Obama's Position on Iraq Could Put His Candidacy at Risk
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
Loading comments…
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
Obama has never claimed the he'd turn off the Iraq war like a light switch. To imply that not doing so is taking up McCain's position on Iraq, is ridiculous. You write that the safety and security of our troops, and the need to maintain stability are "two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely". So the safety and security of our troop, and stability in the region should not be taken into consideration? The Iraq war must end, but the US must take some responsibility for the situation we leave behind. The US invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason; it wasn't to liberate Iraqis, or to fight terrorists, or to defend against WMD's. We created a very dangerous situation in Iraq that didn't exist before. As important as it is to end the war, a "screw you, we're going home" type of withdrawal would be hugely irresponsible.
For 'safety and stability' read 'oil' and the Big 5 with those sweet, no bid contract deals.
Who's gonna keep the big 5 safe while they pump that Iraqi oil for us? Oh yeah, with all the windfall profits they'll make they can hire Blackwater. No problem. We'll be out of Iraq in no time.
How come Obama doesn't talk about that? Hmmmmmmm.
So "safety and security of our troops" is code for "oil". Riiight. Talk about drinking the kool-ade.
Tom writes: "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. "
What the Left giveth, the Left can taketh away...and it was the core base of the Left-wing that is responsible Obama being where he is today.
Here, I believe, is the only "force", to use Tom's words, that can pressure Obama to stay on track:
http://www
tkodaks:
Please stop taking us for fools! The hard self- righteous left did not start supporting Obama until Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards dropped out. by the way I belonged to that group as I was a Kucinich supporter. Sen. Obama opposed the war in 2002 not because of people like Tom Hayden but because he believed that the war was illegal and wrong headed. Baraka Obama comes from the grassroots and understands that you cannot be so self-righteous because you end up turning off many people who may not see things exactly as you do. The righteous left is so good at pressuring its allies but does absolutely nothing to expand its base. Consequently, it ends up loosing. Obama is about expanding the base to help him implement many of the issues dear to the progressives.
As a fellow Kucinich supporter I salute you. But Obama gave that speech to a progressive constituency in Illinois - they weren't gonna elect a George dubya Bush in that district. So the stance he took in Iraq back then, while prescent, wasn't all that brave. In fact, a cynic might say it was fairly expedient.
My concern is the oil conglomerates and their no bid contracts. Somebody's gonna have to keep them safe and I don't want it to be my son.
The garbage the far left has been putting on Obama lately is disgusting. For one thing, Obama has been against this war from day-1. He has never changed his position. The plan for pulling out would have to be approved by his generals. To do otherwise is irresponsible and probably worth impeachment. If Obama said at one point that we should pull out in 16 months and the generals insist on 24 months, so be it. That's what happens. Plans get changed. That's reality.
Many in the MSM supported war in 2003. Hillary Clinton voted for it. 70+ percent of this country supported war in 2003. (For those with selective amnesia, Google the March 2003 polls )
Those 70+% who have changed their minds and are now against the war are the Mother of all Flip Floppers!!! Obama-has-
To call Obama slippery on Iraq is beneath contempt.
AMEN!
It is also worth noting that this faux controversy was started several months ago by the Clinton campaign, in which they leapt on a comment by Samantha Powers which said, and I'm paraphrasing:
"Duh! We are not 100% certain he is going to be able to implement his withdrawal plan, as it is now articulated, because the ground situation may change between now and then and we have to be prepared to alter it. We will consult with the commanders on the ground to formulate the best, and fastest plan for withdrawal
This should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent adult. This is not even news.
And as for yet another progressive blogger demanding that Obama stake out a certain position or else? Give us a break. Check out some recent reader posts at TPM for a witty refutation of this nonsense.
Kman2
Thank you for your truthful statement. I am just so tired about the so called progressive who just lash out at Obama based on the propagandist corporate media headlines. The so called MSM seem to be an extension of McCain's campaign. I don't how many times Obama has said that he would be "careful" pulling out as Bush was "careless" invading. Besides the immorality and the illegality of invading a country that had done nothing against the United States, the Bush regime never seriously considered the consequences of the invasion. Colin Powell warned them of the Pottery Barn rule: "You break it, you own it." Obama, if he is elected, will inherit the shattered pieces of Iraq. Unfortunately he cannot disown them because Bush made sure that they belong to the United States and not just simply to the Bush regime. That is why the next president has to exercise a great deal of caution on how to put together the Iraq pieces that resulted from this immoral and illegal war. Besides, if John McCain is elected, American people may be left to pick up the pieces not only in Iraq but also in Iran and who knows elsewhere. So Progressives enough of this Obama bashing that is giving ammunition to the right wingers.
