
Barak Obama could be another JFK who despite trying to out cold warrior Richard Nixon in the general election and being stuck with the likes of Alan Dulles at CIA, Lyman Lementzer, Curtis LeMay, and other neanderthals on the joint chiefs, refused to invade Cuba to support the Bay of Pigs fiasco or to use tactical nukes against Soviet installations in Cuba.
He then concluded a comprehensive above ground and oceanic test ban treaty as well as issued an executive order for the phased withdrawal of the American military from Vietnam (by the end of '64 in time for the election).
JFK was no Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits, or William Fullbright (all quite well known Liberal politicians) and had the work ethic of Ronald Reagan (except he preferred young female companionship to solo napping for his sack time).
In so many ways was the least likely person to have accomplished what he did. He paid for it with his life and part of the reason such a strategy could work was the hard drinking, womanizing, and hateful vice president he had chosen.
LBJ was in so many ways the consummate bag man (giver of bribes and campaign money to party regulars and office holders) who was a cracker segregationist comfortable around the likes of James Eastland, Richard Russell, Sam Ervin, and George Smathers.
Yet it was LBJ who found a way to pass the three Civil Rights bills that had composed the core of the demands of the civil rights movement and not his more liberal colleagues. It was also LBJ who realized by March of '68 that the country had turned against the Vietnam war and withdrew from the '68 election.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quoted James Russell Lowell in his speech in opposition the the Vietnam War:
(appologies are herewith proffered to all the God-haters and denyers on the forum)
Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
********************
This coming election is as much (if not more) about "we the people" as it is about the candidates we are forced to choose between.
Whooops, I thought I was on Commondreams, but it's "Destroy Obama's Credibility Week" on some rabid site I don't recognize.
Imperialism works really well for the imperialists, but it hasn't worked for anybody else. I applaud your honesty in defending a system that works for 5% of the worlds population while it destroys the rest. Well done.
"and draw the inevitable and logical conclusion that imperialism must be replaced by international communism"
Hasn't worked anywhere else in the world. But I salute you for being honest about your goals. Its getting rare.
Just adds proof to my point. The infighting we see is between two factions of the same party, the Corporate Party. They must create the illusion of a dichotomy to keep the people riled up and at each other. Taking Nader (or other 3rd party) seriously would mean that the duopoly would have to protect itself against being exposed. And that is why Nader gets no media attention. The media the attack dogs of the duopoly have been given their operating paradigm: protect the duopoly at all costs. The media, is after all, the fourth estate, that entity that knows we are intravenously attached to its daily dose of propaganda and manipulation. As time goes on, Dems with eyes open will see that Obama is but the latest incarnation of puppets doing the bidding of the empire. The dilemma will then be, do I vote for the same old criminality or do I really vote for something different. Obama is not different. His presentation is (somewhat). Run Ralph. Run!
"[Kaplan] suggests that Obama will become Iran's candidate"
With this suggestion, Robert Kaplan hopes to inflame fear and hatred of Iran in the US and direct it like a flamethrower at the Demok candidate. It's a productive tactic for the neocon fringe because hatred allows subjects to ignore six to eight decades of relentless US aggression against Iran for control of Middle East oil.
How to minimize the threat to innocent lives while promoting the political self-destruction of the neocon fringe?
It's Obama or bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Voting for a Democrat or a Republican is like getting a suppository shoved up your rear. The choice is whether you want a red suppository or a blue suppository, but either way, you're taking it up the tail.
Well, Obama and his Democrats are implicated. The Democrats voted to fund the war didn't they? In what way are the Democrats not implicated?. Democrats continue to fund the war don't they?
Although Obama pretends to be against the war anybody that is not mentally retarded can see this is pure crap because he voted to fund it. Read the fine print on his web site and you'll see the recipe for keeping many tens of thousands of troops there to continue the rape and plunder of Iraq.
What a stupid article. What's the point?
Screw the Democrats. Go Greens! Vote for Cynthia Mckinney!
Shame on me! That's twice today I was fooled by misleading headlines into thinking that some famous journalist had finally found the nerve to call our system what it was, and draw the inevitable and logical conclusion that imperialism must be replaced by international communism. Not that I expected a formula for getting there, even though that too is well known (build the party of global proletarian revolution!), but it would have been refreshing to at least see an intelligent analysis.
How do you get on the Board of Directors of CD, anyway? They do a good job of exposing some social crimes (curiously excepting the real source of 9/11...), but too often also do a good job of propping up an inherently rotten system by either remaining 'neutral' or posing reformed capitalist democracy as the way forward.
