The huff post really needed naomi & scahill's article. (THANK YOU!!!! A MILLION TIMES I WAS SO HAPPY FOR IT) the huff post and it's readership is relentlessly pro-obama, and that is not helping the end of this occupation. i get so thrilled when Katrina you're on tv asking the tough questions we can't ask. you don't have to defend your papers writers for encouraging the same thing. honestly. their message was an important one and we need to applaud their point. everyone needs to chill with praising obama as the messiah, he's a good candidate but we need to challenge his positions, he's easily pushed to the center with his reach across the aisle crap. i will support obama but sometimes i CANNOT believe that during this campaign season, during and after such a horrendous and /DESTRUCTIVE/ administration ... at this bleak moment in our political history we did not find strength for a united radical left for pro-peace. everything should have been in place for that. instead we have the Nation endorsing obama. it's so soft and it's rather depressing. Katrina this response lacks courage (seemingly unlike you from your public persona) and i feel klein/scahill were /finally/ gently pushing for that. s'okay. this was good. you're on the same team.
A Misunderstanding on Iraq
Klein and Scahill suggest that The Nation, along with "some of the most prominent anti-war voices" has decided that we should "simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."
Nowhere have we stated or even implied that this is our philosophy. It is true that The Nation has endorsed Barack Obama. But as we have explained, that does not mean that The Nation endorses every one of his Iraq-related policies. Obama's plan to end the war falls short in some important respects. We have been critical of the size of the embassy he plans to maintain, his ambiguous stance on private contractors and his plans for a sizable "follow-on force" (concerns raised in Scahill's March 17, 2008 Nation piece, "Obama's Mercenary Position".
In the remainder of this presidential campaign, and no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, the very definition of withdrawal will be repeatedly contested. We will continue to publish articles and editorials like Scahill's that strive to sharpen and clarify the terms of that debate. Moreover, we will continue to oppose the commitment of both Clinton and Obama to increasing the size of the military and to spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined. We believe, as Klein and Scahill do, that progressives must use the continuing primary race to challenge these policies.
However, contrary to Klein and Scahill's assumption, there is no reason to think withholding our endorsement would have given us greater leverage over both of the Democratic candidates, on the war or any other issue. To the contrary, progressives who are backing Barack Obama have chosen to do so in order to exert pressure on him to represent their values.
The Nation endorsed Obama as the better choice in this election, in part because we believe that the new energy he is calling into electoral politics will push the limits of his own politics. We welcome his commitment to grassroots organizing and mobilization for unleashing this new energy. But we also recognize that this is no time to cheerlead. It will be our task -- and the task of activists, of writers like Klein and Scahill and of others to across the country -- to keep pushing beyond the limits that Barack Obama or any candidate for president would define.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HuffPost's Pick
The fact is that very little has been better for Progressives than the war in Iraq. It is perhaps the only single issue in which the majority of Americans agree with them. The war in Iraq has given rise to protests, marches, sensational speeches and over-subscribed blos, which incidentally make boatloads of money by selling eyeballs for those administration-critical articles to advertisers.
No establishment which benefits so much from the war in Iraq, including The Nation, the Dem Party Leadership and the campaigns of Sens. Clinton and Obama, can ever be trusted to bring an end to the war. The critical flaw of the Klein and Scahill piece is that they wrongly assume some institution preference for ending the war rather than profiting from its continuation.
'very little has been better for Progressives than the war in Iraq'
Indeed, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good. Good for Big Armaments also!
I think Ms. Vanden Heuval missed the most important flaw in the Klein-Scahill piece. Clinton is not a serious alternative for anti-war voters and they should know that. Back when the field was more crowded, it made sense for anti-war groups to pressure the candidates to adopt their positions. But now virtually everyone knows that Obama is the least bad option and certainly Obama knows that anti-war voters have no other viable alternative, other than casting a protest vote for Nader that may end up electing McCain.
