Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
It's About War and Peace, Not Simply Race and Gender
The decisive issue in this election is about war and peace, between Barack Obama's proposed diplomacy with Iran to end the war in Iraq, and the hawkish stance of his two rivals, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who favor an escalating the tensions with Tehran even to the point of war.
The mainstream media, and some of the blogosphere, continue to miss the danger of an escalated war as they blog and dabble over race, gender and numbers of pledged delegates.
The anti-war movement and most Democrats have been fairly silent about these differences as well.
The facts, however, are simple, as follows:
The Bush administration, many neo-conservatives, and Israeli officials have busily built the case that Iran is an "existential threat," and that the coming months represent a "now or never" moment to attack Iran before a new president takes office.
With sufficient US political and military backing, the Israelis seem set to go.
Clinton has voted to identify Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization." The White House and Gen. Petraeus have asserted that Iran is directly and indirectly responsible for killing American soldiers in Iraq. Those two elements are a sufficient cause to go to war.
Clinton has said the US could "obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel, and threatens "massive retaliation" to protect Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Iran. There has been virtually no media discussion of this NATO-like proposal for the Middle East.
Both Clinton and McCain deride Obama's offer to open unconditional talks with Iran. Obama himself appears to be adjusting, or backing away, from his original straightforward proposal. He needs to stiffen, realize this is what the election is about, and fight back, with allies at his side.
Instead of stumbling over the nature of direct diplomacy [with whom, where, with what preparations], Obama should rely on his strongest arguments.
The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Study Group proposed US-Iran negotiations as essential to finding a political solution in Iraq. Former CIA chief John Deutch says the same thing. Iraq needs a non-aggression agreement and trade with the US; in return, the US needs Iran's acceptance of an orderly withdrawal from Iraq without the country falling into greater civil war. The issue of nuclear power needs to be negotiated on a separate track, according to Baker-Hamilton.
Barack should not seem to over-promise the results of diplomacy, which could provoke more attacks on his resolve and experience. But he can easily remain assertive against the failed and obviously hypocritical notion of never talking to our adversaries.
It's more simple than he says.
John Kennedy talked with Nikita Khrushchev, and nuclear war was averted.
Richard Nixon talked with Mao tse-Tung, and commercial competition replaced a military confrontation.
Look where non-talking gets us. We refuse to talk to Cuba, leaving us diplomatically and commercially isolated from the continent and world.
As for rank hypocrisy, the Bush administration is already talking with North Korea and, in a limited way, with Iran.
The possibility of avoiding a broader war may rest on whether Obama wins this debate.
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
The culture of the echo chamber?
If it weren't jaudicing, where would we be?
This post, as great as anything until Tom's next, is actually my antithesis. It is shouldn't be either or, but bend the blend of, say, Ramsey's equipose. But this is so well done. Thanks Tom.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/02/obama.missed.votes/index.html
"Obama missed a vote on a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite part of the Iranian military, a terrorist organization. He has criticized Clinton for voting for it, saying it would give President Bush a "blank check" to invade Iran."
It's easy to criticize votes on bills that you dodge, like Barack Obama has been doing his whole political career. I mean, he's broadcast his opinion about the vote for war against Iraq enough, even though he was a state senator at the time and completely unqualified to make that call. Why was he so afraid to vote against conflict with Iran if opposing Iraq has been such a windfall for him?
Can any Obama supporter explain why a skipped vote is better than a vote against a resolution like this? I mean, doesn't this demonstrate that Obama isn't on the record opposing war against Iran?
And keep in mind, this whole situation is part of our lopsided alliance with Israel in which we have to defend them from everyone who's eye they spit in all day long. No one's talking about attacking Iran without cause. Most instances involve the phrase "if Israel is attacked by Iran..." and other conditional situations.
Excellent post!!!! Thank you for writing this. I couldn't agree more.
