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

Comments

[cacki]

I miss Hillary.

[godsbreath64]

I miss america > ; = /

[orangepetal]

me too

[riley85]

I'd gladly dump McCain if Hillary could come back. I've never trusted Obama.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Buyers remorse is understandable and so too is pressuring Obama to make sure he stands by his pledge to end the war as quickly as possible.

But Tom, bless your liberal heart we have to be cautious not to push him too hard to the left, lest we scare off the independents, the middle of the road voter that will select our next president.

I wholeheartedly agreed with you and the Chicago 7 that waged a fierce moralistic battle at the 1968 democratic convention but as a result of passionate, excessive and violent demonstrations, we lost the election.

We cannot afford to make ultimatum type demands on our candidate or force him to say exactly what he will do on a number of important issues, we must trust our decision and respect that he is our nominee and the vetting ended after the primaries. Or we get McCain the same way you guys unintentionally gave the election to Nixon.

[FiveFortyOne]

I agree with this. As another poster said: You already picked your date to the prom, why rag on her about her dress and make-up in front of everyone, embarrassing her and yourself.

[Zeje]

Wait a minute. Now anti-war is too far left?

[cylindar]

You think too much. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning

[jeanrenoir]

All Obama is saying is that he'll be reasonable in assessing the situation on the ground in Iraq after he gets the best input from his generals in the field. He's not "betraying" anyone or anything. Does anyone really think the American Army has a vested interest in wanting to stay in Iraq? That's just nuts. Obama will get good input from the generals, who are anxious themselves to get out of Iraq as soon as feasible. No one knows better than the Army how thin America's military is now stretched particularly in light of Afghanistan's needs. It should give us all more confidence in Barack's judgement--not 60s paranoia about "politicians" and "authority figures" and "people over 30"--to see Barack being thoughtful about Iraq, as usual. If leftist peaceniks actually help elect McCain, they will have thousands of unnecessary American and Iraqi deaths to answer for, not to mention the deaths of women who'll die in illegal abortions. The stupid "idealistic" purists who voted for Nader in 2000 are completely responsible for the election of Bush, and thus for the entire war in Iraq. As the famous Sixties anthem goes, "when will they ever learn?"

[hrayovac]

If a true history of the last forty years can be written it would have to state that the power of the Bushes, Achesons, Haigs and the Dulles brothers types did have a dominant effect for quite a while. Yet those forces of industrialism would not have been quite so dominant had it not been for the egotistical leftists who impressed a few with noble facades but failed to have the heart, courage and wisdom to embrace a true revolution of the spirit. When you see Tom Hayden criticise Obama, that's a guarantee that Obama is doing something right. Next will be Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman firing away. It is because the only job left after the "revolution" succeeds will be to say , "I was on the right side all along but no one would listen." And this exposes a real lack of compassion for the suffering of the "voice-less" they supposedly represented all along.

[rwe2late]

Hmmm hrayovac,
so, if only we "egotistical leftists" could get our "spirits" right, then Obama could lead the "revolution" successfully because our questions and criticisms lack "compassion".

please pass the kool-aid.

[racom]

I second this comment, as we watch Obama move steadily toward the comfortable middle ground we can also expect the condemnation of the left. What a country!

[Kache]

HEY! You've been around the block a few times, haven't you? Thanks for the post hrayovac - well put!

[Rule Of Law]

"Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the astute sense of pragmatism ..."

Ah yes: Power to the People! I remember THAT phrase, and what it meant. Do you Tom? If the system was broken in 1968, it is DOA today. If your participation in it is all about the notion of "Learn the system, then F*** the system, " then I get it. But as someone said here earlier, there was never a people's revolution created by conservatives. Maybe it's time that You got back to Your grass roots and led from within. Now there's a "Radical" notion.

[godsbreath64]

You didn't perhaps happen to write (an exceptional) book with a picture of a Campbell's soup on the cover? I am quite fond of it.

[Rule Of Law]

Do you have something to add? If so, could you do it in a way that we can understand? Because we are getting to the point very soon where, as the saying goes, it will be time for you to either lead, follow, or get the he** out of the way.

[genia]

Geezzuss!
Republicans line them up.....Dem­ocrats...k­nock 'em down.
We never learn.......

[JanetF]

Get over it. Let the guy win PLEASE?????????

[godsbreath64]

So let me get this right: baseball used to be the American pastime, now it is "let the guy win the presidency"?

[Titonwan]

Say it ain't so, Joe!

[Rule Of Law]

Let him earn the win. That's how it works.

