Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Published on Friday, December 5, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation
The New York Times is reporting about an "apparent evolution" in president-elect Barack Obama's thinking on Iraq, citing his recent statements about his plan to keep a "residual force" in the country and his pledge to "listen to the recommendations of my commanders" as Obama prepares to assume actual command of US forces. "At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps' letting out its collective breath," the Times reported. "[T]the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels."
The reality is there is no "evolution."
Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that the now-president-elect had a plan that boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. "combat forces" from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep "residual forces" in place for the foreseeable future.
It's an interesting choice of terms. "Residual" is defined as "the quantity left over at the end of a process." This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his "withdrawal" plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.
Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. "I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq." While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation. Most recently, The New York Times:
"On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to 'end the war' in Iraq," wrote reporter Thom Shanker on Thursday. "But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."
For many months it's been abundantly clear that Obama's Iraq plan is at odds with his campaign rhetoric. Yet, Shanker writes, "to date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come." The Times is actually right about this, in a literal sense. There has seldom, if ever, been a public peep about Obama's residual force plans for Iraq from members of his own party, including from those who describe themselves as "anti-war."
But, for those who have scrutinized Obama's plans and the statements of his advisors from the beginning, this is old news. Obama never defined "ending the war" as removing all U.S. forces from Iraq. Besides the counsel of his closest advisors — many of whom are pro-war hawks — Obama's Iraq plan is based on two primary sources: the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group" and the 2007 Iraq supplemental spending bill, which, at the time was portrayed as the Democrats' withdrawal plan. Both envisioned a sustained presence of U.S. forces for an undefined period following a "withdrawal."
In supporting the 2007 supplemental, Obama said it would put the U.S. "one signature away from ending the Iraq War." The bill would have redeployed U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days. But that legislation, vetoed by President Bush, would also have provided for 20,000 to 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq as "trainers," "counter-terrorist forces," or for "protection for embassy/diplomats," according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies. The bill contained no language about how many "private contractors" could remain in Iraq. This helped shed light on what Obama actually meant by "ending the Iraq War."
Other glaring clues to the actual nature of Obama's Iraq plan to anyone paying attention could be found in the public comments of his advisors, particularly on the size of the force Obama may leave in Iraq after his withdrawal is complete. Obama has refused to talk numbers, saying in October, "I have tried not to put a number on it." That has been the position of many of his loyal aides. "We have not put a number on that. It depends on the circumstances on the ground," said Susan Rice, Obama's nominee for UN ambassador, during the campaign. "It would be worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces."
But, Richard Danzig, President Clinton's former Navy Secretary who may soon follow Robert Gates as Obama's Defense Secretary, said during the campaign that the "residual force" could number as many as 55,000 troops. That doesn't include Blackwater and other mercenaries and private forces, which the Obama camp has declared the president-elect "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using. At present there are more "contractors" in Iraq than soldiers, which is all the more ominous when considering Obama's Iraq plan.
In April, it was revealed that the coordinator of Obama's Iraq working group, Colin Kahl, had authored a paper, titled "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," which recommended, "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)." Kahl tried to distance the views expressed in the paper from Obama's official campaign position, but they were and are consistent.
In March, Obama advisor Samantha Power let the cat out of the bag for some people when she described her candidate's 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. "combat" forces as a "best case scenario." Power said, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." (After that remark and referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton as a "monster," Power resigned from the campaign. Now that Obama is president-elect, Power's name has once again resurfaced as a member of his transitional team.)
The New York Times also raised the prospect that Obama could play semantics when defining his 16-month withdrawal plan, observing, "Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama's goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis."
Compare all of the above with a statement Obama made in July: "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."
Some may now accuse Obama of flip-flopping. The reality is that we need to understand what the words "end" "war" "residual" and "decisively" mean when we hear Obama say them.
The reality is there is no "evolution."
Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that the now-president-elect had a plan that boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. "combat forces" from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep "residual forces" in place for the foreseeable future.
It's an interesting choice of terms. "Residual" is defined as "the quantity left over at the end of a process." This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his "withdrawal" plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.
Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. "I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq." While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation. Most recently, The New York Times:
"On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to 'end the war' in Iraq," wrote reporter Thom Shanker on Thursday. "But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."
For many months it's been abundantly clear that Obama's Iraq plan is at odds with his campaign rhetoric. Yet, Shanker writes, "to date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come." The Times is actually right about this, in a literal sense. There has seldom, if ever, been a public peep about Obama's residual force plans for Iraq from members of his own party, including from those who describe themselves as "anti-war."
But, for those who have scrutinized Obama's plans and the statements of his advisors from the beginning, this is old news. Obama never defined "ending the war" as removing all U.S. forces from Iraq. Besides the counsel of his closest advisors — many of whom are pro-war hawks — Obama's Iraq plan is based on two primary sources: the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group" and the 2007 Iraq supplemental spending bill, which, at the time was portrayed as the Democrats' withdrawal plan. Both envisioned a sustained presence of U.S. forces for an undefined period following a "withdrawal."
In supporting the 2007 supplemental, Obama said it would put the U.S. "one signature away from ending the Iraq War." The bill would have redeployed U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days. But that legislation, vetoed by President Bush, would also have provided for 20,000 to 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq as "trainers," "counter-terrorist forces," or for "protection for embassy/diplomats," according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies. The bill contained no language about how many "private contractors" could remain in Iraq. This helped shed light on what Obama actually meant by "ending the Iraq War."
Other glaring clues to the actual nature of Obama's Iraq plan to anyone paying attention could be found in the public comments of his advisors, particularly on the size of the force Obama may leave in Iraq after his withdrawal is complete. Obama has refused to talk numbers, saying in October, "I have tried not to put a number on it." That has been the position of many of his loyal aides. "We have not put a number on that. It depends on the circumstances on the ground," said Susan Rice, Obama's nominee for UN ambassador, during the campaign. "It would be worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces."
But, Richard Danzig, President Clinton's former Navy Secretary who may soon follow Robert Gates as Obama's Defense Secretary, said during the campaign that the "residual force" could number as many as 55,000 troops. That doesn't include Blackwater and other mercenaries and private forces, which the Obama camp has declared the president-elect "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using. At present there are more "contractors" in Iraq than soldiers, which is all the more ominous when considering Obama's Iraq plan.
In April, it was revealed that the coordinator of Obama's Iraq working group, Colin Kahl, had authored a paper, titled "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," which recommended, "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)." Kahl tried to distance the views expressed in the paper from Obama's official campaign position, but they were and are consistent.
In March, Obama advisor Samantha Power let the cat out of the bag for some people when she described her candidate's 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. "combat" forces as a "best case scenario." Power said, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." (After that remark and referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton as a "monster," Power resigned from the campaign. Now that Obama is president-elect, Power's name has once again resurfaced as a member of his transitional team.)
The New York Times also raised the prospect that Obama could play semantics when defining his 16-month withdrawal plan, observing, "Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama's goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis."
Compare all of the above with a statement Obama made in July: "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."
Some may now accuse Obama of flip-flopping. The reality is that we need to understand what the words "end" "war" "residual" and "decisively" mean when we hear Obama say them.
104 Comments so far
Show AllObama doesn't plan to end U.S. imperialism.