This comment is just plain hogwash! Since when does disagreeing with a general add up to impeachment? You need to go read the Constitution.
Do you have a child in Iraq? A father, a mother, a brother, a sister? That's what happens - plans get changed? That is too cavalier an attitude when people's lives hang in the balance.
Yeah we've seen what happens and how plans change. I, for one, do not trust any of these leaders especially with the oil companies leading the charge with their no bid contracts in Iraq. With those thugs in Iraq the plans will change real quick. You can count on that.
Obama has now officially adopted McCain’s position on Iraq — that any withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq will be conditions-based.
Today, Obama told reporters: “The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal. Those are things that are all based on facts and conditions, and you know I’m not somebody who, unlike George Bush, is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions. I want to pay attention to what’s happening on the ground.”
It's all about the oil. How come nobody's asking Obama about those no bid oil contracts and how that might affect his plans for withdrawal? Who's gonna guard ExxonMobile over there? Not my son.
Thanks, Tom. Good post.
I met Jeremy Skahill last week here in Houston after he gave a great presentation promoting his book going to paperback with updates. I brought my teenage daughter who wants to study journalism as she works to get in college, and it was a defining moment for her as she grasped probably for the first time completely the urgency of understanding the dire situation this world finds itself in at this time.
During his questions, I asked something in a statement form: Why do we allow the right wingers to steal the moral high ground by calling our presence in Iraq a war? There's a war on terror, sure, but positioning ourselves in Iraq does not constitute our presence there as a war.
It's not a war, It's an occupation. If we demand the accountability of properly addressing this situation, the surrender, the defeatist tags- all fall away.
If we stop calling this invasion a war, which it was until May, 2003, when Bush declared his Mission Accomplished, and we thereby became an occupying force, then we can begin to honestly debate our leaving this part of the world, and asking the area nations to fill the vaccuums created and leave in a precise and delibrate fashion, expedientl
I am afraid of Jeremy Scahill and his whole take on the mercenary armies in Iraq or California for that matter. Why? Because it is just so damn frightening. And, now, predictable, with CEOs earning 350 times (or some obscene number) what the average worker makes at some American corporations.
It is nothing new, of course, mercenary armies. But, somehow, with the internets and blogs we thought. I cannot happen here.
You can quote me on that. With all this information, it cannot happen here.
I hope I am wrong.
I am so sick and tired of absolutists on the left destroying our possibility for REAL progress.
It's called being hoisted on his own pitard. You can't appeal to people's noblest aspirations,use the generated enthusiasm to take their hard earned money, seduce them into untold hours of volunteerism, feed them on a diet of wildly inspirational rhetoric, filling their hearts with fantastical dreams of "changing the world" just to awaken them to a sobering reality of a typical run-of-the-mill, triangulating careerist. To make matters worse you are then scolded and lectured on the necessity to embrace an immediate stunning pivot to a cynicism, calculation, and poll-driven pragmatism that amounts to a hijacking of a people's deepest hopes for a brighter future. I'm sorry. It's just not possible to go there. Listen, we had far more experienced, talented pragmatists with the same core beliefs to choose from in the primary. We didn't need this con to settle on this kind of nominee. This is bait and switch taken to the 10th power. I'm not buying. It's not too late for a brokered convention.
If he can change his mind on something this important, so can we.
"You can't appeal to people's noblest aspirations,use the generated enthusiasm to take their hard earned money, seduce them into untold hours of volunteerism, feed them on a diet of wildly inspirational rhetoric, filling their hearts with fantastical dreams of "changing the world" just to awaken them to a sobering reality of a typical run-of-the-mill, triangulating careerist. To make matters worse you are then scolded and lectured on the necessity to embrace an immediate stunning pivot to a cynicism, calculation, and poll-driven pragmatism that amounts to a hijacking of a people's deepest hopes for a brighter future."
-----------
This is the best and most accurate thing I have read on Huffingtonpost in several weeks.
Gm11
Here Here! I think these "absolutists on the left" want McCain to win so that they may continue selling us their books. Don't get me wrong I think they should be critical of Obama, but this non-stop venomous attacks on Obama are self defeating. I have bean a student of American history, I have yet to find a perfect president. The venerated founding father, Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves and yet many leftist are fond of invoking him. And Abraham Lincoln, it took him two years before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which, by the way, did not apply to all slaves. But would the country been better off if Lincoln was defeated because he was not a radical abolitionist? Then there is FDR who did great things for the working class, but he also sent Japanese to detention camps without trial, and refused to support anti-lynching legislation. This is not to say that Obama should be spared of criticism, but the criticism must be measured and less venomous. Even the extreme right that did not like McCain is now toning down its attacks on him just as the self-righteous left is pumping the volume in attacking Obama. All I see from many of the so called left is petulance: "Obama, you betrayed me on FISA, no more donation, no more canvassing to support you, may or may not vote for you, you no different from Bush, etc."