[Hadok]

"I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. "

Translated: "I first endorsed Obama beacuse all the cool people were behind him and it seemed like the trendy thing to do."

"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."

Translated: "I figured we could always brow beat him into embracing the far left agenda."

[RoseMerry]

A far left agenda? You have no idea what a real far left agenda is. I have listened or read Tom Hayden since he was on trial after the Battle of Chicago in 1968. He has never once advocated the abolition of money, legalized public nudity, or free LSD for all adults. I don't recall his position on a guaranteed annual income. But as the years have gone on, he has moved closer to the center and has never ready been part of the far left. You want to know the far left agenda, talk to me!

We on the far left make Obama look like Jesse Helms in the 50's.

[Titonwan]

OMFG! That's funny! Well, ROSEMERRY, I'm right over there with ya! (to your left about 10 feet :)

[Kache]

And you won an election where??

[Lion24]

As RoseMerry so appropriately alluded -- you wouldn't know a far left agenda if it came up and bit you on the nose. Hannity and Limbaugh have you believing that a far left agenda involves teacher strikes, efforts to form unions, and asking the powers that be for health care reform.

A far left agenda involves things like removing the entire contents of a foreign cargo ship -- throwing the high-priced contents into the sea -- and being prepard for the consequences which inevitably will come. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? Ever hear of the consequences? They called it Lexington and Concord. They also called it the birth of THIS (your) nation.

[Titonwan]

Huh? Grassroots organizing did nothing to persuade him over this horrible FISA bill he "nuanced" on. If the biggest group on his homepage can't persuade him, I don't know if anything can. He responded recently to us here and stonewalled about why the Protect America Act is a good thing. And said that it might be a "deal breaker, but that's OK". I read that as "and don't let the door hit you on the way out". I was attracted to Ron Paul because of his heroic courage to oppose the war when all the rethugs didn't. They picked on him like wolves with a rabbit, but still he stands firm. Don't agree with pro-life and free markets , so that's when Barack caught my ear. What soaring rhetoric! The man does have a silver tongue, you can't deny. I don't fault him to opt out of public finance, but just about every other thing I thought he stood for, he has "tacked". Glen Greenwald sees this FISA bill as a catastrophe and a Republican Federal Judge (Vaughn Walker) just ruled that the immunity has no legal merit. But thanks to Barack's "repositioning", it will. I've been having pains in my side and my chiropractor told me that I have been "tacked" way too much. He said "nuancing" wouldn't help and radical "repositioning" will only make matters worse. He recommended that I consult with a surgeon about a Barackotomy. If my condition gets much worse, I think I might.

[olivesforbreakfast]

With all due respect, Titowan, because your post is great. really funny and brilliant, i think you meant a Barackodectomy.

[BillZBubb]

Admit it Tom, you were in the tank for Obama and didn't see this coming. That's too bad. A lot of people bought the rhetoric.

It was clear from the beginning of the primaries that Obama was saying one thing and meaning something else on a number of key issues--to put it as politely as possible. Too bad you missed it.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Actually, I try to read all of Tom's posts and I can attest that he was cautious with his support for Obama at first.

[HansB]

But, Tom Hayden and every single commenter on this page, you forget the Iraqis. The fact that the Bush administration doesn't count how many Iraqis it kills, doesn't mean that progressives may walk also away from them without looking back. The US broke their country, turned neighbor against neighbor, orphaned a million children, brought into power the third-most corrupt government in the world, all for their oil. You can't shrug now and say, "Sorry but we're leaving, have fun repairing the mess."

Everyone knows that the vast majority of Iraqis wants the US out. But in the latest poll I've seen, only 38% wanted that to happen precipitously (down from 70% in 2006). Most prefer an orderly withdrawal that doesn't create a power vacuum. And that's so logical. After breaking something fragile that doesn't belong to you, the solution is not to drop it to the concrete floor. At the very least, you put it down softly.

A candidate who did what you demand - determine and stick to a withdrawal timetable without even bothering to consult the Iraqis, or the US troops for that matter - would be "principled", I'm sure. But humanity would not be part of his principles. Obama is doing the right thing here.

[godsbreath64]

SO thats it!!


Don't reject anything.


THANKS!!!

[Titonwan]

I agree totally with you. He has "adjusted" what he said, and a small delay would probably be prudent. But while you're looking at one tree, the entire forest has grown up around you. There has been a whole lot of "adjusting" going on lately. I can't think of one policy that he hasn't "tacked" from or done a complete 180 (unholy FISA). I think the author is encouraging us to put pressure on him, but if his response is the same as it was the other day about him supporting FISA- good luck with that. He flat stonewalled us and only the sheep were praising him for talking around them. I thought I was at a fainting contest. I hope you can figure out a way to reach him, but I'm afraid Rahm and the DLC have their hooks in him now. Trouble in paradise is an understatement. The uncertainty is palpable. I may respectfully sit this one out. And being a vet when being a vet was NOT cool, I think that's my prerogative. Peace, out.