AP
Riots in 2 Greek cities after teen killed
*
Buzz Up
* Send
o Email
o IM
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o del.icio.us
o Reddit
o StumbleUpon
o Technorati
o Yahoo! Bookmarks
* Print
By ELENA BECATOROS, Associated Press Writer Elena Becatoros, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 7 mins ago
Greeks take stock of riot damage Play Video Reuters – Greeks take stock of riot damage
* Police shooting sparks riots in Greece Slideshow: Police shooting sparks riots in Greece
* Greek youths riot after police shoot teen Play Video Video: Greek youths riot after police shoot teen AP
A man covers his face from tear gas as a Ford dealership burns during clashes in AP – A man covers his face from tear gas as a Ford dealership burns during clashes in central Athens on Sunday, …
ATHENS, Greece – Hundreds of youths angered by the fatal police shooting of a teenager rampaged through Greece's two largest cities for a second day Sunday in some of the worst rioting the country has seen in years.
Gangs smashed stores, torched cars and erected burning barricades in the streets of Athens and Thessaloniki. Riot police clashed with groups of mostly self-styled anarchists throwing Molotov cocktails, rocks and bottles. Clouds of tear gas hung in the air, sending passers-by scurrying for cover.
Rioting in several cities, including Hania in Crete and cities in northern Greece, began within hours of the death Saturday night of a 15-year-old shot by police in Exarchia. The downtown Athens district of bars, music clubs and restaurants is seen as the anarchists' home base.
Soon stores, banks and cars were ablaze.
The rioting was some of the most severe Greece has seen in years. The last time a teenager was killed in a police shooting — during a demonstration in 1985 — it sparked weeks of rioting. In 1999, a visit to Greece by then U.S. President Bill Clinton sparked violent demonstrations in Athens that left stores smashed and burned.
The two officers involved in Saturday's shooting have been arrested and charged, one with premeditated manslaughter and the illegal use of a weapon, and the other as an accomplice. They are to appear before a court Wednesday. They and the Exarchia precinct police chief have been suspended.
Interior Minister Prokopis Pavlopoulos, whose offer to resign was rejected Sunday, has promised a thorough investigation.
"It is inconceivable for there not to be punishment when a person loses their life, particularly when it is a child," he said. "The taking of life is something that is not excusable in a democracy."
Police said the two officers involved claimed they were attacked by a group of youths and, when they confronted the youths, one fired three shots and the other threw a stun grenade.
Violence broke out again Sunday afternoon in Athens and Thessaloniki during demonstrations to protest the shooting. "Cops, pigs, murderers," protesters chanted.
Police said 24 policemen were injured in Athens in overnight riots that started Saturday, and another 13 on Sunday, while seven people were arrested and another 15 were detained.
As night fell, groups of youths, some masked and others wearing motorcycle helmets, set trash cans alight and overturned cars to erect burning barricades on streets around the Athens Polytechnic — which, like all universities, is protected by law from police intrusion. Some could be seen walking on the roof of the Polytechnic, taunting police.
Violence in the capital began to die down late Sunday, after several hours of running battles between police and rioters. In Thessaloniki, a large fire could be seen burning at the city's university.
A blurry video shot by a bystander that purportedly shows the shooting Saturday has been aired on Greek television and posted on the Internet. Two sounds that could be gunshots can be heard, but the image is too blurry and distant to show the events clearly.
Greece has seen frequent and sometimes violent demonstrations recently against the increasingly unpopular conservative government of Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis. The opposition Socialists are now consistently ahead in opinion polls.
Dozens of stores in central Athens went up in flames or saw their storefronts smashed. At least two buildings were destroyed by fire, as was a Ford car dealership. Streets were littered with chunks of paving stones and rocks thrown at riot police, as well as shattered glass from storefronts and banks.
"I understand the anger and the right to demonstrate it," Pavlopoulos said Sunday night. "What is inconceivable is the raw violence that undermines social peace and turns against the property of innocent people."
Violence often breaks out between riot police and anarchists during demonstrations in Greece. Anarchist groups are also blamed for late-night firebombings of targets such as banks and diplomatic vehicles.
The self-styled anarchist movement partly has its roots in the resistance to Greece's 1967-74 military dictatorship. The youths tend to espouse general anti-capitalist and antiestablishment principles, and have long-running animosity toward the police.
____
Associated Press writers Costas Kantouris in Thessaloniki and Dimitris Nellas in Athens contributed to this report.
Do not feel snookered. This election was never a referendum on the occupation. The anti-war vote tallied at less than 1%. As a leader of a corporate sponsored party which won its election after partnering with the republicans to dutifully and reliably fund that war, Obama has no mandate to withdraw from Iraq. If you didn't vote for a peace candidate, don't expect peace.
This is hilarious! We who warned repeatedly about this guy talking out the side of his face during the campaign have so far been proven correct. All of this drivel about "let him define himself" is rididculous. He was supposed to be defining himself DURING the campaign.... That's why people should have voted for him. Now he is proving to be more of a status quo politician. This is great. If you want real change, a third party candidate is the only way.
RON PAUL. Read about him, listen to him, he's been proven to be correct in most of his assessments..time and time again. He's as "qualified" as any one of the idoits who have run for president in quite some time.
We are on a collision course with history. Demise, turmoil, economic crisis, civil strife. But lot's of ammo.
I agree totally, Ron Paul has done a great job in correctly analyzing and assessing the issues. It's his solutions that sometimes give me the willies.
What reason does Obomber give to increase troops in Afghanistan? The people in that country are tired of war and want the U.S. troops O-U-T. The al-Qaida training camp was bombed to smithereens years ago. There is no al-Qaida. "al-Qaida" is just a fantasy boogeyman to keep the sheeple fearful, under control, and rooting for continuous war.
Obama will serve Empire and its full spectrum dominance.
Obama is hopeless -- a hopeless case of demagogy.
Also ... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a war that's killed over a million people (see the following "Million Iraqis Dead Since Invasion: Study" http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2151041.htm ) ... isn't a war that's killed over a million people a tad bite more of a *terrorist* act than what happened on 9/11 and what happened recently in Mumbai???
And, no, "Oh, we didn't mean to kill all those hundres of thousands of people" is *not* an excuse.
And this is the War Obama wants to continue.
Forgive me, I shouldn't be so cynical, but I am mad as hell. STUPID! STUPID SUCKERS!!!!! P.T. Barnum is laughing in his grave. "Con Man Obama" and the con-man Democratic Party he belongs to have betrayed the peace movement AGAIN! AGAIN!!!!!!
-- Remmeber 2002 -- when the Democratic Party told the electorate that the Congressional elections that year would not be about whether to invade Iraq or not. That those Elections would be about "other issues," not Iraq. This despite the fact that millions of people the world over took to the streets to try to stop the War from happening. (But then again what do the democratic-many have to do with the Democratic Party?)
Remember 2004 -- and peace cnadidate Howard Dean. Now safely "bought off" by the Democratic Party.
Remember 2006 -- when millions of Republicans and millions of people who never voted in their lives voted Democratic so that the Democrats would end the War. ... How's that goin', suckers?
Remember 2008 -- when during the primaries Obama passed himself off as a "peace candidate.
That's *four* betrayals of the antiwar movement in *six* years.
And who's responsible for that if not the people who kept insisting that voting for the lesser of the two evils is our only option?
