Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama's core position on Iraq has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.
I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements.
And of course, there is the need to end the Republican reign that began with a stolen election followed by eight years of war and torture, corporate gouging, environmental decay, domestic spying and right-wing court appointments, just in case we forget who Obama is running against.
Besides the transforming nature of an African-American presidency, the issue that matters most to me is achieving a peaceful settlement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and preventing American escalations in Iran and Latin America. From the beginning, Obama's symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced again and again by his campaign pledge to "end the war" in 2009.
But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now. As I pointed out in Ending the War in Iraq [2007], Obama's 2002 speech opposed the coming war with Iraq as "dumb", while avoiding what position he would take once the war was underway. Then he wrote of almost changing his position from anti- to pro-war after a trip to Iraq. He never took as forthright a position as Senator Russ Feingold, among others. Then he adopted the safe, nonpartisan formula of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which advocated the withdrawal of combat troops while leaving thousands of American counter-terrorism units, advisers and trainers behind.
That would mean at least 50,000 Americans, including back up forces, engaged in counter-insurgency after the withdrawal of combat troops, a contradiction the media and Hillary Clinton failed to explore in the primary debates. To his credit, Obama said that these American units would not become caught up in a lengthy sectarian civil war, leaving the question of their role unanswered.
The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers' forced resignation earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.
Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:
The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer:
"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" -- two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies" -- another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.
Then there came the later "clarification":
"Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].
"I intend to end this war." [intention only].
"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." [ Sounds positive, but "decisively" can mean by military threat in the worst case. And it's pure theatre, borrowed from Clinton, since the plans most likely will be drafted and finalized immediately after the November election.]
"And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]
Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's "secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.
It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.
What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time that public interest in the war is receeding before economic concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter demands for peace.
The challenge for the peace and justice movement is to avoid falling into Republican divide-and-conquer traps while maintaining a powerful and independent presence in key electoral states, including Congressional battlegrounds, between now and November. There should be at the least:
- A demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.
- A Democratic platform debate and plank that is unequivocal in pledging to end the war and avoid military escalation elsewhere.
- An energized antiwar voter education campaign that builds towards a clear November peace mandate to end the military occupation and shifr to political and diplomatic approraches.
- An organizational strategy to widen the base of the antiwar movement through the presidential campaign in preparation for a massive peace mobilization in early 2009.
Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the astute sense of pragmatism that led Obama to criticize the coming war in 2002. The stakes are higher now, and the enemies far more shrewd, wishing to rip asunder the Obama coalition. The peace movement assumption should be that there is no one in Obama's inner circle of advisers to be counted on, no mainstream columnist to catch his eye with a persuasive column favoring withdrawal. They never have. Only the voice of the peace voters - and the countless activists who have volunteered on his behalf - can command his attention now.
For more developments and analysis, see 'Progressives for Obama' at progressivesforobama.blogspot.com
Would anyone disagree that it looks very likely that Barack Obama WILL BE inaugurated as President next January? (I personally know quite a few partisan Republicans who ALSO would not disagree)
Given that, squabbles about whether Obama"s STATEMENTS are calculated to attract "swing" voters, or are insulting to his "base fail to consider an audience much more important than either. That audience in a simpler time would be known as "the enemy".
Opposition to the war should not blind us to the fact that, like it or not, we DO HAVE a large number of American men and women in theater, and there REALLY ARE quite an array of folks that mean them serious harm!........ from the various militias, to anti-American terrorists lumped loosly under the term Al-Quaida, to the Iranians, the Syrians and even factions WITHIN the Al-Maliki government; ALL of whom have access to CNN and the internet.
I'd like to think Sen. Obama is speaking as much or more to THEM on this topic as he is to any particular voting bloc in the US....................................................................................tm
HIGHEST regards to you, old friend.....................................................tm
WE invaded Iraq for no good reason.
WE put our soldiers in harm's way.
WE continue to occupy a sovereign nation that we invaded, proof positive of the FAILURE of our venture.
We have already FAILED.
Iraqis are suffering.
Sunni and Shia nationalist insurgents continue to oppose our invasion, occupation and the theft of their natural resources while we and our allies are killing their children.
If any American cannot understand the position of the Iraqi resistance, they have flag-colored glasses that are blinding their reason.