It just strains credibility to claim that Hillary, the candidate who supported the Iraq armed robbery, who supports the use of cluster bombs and landmines that kill children, and who did her best to authorize Bush to bomb Iran, remains an alternative for the anti-war movement.
Well, Katrina, have you successfully pressured Sen. Obama to make any changes? Has he seen the light and decided that increasing the size of the military is not the way to change our International face? Has he seen the light and decided that the military contractors, Blackwater, CAKI, et al, have to be done away with? Has he seen the light and decided that our embassy in Iraq should be a normal embassy instead of a country unto itself? Has he seen the light and disavowed the "over the horizon strike force" as part of his withdrawal strategy? When he does these things via a major policy address, let me know so I can tune in. Until then, I think you've been caught up in the hope/hype with no assurance that it will be fulfilled. Oh, and all Obama supporters, please don't presume that I'm a Clinton supporter, because I don't see any difference between the two candidates, but will support the one that goes to the general election. It's just that in this article, Katrina is explaining why The Nation gave its endorsement to Sen. Obama and I am challenging her reasons for doing so.
Katrina, from your article:
"To the contrary, progressives who are backing Barack Obama have chosen to do so in order to exert pressure on him to represent their values."
Perhaps this is true for you, and others you know, but if you've paid attention to comments here and at other forums, I can't see how you come to this conclusion. The vast majority of Obama supporters--particularly those who are so rabidly pro-Obama--they dismiss ANY criticism out of hand, and show blind admiration for Obama. Unless some unforeseeable event happens to change my mind before November, I will vote for Obama, but I have written to him about my concerns, and hope that many others have done the same.
In the end I didn't really care about THE NATION'S endorsement or the lack thereof; I think enough of work by Naomi Klein & Jeremy Scahill that I see very little value in your rebuttal, and see their point perfectly. Anyone not voting as a republican would do well to remember the issue that rallied progressives in the first place: THE ILLEGAL WAR ON IRAQ.
Despite the terrible economy, the damage to the constitution and the criminal erosion of the DoJ, the war remains my most urgent concern, and so it should for all of us who have opposed it from the beginning. To do less is to cop-out to the worst of American traits: to be easily distracted by self-interest, and from distraction back into apathy.
"To the contrary, progressives who are backing Barack Obama have chosen to do so in order to exert pressure on him to represent their values."
Of course that's EXACTLY what Progressives are doing. In some ways, Obama is the new Ned Lamont. Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily. And further, Ms Vanden Heuvel is just putting some distance, some 'plausible deniability' between herself & her people. And I say that as an Obama supporter. Some have said that Obama is really more of a centrist than he seems, and I'm ok with that. Fact is, either Clinton or Obama remain a FAR better choice than Doddering John.
Please, judging from the vast majority of Obama supporters, Obama speaks and YOU listen--end of story.
Pressure my ass....
Well, whatever floats your boat. My vast majority wants a guy who will listen.
It is clear military strength is a defeated weapon when used in aggression and invasion. United States still has the economic formula that is the best marketing tool for promoting respect and good image, provided it releases itself from the big corporate mafia run by remnants of Adolph Hitler, better known Neocons and Zionists. The U.S. economy is technically the spine of world economies. It is a myth U.S. interest is threatened anywhere. A nation that has economic strength does not need offensive army, nukes or supersonic rocket launchers.
Urge you all to read Matt Taibi's blog (Sorry I don't know how to post a link) and pass it on if you believe as I do it is worth it. We need to stay focused on the big issues instead of Rev. Wright or - to be fair - even Bosnia.
Democrats, Indies, and Republicans need to be true to themselves and not be poll-driven fanatics waiting for heavenly signs to appear -- endorse early-- why wait for negativity to corrode a viable candidate's chances in November-- Courage is a virtue-- fear is a sin...
Thank you for a well balanced and defined post.
I believe the folks at The Nation see the needs and difficulties ahead clearly, and it was necessary and quite effective that you stated what you did, seeing the big picture that stands before us, and all the important issues it involves.