You chose your evil and now he's simply doing what he said all along he would do -- increase the violence in the Middle East, increase the Pentagon budget, bailout the thieves and incompetents on Wall Street. ... That's what you vote for Obama represents. And the truth is ... that's a lot of blood on the hands of the soft-left.
Now go rationalize that away.
You are blaming Obama for increasing the violence in the Middle East, increasing the Pentagon budget and the Wall Street bailout when the man hasn't even been sworn in as President yet. Did you forget already that Bush is still President? All that mess happened on his watch.
Put the blame where it rightly belongs. On the outgoing administration and their eight years of mismanagement.
Nixon was not responsible for Johnson's Vietnam war, and won his election with the same fuzzy promises to extricate the US from the war. Technically he kept his promise, after thousands more dead bodies and the destruction of Cambodia. It is reasonable to worry whether Obama has the will or the means to reverse the momentum of this historic mistake.
Of course Barack Obama isn't going to end the war in Iraq!
He made that quite clear AFTER he won the nomination from Hillary Clinton -- lurching to the right on a number of domestic as well as international issues.
Still, the soft left -- that is to say, the moveon.org crowd and The Nation magazine crowd, and the DPAers (the Democratic Party Apologists) -- were just oh soooo happy to have ABB (Anybody But Bush) in the White House that they sold out, lock, stock and barrel to "Savior Obama."
Obama's post-primary lurch to the right -- *applauded* as it was by the WSJ editorial board -- was quickly and totally ignored by the soft-left. ... After all, why dwell on reality? Why dwell on the unpleasantness of a "peace candidate" who in reality is anything BUT a peace candidate?
That Bush, McCain and Obama all agree that the Pentagon budget should be increased -- hey, at least one of the three isn't Bush or McCain. Right?
Look at Obama's appointments so far. They're hardly the choices of a progressive. In fact, quite the contrary.
Take, for example, Paul Volcker -- see the following "Who is Paul Volcker? Obama appoints a longtime enemy of the working class." -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/volc-n29.shtml
Nothing fundamental is going to change in the United States unless and until a viable thrid party movement is established. A party that will challenge the Democratic-Republican duopoly.
The Democratic Party has historically served as a "safety valve" when social turmoil threatens to get out of hand and challenge the status quo, i.e., challenge the economic privileges of the oligarchic-few.
Obama supports two wars in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) and is willing to go to war in two other countries (Pakistan and Iran) -- with the use of nuclear weapons as a military option.
Ecco Liberal! Behold the "liberal" you've elected!
Barack Obama and his crew are no doubt pretty busy nowadays, taking down all those "CHANGE" signs and replacing them with "AUSTERITY" signs.
Then again, isn't it much easier on the ruling elite if *Obama* delivers the bad news instead of, say, McCain or Bush?
The bad news being that those in power ain't giving up ANYTHING unless and until that power is taken from them. And the only peaceful way that power will be taken away from them is for the democratic-many to get wise to the fact that the Democratic-Republican duopoly DOESN'T represent them. Far from it.
Meanwhile, Obama fiddles whiile the rich he so ably serves, protects and defends continue to prosper ... as Ralph Nader puts it, "on the backs of the masses."
Tsk-tsk, wsws.org-- you're making people's brains hurt, and harshing their buzz.
· Yr Obd't Servant
WSWS: Obama isn't even president yet, you dolt. We Libs had to put up with your incompentent sociopath for eight years. At least give this man a chance ONCE HE IS FINALLY SWORN IN!
BTW: Did you catch what was on Bush's agenda on Wednesday: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Please quit polluting this site with your sour-grapes drivel. Thank you.
P.S. While I was raking leaves I got a set of ideas for Iraq.
1. With respect to the funding of "repair", ask all member of the "coalition of the willing" to contribute in proportion to the total number of soldiers each has sent to Iraq.
2. Ask the ruler of Dubai to be the CEO of an international organization of repair teams". The organization must, of course, be acceptable to the Iraqis. Do not get the dysfunctional UN involved under any circumstance.
3. Do not attempt to distinguish between destruction caused by the "coalition of the willing" and by Iraqi bombers because that will result in endless haggling who did what.
4. A "Marshall-type" plan for Iraq may actually help stabilize the region which is in our interest and the interest of Iran.
Dr. Kissinger supporting Obama's national security people, should be the kiss of death to all Obama supporters!
I understood what was being said.... really don't understand the confusion. Nothing can right the wrong of the Bush administration.
It is all damage control at this point. Obama will stand-down in Iraq, pretty mch at the legitimate insistance of the Iraqi government. It will take awhile to do that. Redeploying 100-150,000 troops will not happen overnight, and reversing the Bush administration preparations for permanent presence and domination will take awhile to reverse. There is also now the largest American Embassy in the world located in Iraq. I'm curious how that will translate for the State Department in the next 10 years.
Also, be clear that Afghanistan is still part of the military equation. I really didn't see much ambiguity between the "rhetoric" and all else that was revealed even during the campaign.
The third paragraph of the article begins, "Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric..."
What's the matter with you, Jeremy? Didn't you know we weren't supposed to do that? It makes the Obamamtons mad when you question his intent. Just be quiet, get happy, and get ready to feel the "change".
With regards to Iraq I am in a quandary, albeit one that Obama apparently does not share. Many analysts have concluded that the invasion of the country was illegal under the rules of international conventions. Nevertheless, it was done and much of Iraq has been devastated.
Notice the fundamental difference with the Marshall aid to Germany after WW2. Germany (Hitler) had declared war on us, not the other way around.
Is it not the absolute obligation of the destroyer to repair what he has destroyed? I think that the answer is an unequivocal yes.
My quandary is that I have no idea of how that can be done by the United States in a country where the population wants us out. At the very least all US military must be removed but then all "repair teams" are at risk. The "repair" of Iraq will not only cost billions if not trillions of our dollars, it requires the insight of the American people that this is an obligation and the will to carry it out somehow. From the overwhelming majority of the commentaries, including Scahill's, I conclude that neither understanding nor the will exist.
Great I see a lot disapointed dems in the future. The kind that stay home on election day. Still, If we still have troops in Iraq by 2012 then it's a good chance the repugs will retake the senate and make some serious gains in the house. That is if our ecconomy doesn't tank first. That is unless a lot of dems start putting Obama's feet to the fire-if only for self-presevation purposes. And I mean right now.
I'll bet all in that U.S. troops will be in Iraq in 2012.
The U.S. will not leave for another 50 years, at least.
It's American history. In every war that was won over the past 100+ years, America still has a presence on that territory. Examples, Cuba, Germany, Japan, Korea, Panama.
Let's get real.
Only a fool thinks Obama is the savior of the world. He is a politician, after all, with all the ambiguity that description implies.
A third party candidate will not be elected. Period.
And Obama was light years more acceptable than the Dada or Absurdist Republican ticket this year.
They'll be plenty of time to feel betrayed, if you like, but his time in office had not yet even begun.
"Only a fool thinks Obama is the savior of the world."
You are correct. Tens-of-millions of fools think Obama is the savior of the world.
