Clinton and Obama Remain Pentagon-Huggers

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, has challenged Nation contributors Jeremy Scahill and Naomi Klein with misreading the tenor of the magazine's endorsement of Obama.

Her main point is that despite suggesting editorially that he is the best candidate, The Nation's endorsement is not full-throttled and highlights serious concerns about him.

I particularly liked this clip from vanden Heuvel's piece:

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.

Katrina vanden Heuvel echoes an issue that I mentioned on Rachel Maddow's show on Air America Radio last night: Obama and Clinton are both "Pentagon-huggers."

Neither one is saying something that is strangely absent from political discourse today.

America's economic and national security portfolios are in a shambles today -- and both pretty much want to add programs (which have high costs) and bolster the size and responsibilities of the American military. Even any financial benefits from withdrawing from Iraq will not be available for domestic infrastructure spending or other health, education, or social programs -- because the military will have "rebuilding needs" in addition to building out the size of its manpower.

America spends more on national security when including Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental spending bills than all other nations in the world combined -- and yet we still don't feel like a safe nation. This is a classic "management problem."

We are misdeploying resources and frankly, overspending on the Pentagon by a vast degree. Neither Obama nor Clinton is saying this.

While Katrina vanden Heuvel's editors have endorsed Obama, I like that she has qualified the publication's support and not offered the kind of full-throttled endorsement that overlooks serious issues.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[SamEllison]

Just a reminder, the Pentagon now controls the budget of ALL the Intel agencies.
Steve you have been in town long enough to know what that means.

[deminmo]

Isn't the big argument for defense spending, that Bill
Clinton cut funding as President, and Bush rebuilt it?

From what is coming off the MSM, Bush is building a bigger
stash of nuclear weapons, and moving operations to the
southwest. Also doesn't big munitions contracts to Saudi
Arabia add to the costs? Seems like there are a lot of
military spending that will have to be cut. However where
does that leave the US in regards to security?

[jazzman]

And the first one of the two that takes on the Pentagon during this campaign will be dead in the water. Come on, you can't run against the military in this country and expect to get more than 10% of the vote. Be realistic. If they are going to do anything about military spending it will come slowly after they are elected.

[indie17]

I feel confident that Obama knows that there is mismanagement of funds at the Pentagon, and that our defense budget needs process re-engineering. I also think that trying to explain this to the American people would be a losing proposition during this election cycle.

But, it does need to be brought up and brought out, and I very much agree with your points.

"We are misdeploying resources and frankly, overspending on the Pentagon by a vast degree."

[FullChat]

Just because you're against the War in Iraq shouldn't make you want a weak military. If McCain gets his way, we'll need a draft to keep all of the wars going.

[GoreyFantod]

Where did Mr. Clemons suggest a "weak military"? This is a worn-out, shameful GOP smear.

The author points out that the Pentagon budget swamps domestic spending by orders of magnitude & that this has undesired and unsustainable consequences. Only in Bush/Cheney world is that the same as wanting a "weak military."

If we are to have any chance at restoring sanity & the positive use of critical thinking skills in America, this is the sort of Republican talking point that Democrats might want to cease parroting.

P.S. Take it from me, I'm a radical who DOES want to eliminate the military & domestic police forces in favor of a return to decentralised, Constitutional militias - this is NOT the position of Mr. Clemons, The Nation, Ms. Klein or Mr. Scahill. If Democrats continue to participate in blurring these distinctions, they will continue to lose.

[pottery]

It's political reality that either democratic candidate will face serious challenges when elected regarding the redeployment of our forces out of Iraq. Powers said something absolutely right. The final decisions cannot be made on the matter until the lay of the land is taken when he or she has the power to make those decisions. George and Dick are still President.