And it isn't just that war is the top issue in the sense that the other issues aren't "top" also with voters (like the economy). I think the point here is that debating gender and race can obscure that we may be faced with ANOTHER WAR, folks!
Obama does need to win this debate, and the American people need to learn from the debate. We need to learn the truth about what McCain/Bush/Leiberman and all those liars are up to in the Middle East.
Hillary is old news, but it is important to "out" her on her positions on Iran. She is still a senator, after all. At least for a while! (I can't imagine her keeping her seat in NY after what we now know about her.)
I would like to read more analysis that puts the history of that area in regards to diplomacy into a readable, easy to understand format. I don't have a clear picture of what the "norm' is for diplomacy. Not enough to feel like I could talk to others about it.
Just share and be nice, I want to say "just share and be nice" and try to do something else.
Share and be nice.
Makes for Keith Moon.
Tom, my copy of "Writings for a Democratic Society" came today. When a man saw it on the bus he asked me about it. This makes a better tribute then I articulate. I said more then I can concieve. He asked me -in a full bus- what I thought of the state of the American dream.
Unprepared, I told him it was like a flame you can't get out. I tried to get your insatible quote right, but didn't. When he told me of his service in viet Naum, I told him thanks. He said he still trying to get disability. When he left, he showed me the colostrophy bag for a-orange. Writings... meant that much to him, he brought it up to a complete stranger. I can't give a better tribute. I am so proud of you and your courage.
I still want to name a son Steven Max. But I went back to school when I recieved a TBI from a pickup v bicycle accident a few months into the latest invasion. It was good having it arrive, for I am bereaving and hard. People often ask how I can't snap being under the various hegenomy. I say my anti-depressant is your work, sir (and well frisbee).
I hope you know that there are students of a democratic society because of you guys. This one is auto-dictectic, but a trophy of the aim of your work. Thank you. g
The war in Iraq is no longer the top issue on this campaign. But it should be since so much of what's wrong today can be traced back to it. Take gas prices for example. Notice how they took off after we invaded. And is it any wonder why. Instead of making the region more stable, we made it less stable. Well that just pushed gas prices up, which of course is what Bush and Cheney wanted. And now the massive expenditures in Iraq are catching up with us here. Our economy is suffering because too much of our resources are being put into such a futile effort. I wish Obama and the Democrats would do a better job linking these two together. People rank the economy as their top issue now. Maybe if they realized how much the war is impacting the economy, they'd be even more inclined to vote for the candidate committed to getting us out.
Tell us TOM what Obama wants to do with the nearly 100,000 new troops Obama wants to expand the military by. That is wildy bigger than what Kerry proposed which was only 20,000. Instead Obama wants FIVE TIMES that number! He says it is to reduce the strain on our current military, yet if he pulls much of the US forces out of Iraq, that will be solved. I wonder how many Obama supporters have even READ his issues page!
The distortions and lack of rational thinking has marked most of Tom's contributions. The best example was his Hillary Drives my wife nuts! A real incisive political tract, just like this crap.
As an Obama supporter, I do confess to not having *thoroughly* read his issues pages. Um, that would be because that is a lot of reading!! He has written an amazing amount about all the issues.
Isn't Obama wanting to send in more troops to Afganistan (sp?) in order to focus on de-escalating the terrorists groups who were involved in 9/11? Do you have a problem with that? Just curious.
cool your jets randy, i've certainly read it, the question is what do find objectionable about it?
anyone can make up some bizarre theory of ulterior motives. how many new recruits would it take to replace the private contracts currently in use? how hard did you look for others that support an increase that large? it's time for everyone to start being a little more rational.
Why do you need to replace the contractors if you are pulling out of Iraq? The actual numbers are the contractors have over 100,000 in Iraq by the way. Does Obama think he will increase the number of troops to make up for that shortfall if he kicks the contractors out? That will not be reducing our troops there. I find that to be an absurd number to increase our troops by that number. It would be more rational to increase it by about 20,000 which will give us another division since we are down by about one in terms of the use of them.