I scanned the comments, and every one critiqued Obama. Did you all vote against him? He was our best hope in a bleak time. He has yet to define himself. But he is well condemned here. No he's no revolutionary. But he is the best man to sit on the throne in eons. It is fun-for some-to criticize forever. They have done it for lifetimes. But to pull Obama to the left we need to 'mobilize' not 'critisize.' Mobilize for the right to criticize. But no. Like Nader supporters in the last two cycles, there was no organizing until a few months before the election when Ralph got wheeled on stage again. That is not a third party candidate, this only split progressives. You define a candidate as one who prepares to run. Who mobilzes and organizes.
"Did you all vote against him?"
I did.
"He has yet to define himself."
Maybe so, but the people he is picking for his cabinet are defining the direction this country will be going and a lot of us are a bit nervous about it. many of his choices have played key roles in getting this country in its current mess. It's as if he is hiring pyromaniacs to man the firehouse.
"He has yet to define himself." Throne? What is he, a f**king king?
"...this only split progressives."
Nader didn't split me or my vote. He EARNED my support by addressing issues the Democrats were too spineless and cowardly and corrupt to take on.
His cabinet will take orders from him. Not themselves. But I agree 100% his picks are only centrist because the center is so far to the right. The man who earned your vote did address every worthy issue under the sun. But he did nothing to effect change, ie become electable. I hope a 3rd party candidate who organizes in between election cycles emerges. This person could help pull debates and actions in a progressive direction. Respectfully, azjoe.
But he did nothing to effect change, ie become electable.
He ran didn't he, that's all it should take to be electable. His only problem was to many people bought into the notion that he wasn't electable and voted instead for the lessor of two evils. Nobody worth voting for can win with that kind of stupidity running amok.
Rickster
I told you so.
How many of you argued against me when I said, “Do not vote for either Obama or McCain”? How many called me a fool, naïve, even an idiot?
Just don’t forget this four years from now.
DO YOU HEAR ME????
ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION???
Don’t vote for a main party candidate four years from now.
Admit it. You were wrong. You were naïve. You were duped. You were bamboozled.
Admit it. It is very STUPID to vote for a main party canditate. Only SUCKERS vote for main party candidates. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is. It doesn’t matter what the issues are. It doesn’t matter what century. It doesn’t matter what war. It doesn’t matter what the state of the economy. IT IS VERY STUPID TO VOTE FOR A MAIN PARTY CANDIDATE.
Over the course of the last three weeks you have seen proof every day that what I am telling you is true. Over the course of the next four years you will see time and time again, every month, every week, every single day, see further proof. Will you ever learn that you MUST NEVER, NEVER AGAIN VOTE FOR A MAIN PARTY CANDIDATE?
What depresses me the most is how most people, when they finally conclude that both main party candidates are unacceptable, decide that it is better to not vote at all rather than vote for a third party or independent candidate. American voters are truly the most profoundly stupid people on earth.
You're right. Please post this before the next election to remind us. I voted for Obomber because I didn't want to see McCain win....a negative thing to do.
It is obvious that you are frustrated. But it does absolutely no good to vent frustration by calling your only potential allies profoundly stupid, suckers etc.
It would be stupid to vote for LOTE if there were real alternatives, but there were not. The groundwork had not been laid and popular support was lacking. Your arguments would be more convincing if the alternate candidacies were more than abortive empty gestures. We need to build STRONG UNITED alternative electoral parties or movements that can make inroads. I hope Nader, McKinney, Greens, Working Families, eco groups, peace groups, unions, housing rights groups etc. will collaborate to stake out districts where we / they can challenge the incumbents, preferably focusing on the worst ones.
Joe
Sorry, but you are dead wrong. Unfortunately you are in the majority and as a result our criminal plutocracy continues unabated. Even in times like these when the evidence of a great swindle is so obvious, no one sees it. I see little hope for this county.
You are wrong because there were choices. Nader and McKinney supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other social policies that our country is in desperate of.
No, you do not need to build a UNITED FRONT. Who tells you that this is needed? Indeed, what is a UNITED FRONT anyway? Isn’t that just a fancy name for more collusion between criminals? Isn’t it just a CRIMINAL FRONT? Isn’t that what you really want? Go on. Admit it. You won’t be satisfied with any candidate unless they are a loyal slave of a party that has a proven criminal record of human rights abuse, a party that is nothing more than an extension of the Military Industrial Complex.
In a real democracy each candidate is elected on their own merit, not because they are loyal to a corrupt party. End of story.
But Americans don’t want that. The perfect proof is that Cindy Sheehan lost in her attempt to unseat Nancy Pelosi. That is proof that most Americans want the unjustified invasions and torture to continue.
Even a person with a single digit IQ can see the stupidity of how Americans vote. They continually hand over the power of their government to people with proven criminal records. I myself am not a very smart person. Indeed, I probably do have a single digit IQ. And even I can see the stupidity of America’s voting record as easily as I can see the hand in front of my face.
You do however raise a good point. Perhaps there is nothing to be gained by venting about it. Everyone here is so indoctrinated with American bigotry that they are incapable of seeing the obvious, even when they are smacked in the face with it. I'm just wasting my time.
Well, just think of your voting record when you or your kid gets killed in America’s next unjustified war for corporate power and profit.
I said nothing about a united front of criminals. I was talking about a united front of the people you support and other independents and activists. I see one of the problems on the left is extreme egotism that does not allow a pooling of efforts and the tiny tiny bit of comprimise with each other that could lead to more success. Shrillness, splintering and egotism guarantees that progressive candidates will continue to get sub 1% votes. Right now they run hapless campaigns. The people actually agree with many progressive ideas. They just do not see serious contenders. A skillful campaign illustrates ability.
Joe
Well, I have nothing against a concerted effort if it is well directed. But it seems to me that requiring such collusion between various politicians before an election by having them declare loyalty to a political party should not be a criteria. If everyone is elected on what policy positions they personally believe in, then no advanced collusion is necessary. Assuming that a particular policy position is desired by most average people, then most candidates who get elected will support that policy position. It works out automatically. If average people disagree, then so will their elected politicians, which is as it should be. But it is my experience in the history of my country that any advanced collusion by declaring loyalty to a party has always had criminal consequences.
If Nader, McKinney, or even someone like Cindy Sheenan had been elected president, and I am not so foolish that I think they had a chance considering the sentiment of average voters against independent and third party candidates, it would have been a great benefit to the country even if the entire Congress and Senate opposed them. Such candidates would force the issue of preemptive war to the forefront. That single effect would be a great benefit to our country, even if the issue was not resolved in a single term and even if the government accomplished nothing else during that time.
America’s criminal behavior at home and around the world is in my opinion its most pressing issue. It is an issue that if allowed to continue in its current path will force us into a global war as the rest of the world legitimately uses military action against us, just as we did to Germany in WWII. What will happen to us is exactly what happened to Germany, and when it happens it will be at a human cost that is beyond comprehension.
You are correct in realizing my frustration and in accusing me of venting, which you are probably correct in saying I should not do. The real depressing thing is not that third party and independents did not win, but that they lost ground. Obama’s election did more than fool the average American into thinking it represented change. It did great damage to the chances for future third party and independent candidates. In four years most Americans will think, “Well, we gave Obama a chance, and that didn’t work. So I guess we should all vote republican again. After all, it’s been proven that voting for an independent is a wasted vote.”
But if at least Nader, McKinney had gained a bit of ground there would be better chance of success in future elections. People might out of frustration be more willing to cast a vote for a candidate that the media has rated as a lost cause.