:'The basic Republican position is to straightforwardly declare: "War Forever! Victory!":
Been reading WWI history lately. Amazing how familiar that sounds. Just like the British and the French generals who kept launching their troops against the trenches and the machine guns and the artillery time after time. Forward to Victory was always the cry.
Gee, I love these phony little fake fights between groups that basically support the same policy.
Of course, the problem with the entire premise of the article is that it argues against a straw man. Obama has never promised to withdraw from Iraq. In fact he did just the opposite and promised we stay there through his first term. And, when he does talk about moving troops from Iraq, he only refers to Iraq as the 'wrong war' and says we instead should be fighting the 'right war' which is Afghanistan and into Pakistan
So, this is right-wing nonsense making up false statements about a Democrat who really is following almost the same policy as the Republicans except for some differences in time tables. This is the stuff our modern elections are made of. Loud, noisy arguments about nonsense that have nothing to do with the real policies of either candidate.
Let's see if Obama stands up against this imperialistic crap the way a true leader would. Or will he back down and bow to the masters?
I bet he'll dance to the tune of the Israeli gangsters.
Makes one wonder how Obama would have acted had he attained some power back in the days of slavery. "I pledge we will soon start winding down this questionable policy of indentured servitude", Obama would proclaim. But not too loudly mind you. Can't have folks thinkin' we were losing our economy to Africa!
Really, Obama is collecting the same useless retreads, hacks, and international criminals for his domestic and foreign policy advisors; it's gonna be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
RichM June 20th, 2008 1:39 pm -- 'The basic Republican position is to straightforwardly declare: "War Forever! Victory!" The basic Dem position is to duplicitously argue: "We must move towards a responsible winding-down of the conflict."'
Anyone who is familiar with the legend of Faust, the scholar who wished so much to impress Marguerite that he sold his soul to Mephistopheles to achieve the youthful good looks and charm to seduce her, will appreciate a letter from France written by Robert Thompson entitled A Modern Faust. In particular, Mr Thompson notes the interesting twist compared with the old legend is that Faust has a rival who has done exactly the same thing.
If the corporate media was serious about democracy the debate now would be between Nader and Obama. McCain would be marginalized as a man of limited intelligence, poor communication skills and a complete lack of ideas or gravitas. A man with an anger problem who clearly does not meet the minimum requirements to be taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States.
Instead the level of debate will be brought down until it is someplace even a man like McCain can interact.
And Nader, a man with ideas truly worthy of examination, will be ignored and frozen out of the debate.
campaign rhetoric...like the down of a thistle tossed about by a swirling breeze...completely and utterly removed from anything even remotely resembling substance...if you try to hang your hat on it, you'll be picking up your hat...
Who lost China in 1948/49? Nonsense, we did not own China. Who will lose Iraq (in the future)? Same nonsense, we do not own Iraq. It is that simple. Regrettably nearly all politicians that count seem to believe that the Iraqis "owe us something" and prate like colonial Vice-Roy's. Just yesterday the Democratic-led house passed legislation which demands that Iraq pay 50% of all costs for what the "Coalition of the Destroyers" destroyed or failed to protect. This is analogous to having demanded in 1918/19 that the Belgians pay 50% of the costs to repair what the Huns had destroyed in that country(such as the library in Leuven!). Unbelievable. With such "friends" who needs the Imperialist Right's as enemies? This criminal piece of legislation will now go to the Senate. Keep track of who will object (vote no) to this abomination. Clinton? Not on your sweet bippie. Obama? He, the master-coward of Washington will be "too busy running his election campaign" and be absent(my prediction).
...and the imperialist left (AKA "Cruise Missle Left" of Clinton, Albright, et.al) with Obama as there new leader will stand tall, beat their chest and say, "we'll show you how wrong you are!" They will then proceed to pursue the war with double the barbarity!
OK, so the Imperialist Right will try to blame Obama for "losing Iraq to Iran." That would be a dirty & dishonest trick -- but so what? Once you peel away the rhetorical embellishments, Obama's position on Iraq is only marginally different from McCain's. It's hard to get too worked up about the wrongful blaming of a slightly less horrible policy. Also -- though the Right will try to blame Obama for the Iraq debacle, they might not succeed.
The basic Republican position is to straightforwardly declare: "War Forever! Victory!"
The basic Dem position is to duplicitously argue: "We must move towards a responsible winding-down of the conflict." This sounds a bit better -- but in practice means almost exactly the same thing.