Muqtada al Sadr WILL fight a hundred year insurgent resistance type geurilla war, or he will be elected President.
So, really the choice is when to say we're sorry and we're leaving.
Then Muqtada and his Sunni nationalist counterparts will put down their guns and abandon their righteous resistance to our illegal invasion, our unconscionable occupation and our immoral attempts to legally steal their resources.
Obama's neoliberal agenda of protecting our troops and securing our interests is a harbinger for more of the same.
Much more.
Youll get no argument from me as to the immoral, illegal, and dishonest way the administration implemented and conducted the Iraq invasion and occupation.
That said, contrary to your highly naieve and romantic view of what you call the "resistance" THERE IS NO unified popular front in Iraq .
The resistance you seem to admire so is made up of dozens, if not HUNDREDS of factions,...........each selfishly and murderously pursuing power and united ONLY by their willingness to kill any and all who stand in their way, be they Shia, Sunni, women, children and most especially Americans.
I think you know that these bloodthirsty "freedom fighters" have DELIBERATELY killed HUNDREDS of times as many Iraqi children as US troops have.
I think you also know that the idea that the evil Mr. Al sader and the Sunni militias would lay down their arms and peacfully co-exist but for the presence of US security is PURE UNADULTERATED BULL S**T!
That you seem to ADMIRE these groups that strive daily to murder our sons and daughters in uniform, and blithely ignore the many thousnds of innocent Iraqis slaughtered in their ruthless quest for power ..........
I find disgusting and BENEATH CONTEMPT.
With absolute LACK of regard.............................................................tm
Senator Biden is the only one, for anyone paying attention, who has developed and honed a comprehensive and viable strategy for promoting a sustainable political solution for the political problem that is Iraq. While Joe Biden has been gathering an overwhelming and unprecedented level of support from all corners for this plan, Senator Obama has been - by far - the most disingenuous of all the candidates when it comes to his rhetoric on Iraq which he has successfully used as compensation for his obvious paucity of foreign policy prowess.
I would suggest that he will need Joe Biden at his side as Vice President With Special Portfolio on Iraq, in waiting, if he hopes to prevail in the general election.
"I will end the Iraq War crime and occupation within 1 year, hopefully faster. The details will required a full assessment on the conditions on the ground at that time. We will then select a withdrawal date and begin immediately transferring all responsibility and authorities to the Iraqis. Once our troops have left, If our embassy or our ambassadors are attacked, we will close our embassy there till such a time as we a guaranteed better security. If Iraq descends into further chaos, the USA will not go back in. Some other solution will have to be found. the USA needs a break from the endless task of trying to improve the world. "
Note to Obama: Always be wary of Bushies deserting their chosen path to follow yours. More likely they are trying to lead you down a path of their own. And get some diplomats on your staff so you won't be blinded by the rhetoric of the war mongers whose jobs depend upon a continuation of the war.
June 2008 -
“Iraq has another option that it may use,” Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. “The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
“Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement “reached an impasse” after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors."
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/13/iraqi-pm-suggests-us-might-be-asked-to-leave/
Please take note that the Iraqi government is not concerned about a phased withdrawal and without the cover of the U.N. mandate, the US presence in Iraq will be seen for what it is - an armed occupation that has destabilized Iraq and the region.
But he hasn't asked us to leave, has he?
The media never even covered Dennis Kucinich's stands on the issues, having already decided they wanted a beauty contest between the first ____ president and the first _____ president.
There WAS a candidate who supported universal health care in the race and it was Dennis Kucinich. Edwards had the the right interim, transitional plan. Kucinich would have also made sure we were out of Iraq without the waffling.
But issues had no role to play in the primaries about the clash and cults of personalities.
You are seriously comparing Obama to Johnson and Nixon for saying that any position evolves with time? I missed that on my first round through. Are you people out of your minds? There has certainly been betrayal - and not just from Johnson and Nixon, but from the New Left - which brought us a Nixon presidency and the "Progressive" movement, which has ushered in two terms of Bush, the war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of deaths and atrocities - by acting like reactionaries, throwing their votes to Nader, and playing straight into Republican hands.
The Republicans openly committed crimes but said they didn't and "you people" started saying the same thing - forget what happened during the election, we lost because of Nader - the Republicans say so and the Democrats in congress are silent. It has become your tiresome forever chant.