This election has been a great success for the Military Industrial Complex and plutocracy. They not only bamboozled (Obama’s vocabulary) everyone into thinking that they achieved change, they almost obliterated the chances of future third party and independent candidates.
I honestly do not feel there will ever be a united front of progressives. To wait for the evolution of such forces is naïve. I believe that the only way change will happen is when average Americans start to vote for progressive candidates based on the issues, not based on party affiliation. This idea that each candidate must be a member of some powerful team or party in order to “get things done” before being considered is foolish. The concept isn’t even democratic. Most democratic countries don’t vote in that manner, as shown by the fact that they have many more parties and a higher relative amount of independent representation.
I say that if you are to learn anything from this election, it is to forget about an ORGANIZED FRONT in any form. Just vote for one of the names on the ballot based on the issues. If most Americans had done that in the last election, it would have been a close race between McKinney and Nader. After all, most people actually disagree with the policies of both main parties. That’s why they have learned to disguise their policies so well behind slick rhetoric. Essentially they have learned to lie their way into power. You speak about a skillful campaign? You are correct, and they have the advantage of money provided by the Military Industrial Complex. But they are campaigns of lies, and until the public starts to ignore the campaigns of the main parties and pay attention to real issues, nothing will change. No UNITED FRONT is needed. Just thousands of free thinking citizens putting a tick mark next to the best box on the ballot.
Hi - I used to think that if people just understood something it would be enough. Best example when I was a child in the 50's is "if only white people understood that black people are just like them, they wouldn't act like that." It is not enough to understand, although that is a good step. Understanding alone does not change institutions. Random marks on ballots will remain just that, random. People have to have some sense that they are not throwing away their vote.
You need organization and ways to put the understanding to practical use. Nothing has ever changed and nothing will ever change without organization. If you can think of a progressive change that ever happened out of pure enlightenment without struggle and organization, I would like to hear about it.
Joe
A good example of politics working for the benefit of the public is the independence of Canada from Great Britain, which happened in 1867. It happened entirely within the parliamentary system. Unlike the American War of Independence, there was no war. There was not the loss of a single life. It happened as a result of politicians doing their jobs representing the best interests of their constituents. Another example was the adoption of the health care system in Canada. Canada is only one western decemocratic nation that I happen to know about because I lived there for a while as an American. Indeed, I lived there during the time when the health care system was adopted. Leading up to it being finally passed in the House of Commons, there was a massive propaganda effort financed by American lobbying groups who feared the consequences of it being adopted. However, their fears were based on greed, not the benefit of the general population. After it was passed, even though I was an American, I never had to fear losing my home because I got sick. I also witnessed the best health care system I ever saw. Here in America, my HMO is more interested in making a profit by denying me the health care that I pay for. In America, even though I have health care coverage, I live under the constant fear of losing my home if I get sick. That's because the ORGANIZED FRONT responsible for the creation of the HMO system in America was a corrupt bunch of lobbyists motivated by greed. How do you explain the evolution of these social movements in Canada and many other western democratic nations without the kinds of so called ORGANIZED FRONTS that American are always claiming are needed to bring them about?
In America an ORGANIZED FRONT is based on the princple, "You help me cheat and I'll help you cheat. Together we will milk the general public who are too stupid to realize what is happening." In America an ORGANIZED FRONT is based on the principle, "You let me murder this person or invade that country, and I'll let you murder and invade these other ones." Nowhere in the American physche is the concept of doing something because it better represents and benefits the people. That's because America is a country whose very culture is built on crime, crimes like slavery and genocide, genocide that is beyond anything the world has ever seen, genocide that is celebrated every year on Columbus Day as the day we discovered America, despite the fact that people had been living here already for 30,000 years or more, genocide that most Americans never give a passing thought to. Try reading the book, "American Holocaust" by David Stannard.
One last thing about health care, although you are told differently here in America, if you asked for a vote in Canada on the existing health care system, you would get overwhelming support to keep it as is. Indeed, the Minister of Parliament who is responsible for the birth of the health care bill that made it all possible is generally regarded with the highest honor. Although I am an American by birth, I can't think of a single American in all of its history who I regard with more respect. Unfortunately in America we have too many ORGANIZED FRONTS who lobby the government to maintain a health care system based on denying care for profit.
Don't get me wrong about Canada, Australia, France, ... These countries have plenty of corruption also. However, due to the voting history of ordinary citizens for candidates based on issues, some honest things do get done, otherwise politicians know that they will be soon out of office. In America the only thing that gets done is endless war for coroporate profit. Why? Because you keep voting for it.
What I cannot figure out, is Americans do have the right to vote for anyone who represents their best interests. But they have been indoctrinated starting with their early school system that not complying with the two-party system will create deadlock and nothing will get done. They fear that unless you support the two-party system great harm will come upon the country. We may lose our rights and freedoms. They've obviously convinced you, as evidenced by your posts. Why didn't you vote for Nader? What? You're afraid to vote for someone unless you are assured that everyone else will also? Why do they call America the land of the brave when everyone is afraid to vote based on issues, EVEN WITH A SECRET BALLOT???? If everyone would simply think for themselves and vote for the best candidate based on the issues, most current American politicians, including Obama, would not survive a single election, and the thing that we all want would eventually get done. But it never happens because you have been indoctrinated to not think, just vote as you are told. What a pitiful country we are. Ignorance supports madness and I see no end until the ultimate nuclear war that we are forcing the world to wage against us for the crimes we continue to commit world wide.
When I supported third party candidates I was told I was wasting my vote and was really voting for McCain. What a crock! All you Obama voters ended up with McSame and I hate to say I told you so, but that is the way it is. If you fell for the con, you may want to get behind real change candidates.
My projection now is that the Obama presidency is going to go down as a complete disaster. His smooth talk is going to run head-on into the reality of a crumbling empire that his cohorts desperately want to help him save, but that can't be saved.
I am personally fed up with these smooth kind of sharks and will enjoy his and the others' comeuppance -- not one wrought by any human hands but by nature itself.
Why so many "liberals" were so willing to put on their blinders and support him despite the many signs that he was not going to champion their causes is a total mystery to me. I can't tell you the abuse I suffered from an Obama supporter in my family who considered me a total traitor because I voted my conscience for a third-party candidate. Yet the reports keep coming in that make it clear why voting for him was another case of the "left" once again allowing themselves to be duped.
What a joke, and what a bunch of idiots, all over again, and again.
I can't believe it. This linguistic hair-splitting went over my head, and I feel like I've been fooled. When I heard him say "U.S. combat forces" would be entirely removed, what I heard was "U.S. forces would be entirely removed." I thought he said he wanted to "end the occupation"--didn't he? If I, as a news junkie, didn't realize this until reading Jeremy's article, does the U.S. public realize it?
That's very forthright of you. I'd like to be in touch. I tried to warn people about it -- as did Jeremy and Josh Holland:
http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1684&type=&searchterms=combat%20troops
It's sad that the folks at commondreams rarely shared such information with their readers before the election. I'm samhusseini at g mail dotcom
There were other similar bs, like on healthcare, see my
"Obama Said Healthcare is a Right, Right?"
http://husseini.org/2008/10/obama-said-healthcare-is-a-rig-1.html
Sam
I repeat: OBAMA IS THE MASTER OF CASUISTRY!
