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
Great ! Tom Hayden. And Abbie Hoffman posted! Maybe we could resurrect the real Abster to give Obama advice on winning the presidency. No wonder you think Kucinich and Sanders are representative pols. Look, Obama is doing what he has to do to win Reagan Democrats in the Midwest and independents in the Rocky Mountain States. Daily Kos readers won't put him over the top. Obama has to appear center to center-left, just as Clinton did, especially as the first African-American candidate and one rated "the most liberal senator." He'll govern more from the left, but the first order of business is winning the election. You know what they say about Republicans: They don't know how to govern, but they know how to win. Democrats need to learn to do both, and cut their candidates some slack when they do.
"Look, Obama is doing what he has to do to win Reagan Democrats in the Midwest and independents in the Rocky Mountain States." Instead of stating what he believes, he is now "doing what he has to win...."sad to see the dream becoming a nightmare.
Well, he could run from a far left position, lose (just like Lamont in CT), and then we could be angry for another four years with a president who wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue Bush's domestic policies. Folks, it is what it is. Two quotes from P.T. Barnum,
"Many persons are always kept poor, because they are too visionary."
And then the famous one,
"There's a sucker born every minute."
A lot of Americans are suckers, and will fall for what the GOP is about to unleash. Obama is a progressive, and I'm sure he'll govern as one. But he can't do that if McCain wins the election, and elections are as much about who projects the best image as who has the best ideas. See Bush v Gore.
If Obama is not "doing what it takes to win", doesn't that mean he is entitled to the same vitriolic level of criticism that the Obamaniacs threw on Hillary Clinton and her supporters?
It is breathtaking in irony how Obama has become the real second coming of Bill Clinton -- a slick politician who is great a getting elected, but who wont actually change the direction of the country once in office.
How sad this election has turned out already.
The scariest thing of all for Obama must be that many if not most of his new supporters that came out of the woodwork to hand him victory were motivated by his fresh new message of hope and unity. They thought he was a new kind of politician. One that could transcend the petty politics that causes so much apathy among these voting blocs.
Now that he has the nomination, the core Democrats are trying to line up behind him and rally the troops. But those very voters that were participating for the first time must be utterly shell shocked by all this triangulation and flip floppery. The luster is wearing very thin, and many of those voters must seem betrayed, or foolish for believing that a politician COULD be different.
At the end of the day, the Dems may end up right back where they have been for the last few elections, trying to keep the party together while everyone wanders off. It's the old 'herding cats' analogy, but this time it's kittens (young voters), who are even more difficult to control, especially once they lose faith in something.
Every one of Baracks positions leaves unasked questions with no answeres EXCEPT ... tax ,tax ,tax and of course refine and defend and explain his flips.
FRIENDS, WE MUST SUPPORT THE'' ELECTION MANUVERING TO WIN'' BY OBAMA AND DEMS IN CONGRESS, PERHAPS DASCHLE SHOULD GO FROM BARAK'S STAFF. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE AND WAIT AONTHER 4,8, OR 12 YRS IN WILDERNESS AND SEE THE WARS, LOW WAGE POLUTING POLICIES OF GOP'S IN WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RIGHT NOW BE EAGER WITH ENERGY TO HELP GET OUT THE VOTE IN EVERY PRECINCT NATIONWIDE--BOYCOTT RT WING RADIO/TV!!!!! GET THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE GOING AGAIN ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buy a new keyboard that isn't jammed on caps lock!!!
You're sounding like a desperate schoolteacher, you worried about the judges?
PUMA
Love you Tom. I was expecting a post from you today because of Obama's recent statement about possibly refining his stance on Iraq. Obama does leave the door open on all issues for flexibility, but this is not one I want to leave open.
While I might not agree with every single thing you always say, I count on your voice as an anti-war crusader to keep the pendulum from going too far off. When things get out of hand in a war, I always think, well Tom is over there on the left keeping people from getting too far off track. I may not be as far left as you, but I count on you too keep us honest.
Keep on speaking out and start training some youngsters to learn your views too.
Who would have thought "hope and change" would evolve into hoping Obama will change? He's now taken at least part of the republican position on every issue I can think of. I want to re-do the primary and get one of the other candidates.
That is sooo funny.
Actually us dems are pretty much screwed !
In Thomas Jeferson's farewell address he ominously states "and heavan help us if we resort to domiceral vexation"
Thanks TJ!!!
Got context? Talk to the americans, the indians, the opposition.
If the Superdelegates voted for somone other than Clinton or Obama, say a "straw candidate" like Jimmy Carter, then no candidate wins a first ballot majority and the convention is thrown wide open.
Then the convention can draft Gore or someone else who will actually stand up for progressive policies and progressive values.
It won't happen, but it would save this horrible election.
Seems to be trouble in Oz now that the Wizard is exposing himself.
Little by little the luster fades...
Soon the funds will dry up...
The bickering starts...
The name calling begins...
The blame game revs up...
Hello Pres. McCain!
I'm not voting Obama, but this religion thing really is weird. Is the goverment supposed to be handing out money to churches ? Don't churches collect their own money ?
Is this McCain's new strategy? Hope?
I guess you need to be able to cling to something. Might as well be hope.
"It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. "
Not difficult for me to understand his motivation. He recently campaigned for Blue Dog Barrow against progressive State Senator Regina Thomas in Georgia. The Rahm Emanuel corporatocracy strategy. Obama wants to win. He's a gifted speaker but the arena is bigger now -- even the NY Times (no friend to progressives) is calling him New but Not Improved.
