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
The "far left" is going to cost the Democrats the election again this year. You know them, those few who want a purity candidate, no war, no taxes, no big government, no death penalty, pro-choice, pro-government assistance, etc. So they vote for candidates who can't win. Nader, Kucinich, maybe even Ron Paul.
But while they throw a vote for the candidate with whom they agree with 100%, they eventually get a president with whom they disagree with 100%. So what's the lesson here? Where do they compromise?
Maybe the "far left" voter can in all good conscience continue to vote their interest for candidates who won't win, and suffer the country with a president who is more harm than good. Well, at least they voted for their interest. You can't hold that against them.
I'm "far left" and I have no problem supporting Obama. I never expected him to be "far left". I don't believe a "far left" candidate could win an election, or even a nomination, at this point in our history. He said clearly he wants to be the President of all Americans, so it seems absurd to expect him to make decisions that appeal to only a few, even if I am one of the few. Have any of his detractors paid any attention to Democratic candidates in past elections? When did we have a "far left" candidate? Though I think most of his opponents in the blogosphere are McCain or Clinton supporters who are attempting to bring him down, I realize there are some "far left" bloggers who expected him to be something he never was. If they are against any sort of compromise, then they can vote third party, do a write-in or not vote at all and accept the consequences.
If the left is imprtant to winning -- why is the left ignored? While the Democrats pander to the right wing war lovers
Typical for apologists. Just like 2000, blame the "far left" instead of looking at the inadequacy of their own campaign.
No candidate is entitled to triangulate against or take someone's vote for granted and expect that are entitled to that person's vote.
If Obama wants my vote, he better start advocating progressive values and policies again. If I had wanted a "centrist" Democrat, I would have voted for Clinton.
The nice thing about not having voted for the lesser of two evils is that you didn't vote for evil.
Look all of you people who feel let down by Sen. Obama John McCain is waiting for you with open arms, please go where you feel better, go where you feel someone you can agree with, or is this just trolls trying to get a raise, guess what it's not working HAHAHA
There are other options. People who are let down can vote for the Green Party or other progressive candidate, or write in the name of someone they do believe in.
John McCain is not the only other name on the ballot.
I will NEVER understand how people don't get this:
1. a candidate must win a majority of the electoral college delegates to win the presidency.
2. a president must govern for the good of all the people.
3. the voters SAY they are looking for a candidate who will provide leadership, but then trash the candidate when they try to provide it.
4. taking one position and holding it regardless of any change in conditions and new information received later, is the mark of an ignorant and stubborn person, not a thinking one.
Grow up, idealogues! The entire US constitution and balance of power among the 3 branches of government is based on checks and balances and therefore COMPROMISE!
Thanks for this post and the others as I've been very upset about Obama lately and I'm feeling better. And let's not forget that we already have someone who is closed-minded to changing factors, and that's worked out great for us hasn't it.
People who apologize for a candidate they are loyal too no matter what that candidate does are the ones who need to "grow up".
I am more concerned with Obama's speeches to AIPIC basically assuring them more and more that he is pro-war with Iran, and would support a bilateral (US/Israel) strike on Iran.
http://www
I am extremely concerned, that he has mentioned "strategic" strikes on Pakistan with our without their consent. How would we like it if somebody did a "strategic" strike within our borders with no international consent because we might be harboring somebody? It just seem weired that we act like other countries don't have rights we proudly proclaim for ourselves. This Iraq thing I'm not too worried about. He's already made it clear that "bring the troops home" mean "consolidate our resources for the next". He wants to modernize and expand the military.
We so need a Nader or Ron Paul (or unrelenting media) to challange a straight answer here.
Ya right, like a(nother) kick in the head, we do. Challenge a straight answer here (you may learn something), leave them out of it. Yuk already >; /
You do realize that except for the war, Ron Paul is very conservative on the issues, a straight libertarian who basically wants to do away without all government services? As for Nader, though I agree with him on most of the issues, he has absolutely no chance of appealing to a majority of Americans, so what's the point?
omama and his shifts to the right are doing a lot of damage. Young voters ( and some who should have remembered that at least one candidate ALWAYS uses change in a slogan) who believed the tired old *candidate for change* may become so disillusioned that they opt out of voting-------- period.
obama had a powerful message some said, but really wasn't his the same message we get from at least one candidate every election?