The next president will have to be a major DIS-MANTLER. This person will be criticized endlessly. However, I agree that Sen. Obama has the energy and character resources that will help us all to go beyond the limits of what could be expected of any person or goup of persons, something that as he properly stated, is what Americans can do best.
I am also proud of his resiliency, and look forward to all of us coming together to defeat the noise machine and idiots that want to continue the blind leading the blind into the 21st century.
Anyone who thinks that Obama will wimp out in the face of these liars and powerful manipulators is going to be quite surprised.
Perhaps then you should not have endorsed a candidate who has cheerleading as his only tangible skill.
Cheerleaders seem to have a knack for getting elected.
Boola Boola! http://www.thenation.com/covers/alfredw/
"progressives who are backing Barack Obama have chosen to do so in order to exert pressure on him to represent their values".
I'm sorry, what? Progressives will vote for Barry Obama no matter what ... this "exerts pressure" exactly how?
In politics, "exerting pressure" means sending the message, "If you want my vote, you have to do this, that and the other thing." I don't really believe the editors of The Nation lack this basic understanding. I can't say what their true reasons for supporting Obama might have been, but since they've already committed to supporting Obama, no matter what his positions are, "exerting pressure" is obviously false.
Thanks.
mp
Scahill and Klein are right. Katrina, though terrific, is wrong. The problem is that progressives are trying to play both sides of the street, and by doing so have yielded the leverage necessary to force the Dems to more progressive positions. It feels good to be on the inside near the power. But power is cynical. Once it knows it can count on those whom you influence, they give you nuggies and continue the war.
Katrina appears to be only looking at this from the perspective of The Nation. This has to be viewed collectively from the perspective of the progressive movement. If the progressive leadership is not willing to function outside of the Democratic Party and use its collective resources to create a mass of swing voters (who exist, especially on the war), it gives the Dems the votes of those who look at that progressive leadership for guidance without having to concede anything but rhetoric to them. That's how a Dem Congress, elected to end the war, continues to conduct it in a bi-partisan manner. That"s how two Democratic frontrunners both have committed to remaining in Iraq for the indefinite future despite the overwhelming sentiment of their base (and the American people) to get out.
Scahill and Klein are right about The Nation, MoveOn and many other progressive leaders who have refused to demand accountability and leverage the progressive vote to force Obama and the Dems to support immediate, safe withdrawal of all US and contractor forces.
We need to begin pressuring both candidates to plan on pulling out of Iraq ASAP. They need to know that we won't settle for less than a day one announcement that our troops will be coming home immediately.
I'm hesitant about Obama because he won't commit to that! Hillary has said she would consult with the Pentagon leaders and begin withdrawing troops within 60 days. That's not satisfactory either. This isn't that difficult, your pack up your stuff and you leave. If you have too much stuff then you make more than one trip. .Why are both of these candidates so wishy-washy about doing something this whole nation wants? Given the large majority of Americans who want this War ended, it shouldn't take a tremendous amount of courage to do it.
If it took Dick Nixon, always the peace-loving Quaker, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger 6 years to get US out of Vietnam, it's going to be difficult for 'future Demo President X' to extricate from Iraq. Ending a war is not so easy as all that, especially when they're shooting at you on the way out. The Soviet departure from Afghanistan is a great example of how NOT to do it, which we are at risk of repeating. Much patience & adroitness is called for. Hint: do it right & a win a trip to Oslo!
Sorry, but this was an entirely different situation indeed, when it came to pulling out.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers? Check it out-I strongly encourage anyone who really wants to know. . Extremely interesting and revealing about who's in control.-Our corporations and military in control of just about everything to do with Vietnam. It was a matter of dismantling that nobody had the courage to stick their necks out and do- Look what happened to JFK. Whether that was a lone gunman or not, the dye was cast and no one wanted to go there. Nixon was in cahoots with those powers; when he resigned, Congress and America had had enough. Ford knew better then to get in the way.