Indeed.
· Yr Obd't Servant
It was actually easy to see through the lie. Just think, the American embassy in Baghdad is the most expensive and the most fortified ever built. Does that look like America intends to ever take the troops out of Iraq? Of course not, at least not until they are forced to, which may very well eventually happen if we continue with our current bully behavior.
As long as the American government consists of main party candidates who are slaves of the Military Industrial Complex and plutocracy who run this country, it will not change. As long as the American government consists of main party candidates America will continue down the road of invasion, torture, and criminal disregard for human rights.
The only way to get the troops out of Iraq is four years from now VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE.
Politicians lie and turn on the charm full blast in order to win.....duh. It's amazing people still fall for it. I think people were just so happy to get rid of the Chimp, so they were elated when Obomber won plus the fact that he is "black."
As long as the ignorant American Joe and Jane blow are warped up in their over-pooped consumerist ways, why should Obama listen ? Until we quit the guzzling, we'll be too dumb and lazy to even try ending the occupation. Sorry folks but we're nowhere close to the Great Depression. Even if Obama had planned to end the occupation, what about Congress? Are they going to help him out? What about the Military Elite? It'll be a long ride in hell before we get close. We'll be done when we suck all the oil wells dry in Iraq unfortunately.
> Sorry folks but we're nowhere close to the Great Depression.
Wait a year.
Sanskrit linguistic experts have revealed evidence that the chant "Yes We Can" has roots in a secret hypnotic formula used by ancient Aryan kings.
The exact meaning has yet to be deciphered but it appears that the kings were able to lull the unsuspecting into a deep hypnotic slumber wherein the lies of the rulers appeared as truth and their broken promises forgotten. A false sense of reassurance was instilled within those that chanted, sending them into silent complacency for many years.
snydly
It's still early in the Obama Presidency.
Excellent again Mr. Scahill.
Once again the progressive left has bought into their own wishful projections facilitated by savvy Democrat hawks that use the word ‘progressive’ to split the real progressive left which is subsequently rendered unheard, ignored, by its own repeated naïveté and lack of ability to hear what is actually being said quite clearly.
That Obama used the words ‘hope’ and ‘change’ so repeatedly should have been the clue that his was a kind of cheap PR subliminal hypnotism employed to de-fang and disembowel the left and deliver the portion that supported him (and really, the only progressives allowed to have a forum during the gross spectacle of the election season) into a state of speechlessness once he was elected and had no qualms about proceeding without their input. They have been silenced into deadly compromise. That the pro-Obama left are confused and unlikely to admit that they have once more been relieved of any potential for a voice works very well for the "we will obliterate them" status quo.
This is a difficult quandary for the left: how to have hope, but how to remain a force to be reckoned with in the mainstream. The warmonger, oil-eater, super-destructo capitalists, with the help of the easy-to-dupe remnants of the overly hopeful progressive mainstream, have easily maneuvered themselves into the next stage of a procession of Imperialist global resource thieves who, since Reagan, have foreseen the dwindling of global supplies of the finite amount of essential natural resources and are scrambling to be able to keep their class level of consumption at its current rate, no matter what the human cost, no matter how many evil excuses must be fabricated to rationalize disinheriting whole races, nations and communities of their birthright as described by the founders of the United States itself...
Difficult quandary? It's not difficult at all for the REAL left. The REAL left simply shifts all of its exchange/association away from the elite establishment and toward the local communities. This is the answer. This solves the problem for the individual. Maybe a federal government that serves the people's interests is icing on the cake but the cake itself is our individual self-emancipation from the elite establishment. It's not difficult at all when you give up the triangulation racket. Try giving it up.
Perhaps the difficult part will be when the work in local communities will be to figure out how to feed the increasing numbers of homeless and sick. Food banks in my little burg are already running out of food...
By the way... I am curious... How does one become a member of the REAL left? Are there membership fees and annual dues? Is there a pledge? I find this kind of claim to sole proprietorship of the authentic "left' as disingenuous as Obama's expenditures on posters that say "Change" and "Hope"... and most community groups on the left that I have any familiarity with have the same dictatorial control urges in their leadership structures as any mainstream group, i.e.: they essentially think the same way that the CEOs of GM and Lehman Brothers do.
People choose different ways to express their political action. The left still struggles with its own diversity of opinion and action and wastes time and resources staking out turf, each “real left” group working hardest to establish themselves as the "authentic" voice of the left. This is exactly the attitude that fractures any real effectiveness of any action and is completely exploitable by the PR driven, wealth obsessed, icons of the mainstream military-industrial complex. Some breakthroughs away from this kind of thinking have occurred, in actions like the WTO revolt in Seattle, but generally, and unfortunately, they occur as an impulse rather than as a plan... and at the next gathering, ostensibly devised to build on the successes of the last, the main agenda always appears to be who gets to speak and which wealthy celebrity can be stuck up at the podium for a photo op, while the "real" agenda takes second place to arguments over who gets to stand next to them on the stage, and the frustrations and exclusions of more strident voices and action when (surprise surprise) the permits to gather are denied.
Do I exaggerate?... perhaps, but this formulation replicates itself in community actions large and small across the country in one way or another.
So I burn my membership card to the "real" left for now until its dictators and perennial academic talkers and celebrities get uncomfortable enough to get serious.
I also feel betrayed by Obama....
I started my suspicions when I saw him go to the Israeli Lobby and PAC, later when I saw him kissing the Israeli 'crying wall', and worse yet, when I saw him signing the appropriations to continue funding the invasion of Iraq.
Then I saw him and heard him saying we were going to pull the 'combat troops' from Iraq, but wait ! ....just to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Worse yet, when I saw him signing the 700+ Billion dollar package or welfare for the rich.
The ultimate clue to the betrayal is when he formed a cabinet full of HAWKS !
Now I don't believe any of his promises..... like all politicians, he appears to be in the pocket of the people that pull the strings from the top.
Did you see Obama signing all this legislation the same way that Mitt Romney saw his daddy march with MLK ??
Ignacio may be inaccurate in describing Obama as having "signed" the legislation and policies referenced in his comment, but had he written "signed off on", i.e. affirmed and supported, his point is entirely accurate.
Can anyone seriously dispute that Obama has assiduously embraced the Israeli government, supported funding for Iraq-related military expenditures, expressed an unequivocal saber-rattling intention to prosecute the "good war" in Afghanistan, personally lobbied in support of the Wall Street Bailout, and filled his cabinet with Clintonista hawks, including Hillary "I want the Iranians to know that...we would be able to totally obliterate them" Clinton as Secretary of State?
It's weak and disingenuous to disparage Ignacio's essentially correct characterization by equating it with Mitt Romney's patent fantasies.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The american public does not have the stomach to end this illegal occupation and they have proved it by electing Obama.
It's looking more and more like we bought a pig in a poke--with lipstick.
Alex
Anti-war activities are needed more than ever. We will have a canny pragmatist in office instead of a delusional sociopathic puppet. Obama is tuned into reality, which is a plus, but not enough. Right now it is easier for Obama to go along with the powers that be. We should make it a lot more difficult on the issue of ending the invasions, finding peace through diplomacy and tackling the related economic, energy and environmental issues.
Joe
It's Mr. Obama's war/occupation, now.