If the young people vote again maybe this experience will motivate them to look a little more closely at ALL the candidates and how they voted and what they said before they decided to run for election. Although I think obama began his presidential campaign when he started in politics and has been campaigning since then.
He said what you needed to hear to vote for him. And now he's saying what republicans need to hear to get their vote.
Will the REAL barack obama please stand up?
He did folks and he's a politician first.
Change? That's the rattle you hear in your pockets.
Do any of you go out in the real world and talk to members of the general electorate? All of my friends who support Obama, even the most liberal, are paying no attention to any of this. At this point, I'm going to follow their lead.
However, Rove and his minions are trying to change that.. headline on CNN today about Obama and his "changing" positions. Not good.
First off, there is no "peace movement". That's a myth.The majority of Americans do not want a peace which is perceived as our military running away with their tail between their legs. And as for diplomacy replacing war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, well that will work fine-- as long as Osama bin Laden and his his henchmen are turned over to us in shackles. Then I'm sure we could be persuaded to leave quietly.
I am getting so sick and tired of Sen. Obama being hit from the left the right and even so in the middle, we tried this for ever and always lose, maybe this is what we want never to win, if so we are on the right road but this time it will last for ever,Over turn Roe v. Wade, 3 new repub' oon the highest court in the land, I am to the point I am leaving the party, because we do not want to win, Sen. Obama is playing this thing just right, we need to win before we drive the bus off the cliff.
I share your frustration ! It seems that anyone who has a famous name can post a rant on this website and others like Kos himself and question Obama and give aid to the enemy, McCain.
Not only blogs, but it seems the whole MSM, CNN,MSNBC and of course Faux, NYT and WAPO repeat lie after lie after lie.
Case in point: Gen. Clark. McCain puts out a "how dare you criticize my service" and like lemmings the MSM picks it up and distorts Clarks words and reoeats, repeats it a thousand times.
Case in point: Obama says the word "refine" and McCain puts out"Obama flip flops on Iraq" and here go the MSM again....E
The MSM is in love with McCain and his so called military service. Never do they ask why only 100 pages of 700 of his military records have been released. I have my suspicions, tho....
Hayden's post should be required reading for all Obama suporters, a group who backed him for all the right reasons, and are now seeing who he really is - and has been all along. The comments which claim his ambiguous positions and use of language which is designed to obfuscate are required to win the election are simply misguided. A man who commited himself to straight talk and idealistic values - and made that the foundation of his appeal - is simply dishonest to now claim what he calls "flexibili
First, to address the assertion that not one of the other candidates tried to explore the unanswered questions left by Sen. Obama's ringing, but shallow, rhetoric. The press was all in an Obama swoon and heard noting that anyone else had to say. When the corporatist press did cover those questions, it was almost always in a negative and sarcastic light - as in "How dare you question this guy that is a rock star!". And, on the blogs, whenever anyone posted an article or made a comment trying to get at those elusive answers they were roundly, even viciously attacked by Sen. O's supporters. Second, with regards your position that the new voters that were attracted to the other Sen. Obama, the primary campaign Obama, can have any effect on his positions as we go forward. Well, I think you have but to look at his Thursday response to the group that sprang up on his website that is against the part of the FISA bill that gives immunity to the Telecoms for helping Shrub break the law. His response to those supporters was pretty much, "Whatever.
Obama's reply on FISA was hardly "whatever". He reaffirmed he wasn't perfect, he was trying to make the best decision that he can in the present circumstances and tried to elucidate the nuances, then he reaffirmed that we could only have the changed politics and government he is commited to if the constituency continues to hold him along with all other politicians accountable and confront him where we think he is wrong. That is so totally different than what we have become used to and certainly wasn't "whatever". Would anyone have any respect for him if he "snapped to it" and obeyed a dictate from any constituency? I agree with the person above on how we look for leadership and then savage the candidate who courageously steps forward and attempts it. Appropo I'd suggest you read LA Times opinion piece by Neal Gabler called Cannibal Liberals. The democrats are herding cats as the saying goes, but we don't have to do the McCain campaign work for them by falling into their soundbites and spin.