I am just as puzzled by "you people" who seem willing to sell out America one more time. I am of the opinion that you are all very fearful.
Besides this whole debate leaves out the most important factor - what are the troops staying in Iraq to protect? According to a lot of the reductionist/simplistic logic in some of these comments, the troops are staying to protect each other in the guise of protecting our 'national interests'.
But what are our national interests in Iraq? What are the 50,000 or so troops being left to protect?
The profits of Big OIL who won those no bid contracts - that was the goal of this war to begin with - and we all seem to have lost sight of that.
We are not in Iraq to fight terrorism. We are in Iraq to protect Exxon and its profits. Maybe the American people think that's just fine. I, for one, would rather ride a bike and cut back on energy consumption than have my kid die in Iraq to protect Exxon's bottom line.
The real question is - what are we there to fight for? Let Obama answer that and the logical followup question - who's gonna protect Big Oil? I am tired of politicians trotting out the old 'we gotta fight 'em over there' tag line. And Obama is doing just that when he says we need a residual force for 'counterterrorism' purposes. Substitute 'big oil' for 'counterterrorism' and you get
What is the point of leaving a residual force of 50,000 troops in Iraq? Please attempt to answer that without resorting to that old sorry line - to fight terrorism.
Obama says we must leave trooops in Iraq to protect our national security interests. Sounds good. What upstanding citizen could disagree with that?
But what are our national security interests in Iraq?
Please answer me that - I submit that our national security in Iraq comes down to protecting Big Oil who are now pleased to have landed those no bid contracts in Iraq. Only took them 36 years to get back. How are they going to drill oil and screw the Iraqi people without our troops protecting their corporate interests? With our sons and daughters, of course.
Is that okay with you?
Well, somebody should point blank ask Obama who's gonna protect big oil when the troops pull out?
Until then, please, tell me, seriously, do you believe we have to "stay over there to avoid fighting them over here"?
Why must we leave 50,000 troops in Iraq really?
I thought the point of his post was exactly that, Obama has not changed positions. Four months ago Samantha Powers said that withdrawal in 16 months was a best case scenario and was unlikely to actually happen. HC even tried to make an issue of Obama not being sincere about troop withdrawal until her own published plan for withdrawal was shown to be unlikely as well.
His website allows him wiggle room -
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
He has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that as president he would begin immediate withdrawal of our troops and have them out within 16 months but he failed to say that was only under certain conditions. People who thought Obama was the anti-war candidate who was actually going to withdraw troops from Iraq have not been paying attention.
I think he will withdraw troops and will aggressive seek an end to the war. But he is going to do it in a responsible way.
I say, stop appeasing to get another kilovote. The base will grow even stronger if and only if that original primary character remains strong. Dilute it and we will notice and respond in kind. Compromise our will and we will respond.
America is a bit touchy about hidden agendas today. I'm sure Senator Obama understands. We need more than verbal assurances. We wan certainty, not mollification. The People have been played for fools far too long.
If Obama truly is an original, he must prove it long before the convention. Show us, Senator.
Why do we need to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq? For counterterrorism? To protect each other?
Whenever you hear a politician talk about 'counterterrorism' substitute the word 'oil' instead and his or her rhetoric suddenly (and sadly) makes perfect sense.
More importantly, we need leadership that will move us from a wartime to a peacetime economy, and one whose vision is to de-escalate, not look for more parts of the globe to preempt or provoke.
Right you are, Obama represents a movement, and must account to that movement, but any efforts to
sabotage him by pointing out his flip-flops will only result in a president, McCain, who has the opportunity to appoint another neanderthal to the Supreme Court, and provoke greater global hostility in the name of homeland security.
Progressives, and those who want change, must get behind Barack, and not pander to Republican talking points about flip-flopping. Jeez----JFK would be called a flip-flopper, too, given his last press conference in which he declared his desire to rethink his commitment of 15,000 troops. This is a country without Hamlets that is overrun by Macbeths, Macdonalds---please, no McCain!
Because they are no longer a real social democratic party Democratic leaders today do not even try to persuade the electorate that the rightist gospels of free marketeering at home and imperialism abroad are deviations from the true (communitarian) American way. The Dems' only presidential victors since 1972 have been failed third way types who helped consolidate (rather than blunt) the Reagan Revolution. Consequently, everything that really matters in America, with the exception of some increases in lifestyle freedom, has gone from bad to worse in the past decades.