Thank you for your post. This election should be about war and peace, but those who advocate war always seek to distract and control us with fear (see WMD for justification of the Iraq war.) I call this psychological terrorism.
In this election cycle, the right wing spin-meisters and tragically, also the Clintons, have used and are still using language and images of the "otherness" of Obama (somehow not like us) to lump him in with the other threats, terrorist Muslims, et al to make us afraid of him (see KY).
Obama's ability to break this psychological terrorism will be the key issue of this election.
Why are some women and the DNC leadership still keeping Hillary in this facade of a race? Why have we as a Party allowed the Clintons to take us and our democratic process hostage? Would Obama still be standing up in the media or to fundraisers if he had lost as much as Hillary and was $31 m in the hole? This is a joke.
This article seems to be ignoring several things. To begin with, the issue is NOT that our government shouldn"t pursue discussions with Iran through proper diplomatic channels. It is that the President of the United States should not, within the 1st year of his presidency, rush to directly meet with Iran's leader without preconditions.
Another issue is that we are not simply talking about Iran, but also about Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, and all without preconditions!
Please, get a grip. Does Barack Obama appear to be a stupid man? Stop with the silly red herrings about precondidtions. There's always precondiditons. I think that Obama assumed that we are all intelligent enough to understand what he meant. Sigh.
On the contrary, I think that Obama is very intelligent. He speaks very well, and uses very clear language. The youtube question was also very clear. The question was "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." I believe that, as an intelligent, very well educated person, Obama was fully capable of understanding the question. His answer was equally clear when he said "I would."
This isn"t a red herring. He made a mistake. In fact, he made several mistakes when responding to this question, which demonstrated his considerable lack of experience. Once he heard John Edwards and Hillary Clinton respond to the same question, the learned something or realized his error, and attempted to amend his original, very clear response. He has been attempting to do so ever since.
On the contrary, I think that Obama is very intelligent. He speaks very well, and uses very clear language. The youtube question was also very clear. The question was "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." I believe that, as an intelligent, very well educated person, Obama was fully capable of understanding the question. His answer was equally clear when he said "I would."
This isn"t a red herring. He made a mistake. In fact, he made several mistakes when responding to this question, which demonstrated his considerable lack of experience. Once he heard John Edwards and Hillary Clinton respond to the same question, the learned something or realized his error, and attempted to amend his original, very clear response. He has been attempting to do so ever since.
Appeasing and talking with are two separate things. The issue is not about...
"the President of the United States should not, within the 1st year of his presidency, rush to directly meet with Iran's leader without preconditions."
...which, unless I'm mistaken, is some spin you invented. ( I've not heard this elsewhere. )
The situation is that those "proper diplomatic channels" are indirect ones, when it comes to some of those countries ( like N. Korea and Iran ). We do not have embassies with those countries. We cannot talk with them directly. ( We have to use mediators like Switzerland. ) Which is akin to the childhood scenario of "Tell Bobby, I'm not talking to him."
There's nothing wrong with talking to these countries. In the very least, we would understand their motivations better and how to proceed from there. Talk does not necessarily mean appeasement. It just means talk.
Therein lies Hilary's problem and why she contrary to what she thinks is the weaker candidate to go up against McCain. There is not contrast between them when it comes to Foreign Policy and if that happenst hey are likely going to go with the person who has the most experience in the area. What Obama has done is REDEFINE what our Foreign Policy stance should be and has provide us with a CLEAR contrast. Thats why we have two parties its so we can have contrast. The democrats of the past blurred right in with the republicans so they are easy to swiftboat. Their foreign policy stance becomes blurred with republicans and what that does is create apathy among some democrats particularly the more liberal side of the party and they dont even bother showing up to vote or they vote for Nader.
Carol
You seem to be forgetting that Obama has said that he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan." I don't think that it is reasonable to say that he is redefining policy if he returning to the policies of old (and recent).