He has taken over the criminal enterprise, and intends to run it more efficiently than Mr. Bush.
"New boss just like the old boss."
It's Mr. Obama's war crimes, now.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
I have been thinking the US will abandon Camp Bondsteel before the US leaves Iraq. Now, I'm wondering which will the US leave first? Korea or Iraq?
Urthona is what I'm talking about: the lesser-of-two-evils type American. "Well, things could be worse." If the Founders had said that, we'd all be speaking with British accents right now.
Things could indeed be worse than Obama. We could have McCain/Palin,or Jeb Bush. Or Cheney. Yes, duh. But they could be a fuck of a lot BETTER than we're gonna get with Obama. That's my point. Stop settling, for Christ's sake. If all the loser "progressives" had voted for Kucinich, or Nader, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Start holding yourselves, and this country, to a higher fucking STANDARD. We can do better than the lesser of two evils. As for "well, Obama could just be blowing smoke and then when he gets elected yank the troops out of Iraq," I have 4 words for you: DREAM THE FUCK ON. Good Christ, keep those blinders on. I admire optimism, but I despise ignorance. Especially willful ignorance.
Obama-worshippers: rub your eyes, wake the fuck UP, and stop your fucking hero-worship. Same story, different narrator.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Thank you!
What part of the word evil in "the lesser of two evils" do these people NOT understand? The lesser of two evils is still EVIL!
I heard a roomful of union people go ga-ga when Kucinich spoke, raising the roof with thunderous applause and stamping feet, only to turn around and endorse Obama.
Sorry, folks. America is full of really stupid people. (3 out of 10 still think Bush is doing a good job and nearly 70% would vote for Pol Pot before they voted for an atheist! A majority do not believe in evolution and they all think they're going to be rich someday, as long as gays don't get to marry each other.) No Child Left Behind guarantees they'll become even more stupid and less able to think critically. I'm planning my own exit strategy.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
steve amato: Scahill is a great journalist, but he anticipates the future. Barak does not sit in the White House, yet. Obama may keep troops in Iraq for three months, then pull them out; he might transfer troops from Iraq to the
West Bank and into Gaza, which would stun Israel like a taser dart to the head.
It is sad that progressive journalists and magazines pre-judge Obama. Take your pick: McCain or Obama? There were no other candidates to choose from. Do you think a McCain Administration would handle Iraq differently than a Barak Administration? I do. Nobody knows what changes will be made inside Iraq under an Obama Administration. But whatever changes are made, they will be needed.
I will support Obama until he pisses me off. But he can't possibility be as mean as Bush, and he at least sounds more intelligent than McCain (or his speaking skills are better than McCain's). Obama is a one-shot deal. If he blows it, the next Republican might be like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, or even David Duke. Rush Limbaugh and David Duke might find themselves tied for the White House in an election, on a Republican ticket, if Obama blows it.
"Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation" I felt it down deep in my soul, but tried to deny it. When Obama started using the term "War on Terror" (the famous bogus phrase started by Bush) I was deeply disappointed. Someone had to just come out and say it and Skahill had the guts to finally put it out there.
Welcome to the Roman Empire - 21st Century. I want to live in a country that does not want to go to war, steal other country's resources and is so arrogant that it feels the need to tell other countries how to conduct themselves.
Between this news and the heist (bailout) going on, I feel so sad to be an American.
WTF,
Isaid it once I'll say it again, the U.S.Military, like Herpes, once you got them they never go away.
Ha! : )
LOL I've been saying since early summer that Obama will give us the same old same old, albeit with a kinder, less-obviously-fascist - and darker - face. What is ironic is how many "progressive" lefties are now acting EXACTLY like the die-hard Bush lemmings who supported their "commander in chief" no matter what the hell he did to the country, the Constitution, or the law. These die-hard Obama supporters are so enraptured with their new Messiah that it don't make a damned bit of difference how many promises he breaks, flip-flops he performs, or outright lies he tells. He is, to them, OBAMA, and come hell or high water they are gonna back his ass no matter what.
This is why there is very little difference between these "liberal" Obama-worshippers and the REthuglican Bush-worshippers. The policies of Bush and Obama are not really all that different - just a bit of a different veneer on the surface - but their supporters are just as blindly obedient to their Chosen One.
We TRUE progressives remain ever-vigilant against any and all abuses of our beloved Constitution, country, democracy, and the rule of law regardless of the party of the politicians in power, be they "left" or "right." WE are loyal to the U.S.A and its Constitution - NOT to any particular man or woman.
Same old same old. Guantanamo still will exist, Habeas Corpus will still be gone, the government will still be allowed to spy on US citizens, torture will continue (under a different marketing name), the dozens of "black ops" secret prisons around the globe will stay open, the occupation of Iraq will continue, the war in Afghanistan will be escalated, and the use of military "contractors" will continue, or escalate, unabated.
Meh. I predicted it all months ago. The fascist oligarchy remains intact, Obama or Bush.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Not even in office yet and stepping down from his "promises". Change my a**!
This is somewhat connected to this article.
I feel sad to say that i can no longer bear to watch jon stuart or colbert. They have become part of the problem, now. They were relevant for a time, and of course i think they are witty people, etc. However, they are 'my obama, right or wrong' people. And there are many who didn't like Bush, but had no problem with Clinton.
The enemy of my enemy isn't always someone who thinks like me. Somehow, i feel things are shifting in a direction that is even more superficial. I got an email from the obama campaign the other day, and they are selling obama mugs as seasonal gifts, for a donation of fifteen dollars or more. It is to 'keep the movement going'. What the heck are these people talking about? (the 2012 election i suppose). This is really going to be a nauseating four years.
I thought i would need to leave if mccain/palin won....
At least we are now describing Iraq for what it is, an Occupation and not a War. Obama promised to end the War, and since it is now an Occupation, he can consider it Mission Accomplished. LOL. Personally, I think it insane to leave all that oil behind after spending all this money, only to have to invade them again for whatever reason we make up at the time.
SOFA calls for complete withdrawal of all forces no later than the end of 2011, 36 months after Obama is President, and he promised 16 months. Also, SOFA allows, subject to mutual agreement a residual force for security and training, post 2011. But this document is meaningless, we can easily destabilize and topple the government if we choose not to leave, blaming it on Al Qaeda, and get a provisional government to invite us to stay. I will eat mny hat if we have fewer than 20,000 troops in Iraq after 2011, and expect it would be at least 60,000. We did not build that huge embassy and bases to leave them unprotected.
Obama is all about same same, while talking change change. His appointments to date prove this, and only the uninformed or those blinded by party loyalty fail to see this.
I cannot believe I read this article and the 26 comments (so far), and NOT ONE referred to the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US.
The SOFA (recently signed by both the Iraqi Parliament and the Bush Administration) calls for US combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009. By Dec. 31, 2011, all (note that, ALL!) US troops will be gone. Voters in Iraq will make the final decision on the proposal in an election to be held no later than July 2009.
In this context, both this article and your comments seem, well, uninformed.
The issue here is that the SOFA is an international agreement, between the "democratic" peoples of Iraq and the US.
If Obama flies in the face of that agreement, he will be shot down by the Repubs as abrogating the "peace treaty" signed by the Bush Administration, and thereafter the mantra of the Repubs will be "end the illegal occupation". Any gain the Dumbocrats made in 2008 will be lost in 2012.