Obama's presidency will have precisely the same effect. In spurning the liberals he opportunistically courted in order to secure the nomination, Obama is not only practicing illicit political polygamy but dooming his presidency (if he wins in November) to mandate-less footnote status in the grand historical scheme of things. A greater waste of potential can hardly be imagined.
Eric C Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
2) FDR did lay out some details of his economic plan in 1932
http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932e.htm
http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932b.htm - "I have favored the use of certain types of public works as a further emergency means of stimulating employment and the issuance of bonds to pay for such public works...I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people." That is his nomination speech. He did not wait for the early months of his administration to unveil the New Deal.
Democrats had a mandate to get us out of Iraq in 2006 but they have consistently continued to fund the war without demanding withdrawal - that in BO so I'm not sure of why you think another mandate will make a difference.
Obama presented himself in the Dem primaries as a refreshing (yes, mainly liberal) alternative to a return to Clintonism (Hillary brand), as someone willing to speak truth to power, albeit collegially rather than confrontationally.
When he (perhaps unexpectedly to himself) won the nomination, he was faced with the famous Redford moment from The Candidate: "What do we do now?" Unfortunately he answered it by, in effect, running for Bill Clinton's third term (and yes, take on his Bubba constituents as second wives). This minimalistic effort is like trying to "step into the same river twice" or in Jefferson's phrase, fit into the clothes you wore as a child.
A better communitarian America and world is possible. At the end of an eventful 8 year interval, one which might be the longed-for culmination of that catastrophic pass of recent American history known as Reaganism, Obama is squandering an historic opportunity to advocate for and (with that mandate) create a new era of restored legitimate, progressive American government, a public interest presidency.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
"What is America's national security interest in Iraq?"
And
"Who is going to protect ExxonMobile et al, who won those no bid contracts, if and when our troops leave?"
If Obama can answer those questions without using the word 'counterterrorism' once then I will vote for him gladly.
Perhaps it's that:
1. Obama understands that removing 130,000 troops from an un-pacified Theater of War is not accomplished by waving a magic wand. It requires at least as much planning--maybe more--than the decision to send them there. One--me, for instance--can easily conjure a plausible scenario where we lose as many troops during the withdrawal as we have during the battle and the occupation. And,
2. Obama does not want to repeat the mistakes made by Bush on going in--namely, lack of planning, wishful thinking, unrealistically high expectations--as we go out.
3. With the exception of the political-Gen. Petraeus, one could argue that the military itself will be pleased to call a halt to this Travesty in Iraq, and will supply the necessary tactical information to the new president to best accomplish the goal they both share.
It's really easy to be a kibitzer, like I am and like Tom Hayden is.
To be the President is a much more difficult task, and O is understanding that he's only months away from being The Man.
FB
But you can dismiss my questions because who am I anyway - what do I know. I'm just a tax paying citizen with a kid over there.
I agree with you completely because I think you are exactly right!
Tom Hayden, stealth bomber. This is a disgraceful way for a supposed Democrat to open an editorial on the Democratic nominee. Forget that Obama's position is essentially unchanged, that he has been saying 16 months, been saying he would consult with ground forces, or that he is not so stupid as to ignore the fact that the future holds unknowns.
I am tired of these stuck-in-the-60s liberals and their self-righteous, self-serving outrage. I am hearing echoes of Ralph Nader and his atavistic, insulting comments, like "trying to talk white."
Please step aside and let a new generation, with more sense and less narcissism, take the reigns of our government. Your generation gave us this Iraq situation. 'Nuff said.
This is still a democracy (I hope) and this appears to be a democratic forum (I hope) created to express everyone's views, however divergent.
When it comes time to vote, thinking progressives 'get' that this is a two party system and that there is still a real difference between those parties -
The audacity of hope? For me, that damn well means we better hope there is a real difference.
Don't let us down Barack! That's all we're asking. And, perhaps, give peace a chance.
Obama said it best he is not moving to the center he is expanding the map. I've yet to see this flip flop on any position that folks are accusing him of. Thank goodness we have a democrat that actually believe the US has 50 states and refuse to concede Any to Rethugs.
Carol
Our troops? Blackwater?
Because it's all about the oil and that's what's gonna keep us in Iraq, republican and democrat, alike.