Tom, what you're going through is speculative fear.
Like you, I am a progressive, but we need to be realistic. The problem with many of us is that we think we progressives OWN Obama, and therefore, since we are willing to risk our souls and money for the guy, we start forming this delusional shell which continuously echo back to ourselves the idea that if Obama does not agree with us all the time, then we are wrong to support him.
Obama would become the President of the American people, and not just left-wing radicals. We misjudge him big time when we insist that he MUST do what we want him to do, simply because we have pinned on him our views, without thinking that there are many out there who hold different opinions from our own, and Obama would become their President, too.
We would be no different from those in the extreme right, a.k.a. Rush Limbaugh, if we always think that we are right all the time and if Obama does not kiss our ass, to hell with him.
He has to work with all Americans, even those who do not hold his views. The important thing is that he would end the American occupation of Iraq, and he has to do it responsibly.
Obama needs to clarify two things.
First, what the role would be for any "residual" US forces in Iraq. If they're some kind of "tripwire" that could summon reinforcements, that's as dumb as the war itself. A much more sensible mission would be to relocate them to Kurdistan, both to protect the region from invasion by Turkey or Iran and to inhibit freelance attacks by Kurds against Turkey or Iran.
Second, he should promise to move substantial fighting units from Iraq to Afghanistan, to defeat the people who actually attacked us. He's already made it clear that as president he won't tolerate attacks from Pakistan. And we have strong economic levers on Pakistan that may be even more persuasive and less visible than overt military action. Over time, Pakistan's elected government is going to realize that the Taliban and other fanatics are a threat to them also.
We need to reformulate the Mideast foreign policy that is at the root of our troubles there, but we also need to make sure that people understand that people who kill people in our country will be crushed. That's a sensible position, good politics also, that will show Americans that Obama's not "weak" on defense -- but rather strong AND smart.
Mr. Hayden: To you and the other progressive bloggers like Kos, keep on with your articles dissing Obama and you are going to end up with the very same people running this country and ruining this country; Bush/Cheney/McCain, again.
You are joining the MSM, the Corporatiions who want to hold onto power like the Murdochs of this world, the Haliburtons and other contractors by critical of Obama every time he opens his mouths.
The MSM is still to this day July 5th, printing that he is waffling on troop pull out even though he held a press conference two frigging days ago, to state equivocally that he had not changed his postion on ending this War.
BE very careful how you criticize every stand he takes. You will help the enemy, McCain. Or do you not think his operatives read these blogs. Kos should pay the same attention as others need to do.
Very well said, Tom.
Absolutely. Mr. "I was against the war when they voted for it," is moving dangerously to the middle on Iraq. Bush is going to get us snared in another war with Iran before that piece of work leaves for Crawford Texas, and nothing OTHER THAN ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE should be more important to the next president than getting us the hell out of Iraq. It is time to give our service men and women something honourable to do with their lives. There is no honour in being in Iraq. There is honour in leaving. There is honour in helping a country like Afghanistan heal itself, if for no other reason but to free the women of that country from the brutal oppression they face every minute of every day.
So...was this a complaint that Obama shouldn't slow down the removal of troops if it would be disastrous to them, Iraq, and our security, because that's what it sounds like?
He's saying the same thing he's always said...he'
Maybe this is news to some people, but it's true that a battle plan almost never survives past the moment combat commences. But that doesn't make it any less reprehensible that our president didn't plan appropriately for even the best case viable scenario, let alone the worst.
How abhorrent would we be if we failed to learn from this criminal stupidity and irresponsibly insisted on adhering to the plan we want for getting our soldiers out of Iraq when we want them out without considering the feasibility of that method and planning for leeway in either direction?
And how can we honestly believe we're serving any purpose by grandstanding against a candidate who intends to hold to his projected troop withdrawal timeline but won't dismiss the expertise of soldiers and commanders in deciding whether that timeline needs tweaking?
egal,
Few, if any, advocate dismissing military experts in the TACTICS of withdrawal from Iraq.
What is at issue is whether to attempt to continue the occupation with fewer troops, continued bases, and continued mercenaries.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