"What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party..."
I got onto the No on FISA blog on his site early on a couple of days ago and watched it grow with all the outraged and disappointed comments about his complete turnaround about FISA. The only way he was responsive is that he made a comment... but what he said what not what we wanted to hear. It was total crap. He's going for FISA lock, stock and barrel. What is so amazing to me is that no one is talking about why FISA was first put into place: because Nixon, Kissinger were wiretapping their enemies for political gain. Does anyone think that Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al., aren't doing the same thing???? That FISA is about terrorists? Please, grow up!
I couldn't imagine ever saying anything after Tom, or any of these americans. But, ...
Tuesday is the last defiance of Telecom imunity in the Senate. Their constitutional charge fails to matter too.The time is not Tom and his precious beacon. It is confrontation to realize, if not defend an america: tort.
Do not fail to matter.
May we all continue to be blessed.
Obama is no different than Nancy Pelosi. She took impeachment off the table and he'll build permanent bases in Iraq. We'll watch the high crimes of this administration go unpunished and he's going to throw our Fourth Amendment rights under the bus to keep us safe from "terrorists".
We're sunk..
I'm voting for Nader. GO RALPH!
We did and we hurled these last 90 months : /
I am disappointed.. in Obama's position on FISA. I am not going into panic mode over his Iraq statements. There is nothing to get exited about. They haven't shifted from his earlier position on Iraq. If you read this post carefully, even Tom admits that. The distinction that Obama needs to maintain on Iraq is two things. His withdrawal plan isn't a "punishment" or threat to the Maliki Government but a promise he has made to the American People. Second, that he will not hold the troops hostage to the political progress (or lack thereof) inside Iraq. He can still "refine" his withdrawal plans and keep the aforementioned points. As long as he does so, I am not panicking and no other Obama supporters should either.
The big problem for progressive democrats is, after the campaign narrowed down to Obama and Hillary, we found little difference. Neither of them honored or respected the voters of 2006 when we made a decided demand to end the war. So now we have this and each passing day brings more softening the edges, blurring the vision and moving toward the so-called middle.
So much for the 'change we can believe in'!
He's what American deserves.
Unfortunately, as many correctly suggest, Obama will do little without sufficient support. In fact, he can do little without sufficient support.
The forces now arrayed against change have too much power and organization. The forces for change too little.
Neither the military nor corporate institutions are democratic in nature. They both operate secretively, autocratically, and dismissive of any damage done to achieve their singular goals. Recently, they have shown their disdain for democracy at home and abroad, and their satisfaction with its pretense, whether in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, or in the spying and secrecy at home.
The military and military contractors dominate the economy as never before. Wealth and power has been channeled upward as never before. A jingoist miltarism has replaced the conventional wisdom that a standing army is itself a threat to democracy. Even now, Congress is about to urge Bush to escalate against Iran, and committ new acts of war with a blockade.
We appear to be headed for a major economic collapse, which will further bankrupt governments at all levels.
Obama will be pressured by fascist republicans and blue dog democrats to implement police state measures to cope with the "emergency", and threatened with impeachment if he doesn't.
I hope the people of the US and Obama will rouse themselves and rise to the challenges for the better, but I cannot much expect it. And I certainly do not expect it to be easy.
Rome. Redux.
What's WRONG with you people?
Obama's his own man. He's not the "dream date" of all of us progressives.
NONE of US ever get elected for ANY national office--remember, Tom?
Obama's a moderate, relatively "liberal" Democrat. He's not "left". No matter how much we may dream of a government of social Democrats, this is America. It ain't gonna happen.
Let's stop attacking Obama for not following some progressive "litmus" test on every issue from FISA to Iraq. Let him do his thing.
Can't we all just concentrate on McCAIN???
He will be a TERRIBLE president, remember?
Haydan?
Sinclair?
Now thats america,
dialogue.
"NONE of US ever get elected for ANY national office--remember, Tom?"
Thomas Jefferson, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Wellstone, Robert Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy, George McGovern, Russ Feingold, Franklin Roosevelt, Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, Robert Wexler, Bernard Sanders, David Obey, John Edwards, John Kerry, Shirley Chisholm, Pat Moynihan, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Charles Rangel, Sam Ervin, Frank Church, James Jeffords, Tip O'Neill, Edmund Muskie ....
Elected to NATIONAL, meaning nation-wide, not state or local, office. :)
Personally I only think of a few people on your list as "progressive" and NONE have been elected nationally (well, not in the last half-century or more. That should tell us all something--the voting majority in the country is a LOT more cautious on most issues than progressives are.
Please, let's not keep beating up on the best chance we've had for a GOOD (maybe GREAT) President in a long time.
I like Tom Hayden, but all articles like this do is HELP the Republicans. Please...let's stop.
P.S. As for FISA--In the worst case scenario, civil prosecution would be off the table. CRIMINAL prosecution is still very much possible after this bill becomes law.
The excellance of John Conyers?
Why do I need read Joe Klien to hear an honest analysis of what our foreign policy, and Obama's, is about? God bless Glenn Greenwald for not treating readers like children. This is more airy verbiage that takes no responsibility for the failure of the antiwar movement to influence policy with a compelling vision for society's purpose. They and their methods created the blowback from the right I have to listen to 24/7: manipulating people with emotion rather than working on basic citizen formation through training in critical thinking.
Bingo there bro.
gg has some applause due.
I can't say america is over with him and the americans around.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