Absolutists on the left? Now the progressives are willing to eat their own because they can't take genuine criticism of Obama? Wake up! Stop falling in line and labeling people who primarily believe in what you do. Concerned citizens question their leaders, period. The republicans must be loving comments like yours.
Mr Hayden, you are aware that progressives who walk away from BHO because he's going past the center & to the right will require voting for a radical leftist who will end W's wars rapidly, with or without approval from the US Congress. Good, I'm glad that you are aware of that. Abandoning the 2 party, 1 policy, system for a multi-party system is a necessary step to depriving the USA's establishment of its power to use its de facto power to dictate what the USA will do & will be.
So, let me get this straight. Mr Hayden. Are you saying that if Obams changes his position on Iraq, that we will all suddenly go vote for McCain. I really can't buy into that argument. Besides, Sen Obama made his point extremely clear. It's the media that is trying to spin this into meaning something that it is not.
That's not what I heard in this post - that we Obama folks will be flocking to the repubs. What I heard is frustration at Obama's waffling.
Obama knows this election is too important to throw away our votes. That's the problem, that's why he's tacking to the right.
Let's reframe the question - how does Obama see our role in Iraq with ExxonMobile et al firmly entrenched in those once national oil fields? Remember when we all got smart and figured out is was all about the oil? Well, I don't want my son or daughter dying in Iraq to protect the Big 5's oil profits.
My question for all you true believers out there - do you?
Congratulations to Arianna that this site has become the forum for such important voices and arguments!
Tom, you have been a guide and teacher to me through your writing and activism since Port Huron. Stage after stage, decade after decade, lesson-learned after lesson-learned, I sned your articles to my friends, with my comment: "What he said."
I agree with your analysis and proposals here, and hope that the peace groups will mobilize around demands such as these, and adopt this strategic perspective -- it will be necessary to force these to overwhelm these out-of-touch, pro-war Democrats to FORCE these reforms onto the agenda of this new progressive movement (if it is to be a such).
BTW, are you considering replacing Diane Feinstien in the next Senate? Just wonderin'
Arianna, impossibly, your political writing kees getting better and better, as you growing, before the eyes of the world. Well done!
SGGrossman:
So you will have no problem enabling the election of Mccain over Obama because Obama said that he wanted to "refine," but has not changed, his position on ending the invasion of Iraq; whereas McCain has repeatedly stated that it really does not matter how long the troops stay in Iraq-it could be 100 years? So will you then come and cry if McCain decides to invade or bomb Iran? Sometimes I wonder about the self-destructive behavior of us people on the left. Rather than work to elect Obama and then push him to advance our interests we would do everything in our power to sabotage him all in the name of upholding principles. Have you seen how the extreme right who detest McCain have rallied to him simply to defeat Obama? So are we supposed to join them in doing that so that we may preserve the pure principles of the left before we ever get any access to the levers of power? Somebody how to explain why all this fury against Obama from the left? Is it because we don't want him to win?
I truly wonder if there is any way to secure certain "promises" during a general Presidential election. I say this because of the mere scope of a general election, the amount of people needed to win, and considerations of all those people's beliefs and desires.
It seems in the end, one must vote for one of two candidates based on what they represent, even if it is based on party affiliation. Make it simple. If you are not wealthy, vote for the Democrat. If you are wealthy or self-employed vote for the Republican, because the basic thinking of these two parties have foundations in these two variables.
Personally, I trust Obama to do the right thing for the people of this country, the majority of the people, when he is elected. There is no reason to believe otherwise, and no reason to believe McCain will do anything to help the average person. McCain is a Republican, he is undoubtably going to do for the privileged few.
I hate to make an ugly comparison - but remember the bush rhetoric from 2000? Compassionate conservative, no nation building?
Given the stakes, it is a dereliction of civic duty to 'trust' a candidate to do the 'right thing' especially with Big oil controlling the oil fields in Iraq.
You guys are missing the point. He is going to Iraq soon. We have been hearing that the surge is working and we are also hearing quite a number of the army people who are now serving feel that their comrades lost lives are wasted if we just pulled out. Obama never said he is not stopping the war, but one must also note that if he is going to Iraq he needs to go there with an open mind. Otherwise, why border. Do not jump on him with every little misused words. He is being honest. You want that in a President. Otherwise, you will have another Bush in the White House. Why is McCain's supposedly maverick status appealing to independent? McCain is now touting the line. He wants to win and he is being dishonest to himself and the public. If you cannot win, whatever you said and do right now means zero.