Now we're in the midst of an occupation that'll need to be dismantled in a country extremely rich in resources- another major difference from Nam, and a strong reason why it shouldn't be that difficult to request help from other major powers to establish a template, if you will, of an efficient government, being that when America makes the committment to leave, this will turn the remake of this country to an entirely different ball of wax. It's what any responsible leader should count on; at this point the biggest enemy to progress will be corruption- an incredibly inherent disease in the Middle East that with this campaign, the Bush administration has done NOTHING to combat, or leave a proper example to work with.
'Now we're in the midst of an occupation that'll need to be dismantled in a country extremely rich in resources- another major difference from Nam'...
Apparently you've forgotten about all the rubber trees, not to mention the
'offshore oil & gas deposits' (the WMD's of Vietnam). Unfortunately, what
with the 'rich in resources' part, it's going to be WAY much harder to leave.
Please, this notion is absurd. I lived through that time period [as a teenager], and I remember exactly what ended the Vietnam war, and it was no greatly drawn out process--congress cut off the funds, and the troops came home. Those two morons had little to do with the process.
All that is required is for congress to grow enough balls to do the work. Perhaps there's a better way to do it, but I sincwerely doubt it; when you put yourself into a quagmire, the only thing to do is WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THE HELL OUT.
Sorry, Vietnam was an entirely different situation indeed, when it came to pulling out.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers? Check it out-I strongly encourage anyone who really wants to know. . Extremely interesting and revealing about who's in control our corporations and military (Corporate military) were in just about everything to do with Vietnam. It was a matter of dismantling nobody had the courage to stick their necks out and do- Look what happened to JFK. Whether or not that was a lone gunman, the dye was cast and no one would go there. Nixon was in cahoots with those mighty powers, when he resigned, Congress and American people had had enough. Gerald Ford knew better then to get in the way.
Now we are in the midst of an occupation that will need to be dismantled in a country extremely rich in resources- another major difference from Nam, and a strong reason why it shouldn't be that difficult to request help from other major powers to establish a template, if you will, of a government efficient. in that once America makes the committment to leave, will turn the remake of this country to an entirely different ball of wax. This is what any responsible leader should count on, because at this point the biggest enemy to progress will be corruption, an incredibly inherent disease in the Middle East that with this campaign, the Bush administration has done NOTHING to combat, or leave proper examples to work with.
You are quite mistaken, sir. The process started with Paris peace talks even before Nixon was elected, with much debate even about seating arrangements. Nixon insisted he had a plan to end the war but it took him & Henry many years to do it, with much urging & insistence from Congress & angry citizenry throughout.
Make more than one trip? That's a good one...
Simply put, this isn't a simple matter. You can't just pack up and leave. The best we can ask for is immediate planning to leave, because the Bush administration hasn't even done that. Unfortunately, political campaigns allow for disingenuous talk and bumper-sticker sloganeering, which has torpedoed any hope of having an intelligent discussion on the matter.
And let's not forget that Senator Clinton called Governor Richardson's plan for immediate withdrawal irresponsible during the fall debates. Her current rhetoric is simple a tactic to hit Senator Obama in the flank.
Not to mention the fact that many people who have consistently opposed the war realize that there is a moral obligation to clean up the mess that the Bush administration has created. There will be consequences to our withdrawal, just as there were consequences to the invasion. We should do a better job planning the next move than the neo-cons did planning the first one.
"Not to mention the fact that many people who have consistently opposed the war realize that there is a moral obligation to clean up the mess that the Bush administration has created."
That statement is naive at best, and dishonest a worst. The ONLY reason the US is staying in Iraq is SELF-INTEREST. Dry up the oil that sits beneath the ground there and all of the BS whiners that scream about our responsibility will shut up instantly.
If you believe that statement, you've beenmisled; if you're promoting that statement, you're misleading others.
The Iraq people have a right [and that includes every faction there, not just whomever the US is paying off this week] to determine their own destiny, and the best solution for Iraq and the US [in terms of humanitarian and moral concerns] is for the US to leave and abandon all that we've built there--we had no right then, and we have noright now to their resources or to even park a fucking jeep on the street.