[Rule Of Law]

As much as they talk about reconciliation in the party after that bruising primary season, my feeling is that if you lay down with Hillary, you'll wind up with the same blood sucking parasites attached to you as to her and the rest of the DLC.

You shouldn't appoint as the leader of your VP search a guy (Jim Johnson) who is the American representative of the Bilderberg new world order types, take a meeting with them in Virginia with Hillary in tow, and then waffle on something as important as FISA. The MSM blew every other contender out of the race who had the least bit of populist sensibility or commitment to Constitutional Restoration. When Obama comes out and says that the Patriot act, Military Commissions Act, etc will be repealed in his first 90 days, he might win back my grudging support. Until then, I'll watch carefully and hope that old radicals like Tom can get him to recommit himself to his grass roots beginnings.

[gage]

This is what Obama's website says: "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. "

He's gonna need to change that passage.

[SpoxLogic]

Why? Combat soldiers and traing soldiers would be classified differently. So, if he left 20,000 soldiers behind for the purpose of training, then technically he fulfilled his promise. The Bushies left us with a major problem in Iraq. If you pull completely out and leave Iraq unprotected, then its neighbors would carve it us like a Thanksgiving turkey. If that happened, the same folks here who are calling for a complete withdrawal would be pressuring Pres. Obama to do something to stop the genocide in Iraq. (and you know you would).
So, the next President will have to walk a tightrope over a tank full of piranha. One slip and he'd be down to the bone in no time. It's be nice if all the soldiers could finall ycome home. Unfortunately, that kind of reality will never happen. You will all have to get used to it. Just another case of Bush stillsticking it to the American public long after he's gone.

[RepublicanBrain]

Obama won't make any such commitment. Not if he has a brain. War is too complicated, it lives and breathes, like the times themselves. You can't flip a switch and turn the war off. A premature cut-and-run was Carter's blunder, and we are here now because of this.

Following Hayden's advice won't give Obama anything. To stop the war requires knowledge of war, and that's something Obama doesn't have. He needs to surround himself with soldiers and tacticians to do such a thing.

[rasthedestroyer]

You mean doing presidential type stuff right. Like talking with his advisers, right.

[RepublicanBrain]

That's the type of stuff to do, although that's not presidential-type stuff, neither must one be President to stop a war.

[genia]

~~To stop the war requires knowledge of war~~~

Now that's funny I don't care who you are...!

[Lion24]

Here's how you stop the war. You declare victory and get out. Is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

[RepublicanBrain]

If you think that is how to stop war, I fervently pray that you are never thrust into such a position. If you bothered to read what I had written, a premature cut-and-run was the mistake that brought us into this mess during the Carter years.

Do a little more research. Scratch that, do a lot more.

[PATina]

Instead of criticizing the authors of articles like this... especially ones written by people who are obviously Obama supporters... why not try to look at why they are posting articles or comments like this. What is it they see that you are missing? I've read many comments on this site...people keep saying he's not changing his positions (and in this case... I agree w/ you)... but that's not how it appears. It LOOKS like he's waffling... like he's not so sure. He's not even projecting the same confidence that he did in the primary. Now many of you will say... that's what he has to do to get elected... that it's good he's not rigid.... but it's obviously not working. He starting to look like another spineless Democrat who's afraid of upsetting the Republicans. Not only is he giving the opposition ammunition to kill his campaign with... he's irritating the people who supported him.
I always thought that campaigning meant taking your positions to the people and convincing them, through well thought out arguments, to believe in them as well. Sen. O has stopped doing that. Instead... he's saying what he THINKS people want to hear. He is watering down his message... his opponents are laughing at him... and his base is getting frustrated.
This is war. And the other side wants to win as much as we do. We have to do all that we can to help him win... and pretending like nothing's wrong isn't helping.

[Titonwan]

Well said PATina. Happy 4th to ya! Let's get the troops home. They didn't die for this country. They died for George W. Bush! HE LIED TO US. Join ACT BLUE, buy Vincent Bugliosi's book "The prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder", call your senators and congressman and pressure them to put the war on the front burner again. Congratulate Russ and Chris for holding fast on FISA so as to shame Obama to be a man again. If this goes on much longer, I really doubt if he can be reached.