I recall Clinton and Obama said they wanted to start pulling troops out immediately. However, if the situation in Iraq changes, and Obama cannot pull the troops out because it will in danger their lives, I honestly hope and pray that Obama would do the right thing according to the situation. Lord, how irresponsible he would be if he still pulled them out and created danger for the ones remaining because he promised he would do so. That does not make a good leader and it would not be a good or responsible judgment call.
yours is an odd reductionist logic - and you are certainly not only -
The troops have to stay in Iraq to protect the troops that have to stay in Iraq to protect the troops who have to stay in Iraq to protect the troops . . . .
You know why the troops have to stay in Iraq? To protect our national interests. And do you know what are national interest is? Oil.
So the troops have to stay in Iraq to protect ExxonMobile, et al so they can pump that luscious black stuff that lubricates the wheels of capitalism. Defending each other is what the troops have to do to survive.
P.S. Just watch his July 3 news conference. He is very clear on his position. Why is this being distorted except as a political ploy by the Republican talking heads. Why is Mr. Hayden buying into it?
I thought the waiver on Iraq talking point was a Republican lie. I guess it has Mr Hayden worried, too.
Mr. Obama came out and reiterated his position is clear terms. He is ending this war, period. He stated what is so badly missing from discussion on Iraq: The President is responsible to defining the mission and not the generals. How refreshing to hear a leader take the lead. Mr. Obama is quite comfortable with his authority as President to use it. This is called leadership.
I am not worried about Mr. Obama on Iraq at all. He is clear. The mission is to end this war. He will do it.
My question is why isn't the MSM and Mr Hayden pounding McCain/McBush on their long term goals in Iraq. It was not and is not Iraq's threat to US. It was about wanting to establish a government friendly to US interests in region. Imperialism or empire building? They do not want to get out of Iraq. They just want violence to go down enough to stay there indefinitely and influence the region via a puppit regime.
Mr. Obam says that is not his goal. He is unwilling to waste more blood and treasure on this fiasco. He has been clear REPEATEDLY.
Mr Hayden should be focusing on the difference in goals of Mr Obama and Mr McCain and jumping on McCain.
The war is over. When will we end the occupation?
Leaving a residual force of up to 50,000 troops in Iraq is not a withdrawal I can believe in though I will be voting for Obama anyway - there is no realistic alternative. (Sorry once again, Ralph.)
I never liked Obama's stance on the war or Clinton's either. They were never my first choice. And Obama's rhetoric since his nomination has just made things worse, especially his pandering to AIPAC. But I am a progressive and I will vote Obama. That doesn't mean I don't get to question him on the issues, does it?
Leaving a large residual force in Iraq is just asking for trouble. But somebody has to protect American Big Oil. Might as well be our sons and daughters since we guzzle the oil.
"I first endorsed Obama based on the movement supporting him, not his..stand
That is the disaster many on this site would shut you down for even thinking about let alone uttering. Can we really take the chance on a divided convention? Isn't that just what the repubs want?
Maybe this is what Clinton meant by anything can happen before the election?
Well, since you are giving vent to your fantasy, here's mine: The people see the light, the delegates rethink, and Kucinich grabs the nomination.
My fantasy ends there, of course, just short of the general election (no pun intended).
Unfortunately, your fantasy and mine would doom the democrats chances for taking back the WH.
Mr. Hayden, as a politician with access to the inner workings of the Washington machinery you are avoiding glaring realities as are the MSM.
ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ IS A SHELL GAME AT THIS POINT.
We are building permanent military bases and have just handed out oil contracts to the major oil companies.
What presidential candidate can honestly address that issue?
Ending the war in Iraq means all the troops come home. If we leave 50 thousand troops and probably twice as many mercenaries (lets stop calling them contractors) will the Iraqi insurgents feel like enough changes have been made so that the violence suddenly goes away?
They want us out. The corporate machine wants their multi-trillion dollar Iraqi spigot to keep flowing.
Don't forget, the major change brought about by the Iraqi war is an insurgent population directly aligned with Iran. Any peace process that doesn't bring Iran into the discussions is doomed to failure.
Is the next president, no matter how committed to peace, going to unmake the permanent occupational economy and start a dialogue with Iran?
Will not happen. Keep this in mind. They want us out. The corporate oligarchy want us in.
Who is more powerful?
Thank you django707! These are the questions we should be posing to both candidates and to each other.
All this rhetoric about 'careful withdrawals' begs the question - why are we keeping up to 50,000 residual troops in Iraq?
National security? How about corporate security? Or are those now the same things for America?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