Wow, you need to stop raging for a couple of minutes and read the posts you're replying to. Your assertion that I am naive and dishonest is logically insupportable; all I have to do is point to one opponent of the war who feels some moral obligation to fix what we broke (which I can do.) Unfortunately, such statements as yours drop any reasonable discussion into the trash.
Honestly, it doesn't matter in the least why we went into Iraq: oil, bravado, democracy. None of those reasons inform a plan for leaving, which is what most of us want. But the Middle East is now different from 2002 - George Bush opened a huge power vacuum in one of the most unstable regions of the world, and just packing up and leaving without filling that vacuum with something (e.g., regional councils, U.N. peacekeeping, etc.) will undoubtedly lead to further conflagration.
It's not enough to simply rage and blame corporations and oil companies for all of your problems. Everyone has a responsibility to engage in intelligent debate, or leave the stage.
We need to educate the 35% that the money being borrowed from China to stay in Iraq has led to the 4 bucks per gallon to fill up their pickup and the devlaution of the dollar to record lows and thus why juniors Pizza price is doubling along with a bottle of milk.
The country is being gutted along with the military.
Regards.
OK ,
can anyone point out when THE NATION has officially criticized Obama on the Iraq war?
Yes, in the article cited and linked to above, "Obama's Mercenary Position."
Great that you were able to clarify. No one can expect someone that endorses a candidate to endorse every one of that candidate's policies. In the end, you might not succeed in the greater goal of trying to exert pressure, but at least there is room there. That's the whole point - a little slack is their to try to find balance. And its refreshing after 8 years of a candidate that Ignores and says "So" to everything the electorate believes and one candidate McCain that is lost and Clinton that is rigid. Thanks for being pragmatic and clarifying.
My problem with this "pragmatic"{ endorsement is that it flies in the face of the Nation's own cover article in which they made a huge point of saying they would endorse nobody running for any position who did not wholeheartedly support troop withdrawal. You can't throw down the gauntlet like that and then say "never mind" a few months later without raising an eyebrow or two. This just reinforces the idea that progressives have no staying power and will wimp out at the slightest excuse. Hey, I held my nose and voted for Hubert Humphrey back in the day, so I'm no purist unwilling to see the need for compromise on some issues. I'm just very very tired of being told that we have to compromise every progressive principle in order to get elected. This makes absolutely no sense when 70% of the voters actually want an end to the "war" in Iraq. Yeah, it would be a good idea to avoid the kind of footage that came out of Saigon, with sobbing Vietnamese clinging to helicopter struts and begging to be taken along, but I think either of our candidates has the smarts to do that. Sorry, Katrina, I think you and the Nation wimped out here.
"Hate McCain but vote for either Clinton or Obama because, blah blah blah", at least is that is what Naomi Klien and Jeremy Scahil are saying. Great that you were able to reply and talk nuances. But be direct Katrina - Naomi Klien and Jeremy Scahil don't speak for the Nation. That is what you are saying, at least I think. For reals, NO one can expect someone that endorses a candidate to endorses every one of that candidate's policies. You might not succeed in the greater goal of trying to exert pressure, but at least there is room there. That's the whole point - a little slack is their to try to find balance. And its refreshing after 8 years of a candidate that Ignores and says "So" to everything the electorate believes and one candidate McCain that is lost and Clinton that is rigid.
Dear Ms. vanden Heuvel :
The dynamic duo is merely pissed that The Nation did not support Sen. Clinton.
p.s.
Their writing is pedantic; The Nation can do better.
You, I suspect, have no clue as to what constitutes exceptional writing.
Nah, man. They are just ultra idealistic, and hyper principled. The kind of folks that would vote Nader on principle regardless of the stakes. I made the pragmatic choice that Obama was the most progressive candidate with the strongest chance of winning and I'm pretty happy with my deecision. Check out this great article by Spencer Ackerman in TAP. Obama truly understands the fundamental flaw in our foreign policy.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine
Posted March 26, 2008 | 05:24 PM (EST)