Besides, it will piss off the Iraqis.
We will see, WTF. So far, it looks like Obama is the same old same old. The only thing different is the color.
“NOT ONE referred to the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US”
My sources (the newspapers) tell me that Obama is already planning to break the agreement. Does this surprise you? The agreement was written in the past, and so for Obama it doesn’t exist. Accepting it’s existence would be “looking backward” you see and he says he doesn’t do that, not at breaches of the geneva convention that go unpunished, not at violators of the US constitution who walk free, so why are you thinking that the US government would give the “status of forces agreement” between the illegal invaders and their puppet government some unique respect not accorded to all the other treaties, The UN charter among them, that have been violated by America?
In any case, as has been noted by everyone else, practically, but missed by you, the US says it will remove “combat” forces. Remember what the US has done to the the word “torture” to allow it to claim it doesn’t torture? Use your imagination to guess what the US’s Orwellian definition of “combat” is.
Certainly, in the long run, Iraq and the other occupied territories will be free from the Yanks, on that I agree with you.
WTF, you're EXACTLY the sort of well-informed investor I'm looking for to bankroll my project to create a fleet of cargo ships to harvest and transport the inexhaustible store of green cheese on the Moon! Can I count you in?
· Yr Obd't Servant
PS: I presume that your fount of information includes the "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality" article posted here.
Dream on, FTW.
America will have a military presence (military bases) in Iraq for at least another 50 years. It's not up to the Iraqis.
Of the people who voted for Obama, and now realize that his intention is not to completely withdraw from Iraq (who didn't understand what he meant when he said that he would remove 'combat troops' only from Iraq), there might be a handful who will not vote for him again, but most will again succumb to the 'lesser of two evils' argument next election as well.
Why? Because it is easier to be swayed by hope for change than facing the harsh reality that the major parties do not hold important the common people's interest as a third or even fourth priority (their self serving interest being first, corporate elite interests being second, and anyone who gave them, or will give them vast quantities of money third). Correct response requires a correct assessment of reality.
Those who won't stand for anything, will fall for everything.
This "artical" is nothing but conjecture formed from a host of cherry-picked material taken from quotes and misrepresented statments. Obama knows that he will only be a one-term President if he does not get us out of Iraq and ignoring that fact makes me question the real motivation behind this crap. This article would be better served on the Drudge Report.
Obama answers to the same masters as the rest of the militaristic pawns in Washington. Already, his loyal followers are fawning and praising his choice of killer Gates as defense secretary, and his promise to ESCALATE the cruel war on Afghanistan. Barack Obama is yet one more example of the entrenched system of military dominance in U.S. politics. Or, more appropriately, arrested development.
Sioux Rose
KICK: Right on!
American imperialism lives on.
The American oligarchy never intended to leave Iraq. That's why they built all those military bases and a huge embassy in Iraq starting day one.
Even if so inclined, Obama has no political upside to go against the military establishment, the Israeli lobby, the oil lobby - who supports complete withdrawal: common dreamers.
Jeevee
PLEASE read the voting records! Example of accurate reporting is WWW.LCV.ORG
J. Scahill is right on the money, as always.
Other than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, none of the frontrunners, including Obama ever intimated that they were pulling out of Iraq. Why is anyone surprised now? All you had was to listen and/or read carefully, and you would have known that the new Embasy,the oil reserves, and the borders of Iraq were going to continue to be guarded by the US Troops, in the range of 60-70,000.More importantly the use of Massive air strikes wherever a so called terrorist may be hiding. The american Empire, and it's concept of american Democracy continues to Rule, untill we are thoroughly bankrupted by this philosophy. and while this is happening we are getting sold into slavery as jobs continue to disappear and our standard of living goes into the toilet. And what time is the revolution?
The newspaper of record for the United States Armed Forces overseas is the "Stars and Stripes." In its Mideast edition of February 19, 2008, Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace said that U.S. Army Central is establishing a permanent platform for "full spectrum operations" in 27 countries around southwest Asia and the Middle East. "These commands now have a permanent responsibility to this theater. They'll have a permanent presence here. The personnel will change; the commands will remain."
The huge difference between our nation's defense and the neocon agenda's "full spectrum dominance" should be crystal clear by now. The American Empire is NOT LEAVING southwest Asia and the Middle East. This decision is much bigger than what Obama wants or does not want to do. The Empire is 'establishing a permanent platform for "full spectrum operations"'. Why is it so hard for Americans to understand this?
If you don't like it, quit supporting the volunteer troops and quit paying your war taxes. American troops are not defending America. They are defending the ruthless aggression of The American Empire. Obama is not capable of vastly reducing our military war (defense) budget. Obama will not have any more control over this than Bush has. The only way to stop the aggression of The American Empire is for Americans to quit paying for the invasions and occupations of foreign lands.
What part of this do you not understand?
We would do well to heed the pre-invasion advice given by George W. Bush to the Iraqi people: "Your fate will depend on your actions, and it will be no defense to say - I was just following orders." If you want to see change, quit following the orders of the duolopy!
We aren't paying for these invasions. Dubya borrowed the money. Our grandchildren will be paying down Dubya's deficits.
Add the tax cuts, and now the bailouts, Obama's proposed Keynesian stimuli, and all the good working man's jobs gone off shore, and you can add several generations.
We are so screwed. Well, we needed to shut down the economy to reduce GHG emissions, anyway. Mission Accomplished.
There was an article recently in one of the military blogs to the effect that, with the various remote controlled drones in the air, we could reduce our casualties from "boots on the ground" and conduct the war from the air. As the drones are flown from a computer screen and easy chair in a base in the US, we can kill whom we want and fear no casualties, thus taking the mind of the American Sheeple off the war.
Ah yes, the ultimate computer game. How big a kill score can you get in your eight hours? Science has caught up with science fiction, and all peoples, everywhere, including the dissenters in the US can dread our wrath, striking without warning. Any errors are, of course, collateral damage, due to bad intelligence. (We could have sworn there was a terrorist in that day care center. sorry, here's some money.)
Read "Ender's Game" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game
Sorry, but Mister Obama is above all a politician. The main task of politicians is to play politics. Where's the surprise in all this? If you hoped for more, or believed he would arrive in Washington on a shining steed to part the sea of red-ink or ring in the millenium, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Iraq=Okinawa with oil. Continuity trumps change. Sorry 'bout dat, hopers.
Time will tell, of course. But it strikes me that Obama recognises that you haven't won a lot of hearts and minds in Iraq, so that troops guarding your embassy will need to be kept in place and beefed up a great deal.
Also, while taking your own combat troops out of harm's way, he wants to leave military who can advise whatever body, however mixed, will form the new Iraq Government, and train what security forces they use for their protection.
Whatever your hawks may believe, I very much doubt if Obama and your top military have failed to grasp that for you to remain as occupiers - the more so, in greatly reduced number - will not be an option that the Iraqi people or indeed much of the now-inflamed Moslem world will countenance.
This, however grandiose Bushco's new bulti-billion dollar citadel/embassy, and plans for siphoning off their oil or the profits therefrom.
"he wants to leave military who can advise whatever body, however mixed, will form the new Iraq Government"
50,000 to 80,000 thousand troops, that's a heck of a lot of advisers.
Rickster