You're quibbling about her use of the word "redefine" ? That's semantics and trivial.
The fact of the matter is that Obama's foreign policy views involve something other than dropping bombs on people in other countries. Call it "new" or "old" or whatever you like, but please call it here "soon".
Talk is cheap. It's a lot cheaper to talk than to fight a war. You don't have the expense of sending 160,000 soldiers across the globe or the cost of caring for them when they come home maimed and disfigured mentally and physically. Will we ever get Iran to back down, admit Israel has a right to exist and give up its nuclear capability? Probably not, but as long as we're talking, we're not incurring the expense of people dying. And talk is cheap, so you can do it for a long, long time.
Your point more validates Ron Paul.
However, I would not use Kennedy meeting with Khrushchev as a positive. Kennedy caused many problems from this meeting, because Khrushchev saw Kennedy as weak, inexperience and vacillating. It emboldened Russia. Also remember Kennedy ended the discussions with Cuba and created many other messes there.
Unfortunately President Kennedy did not the opportunity to follow-up..............
I'll do it for him.
noneIn2008, you're talking about probably the most tense presidency in our nation's history, when we were a hair's breath away from nuclear war a number of times over a short span of a few years.
You can criticize Kennedy for making mistakes all you want - and I have no doubt there were many - but JFK did the most important thing of them all: He protected the US and got us through it all without entering World War III. He made errors in judgment, but he made successes, too. ( You seem to have omitted the times, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Khruschev "blinked" and Kennedy was strong. But then again, using selective information makes it easier to prop up your point of view... even if it's not accurate or fair. )
Well, it's about time someone pointed that "Wild Bill Hickock and Annie Oakley" act.
We need a new version of "Swords into Plowshares"....something green - progressive.
I wonder how you educate a population about the limits of military power. Too large a number of voters seem to think that we are surrounded by enemies and that the best way of dealing with them is to have 1000 military bases around the world.
We are on a disastrous course that was started under the late Clinton administration and pursued energetically by the Bush administration. That course will have us begging other countries for cash to continue subsidizing our military empire which already is creaking and may come crashing down if somebody doesn't turn us around pretty soon.
Are people waiting for the bank to tell us Uncle Sam's check bounced? What exactly are we getting in return for this gigantic military network throughout the world? I'll be damned if I can figure it out. It certainly isn't cheap oil. It certainly isn't a strong currency. That dollar in your pocket is getting more worthless every day. Keeping us safe? I never heard of a country staying safe by invading every country on the planet. in fact the reverse is true. Countries who engage in such activity end up being invaded themselves.
This issue has been glossed over and for many of us, Obama's credibility rests with this single issue. Their positions on health care, jobs, the economy are not that different.
But their position on the Iraq war does separate them. All Hillary had to do was admit it was a mistake but she would not. Obama also has advocated dialogue with Iran; Clinton has not.
Look what happened when we stopped bombing the crap out of the Vietnamese and started a dialogue. We found out they were not monsters but a rather nice and peaceful people. Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda took a lot of grief for going to Hanoi, but who was right? And so much for the Domino Theory, the underpinning of the rationale for going to war in Vietnam.
And the only time Vietnam went out of their country is when they chased the genocidal regime of Pol Pot out of Cambodia. They they returned home and haven't done anything to anyone since.
Israel spoke to Sadat and there has been peace. Israel spoke to Jordan and there has been peace.
When you don't engage your enemies, you don't have peace. And isn't peace what we should be pursuing? 58,000 died in Vietnam, over 4000 in Iraq......for what?
Loading comments…
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
Don't write off Saint Sarah all you political pundits,...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
While we of course do not claim to know anyone's thoughts, we nominate these...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
For this week's installment of their "Lunch with the FT" feature the...
Al Franken's been anointed as Minnesota's junior senator, but how did the...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
Posted May 20, 2008 | 10:59 PM (EST)