Topic: Barack Obama
Obama warned not to take peace vote for granted Voters for Peace and others have serious concerns about the Democratic candidate's recent rhetoric on war and peace in the Middle East.by George Dance
(libertarian)
Saturday, July 26, 2008
"Members of the peace movement who saw Sen. Barack Obama as their candidate, presumably after the ardently anti-war Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul exited the primaries, don't like what they're hearing from the senator from Illinois and are issuing a warning: Don't assume you've got our votes," the Chicago Tribune reported on July 24. (1)
The Tribune article quotes extensively from a news release from Voters for Peace (V4P) promoting a petition to Obama on its website, which has already attracted 6,000 signatures:
As Senator Obama continues his tour of Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe many peace voters are warning him: Do not take our vote for granted. In a petition, signed by thousands in one day, peace voters are expressing concern about his plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Kuwait.
The release outlines five specific concerns:
Obama's recent promise to escalate the number of troops in Afghanistan with 7,000 additional troops. Currently, 60,000 NATO troops are in Afghanistan, 36,000 of them U.S. soldiers.
On Iraq, ... While his rhetoric is "end the war" and withdraw combat troops within 16 months, the details of his plan are: redeploying of combat troops to Kuwait to serve a strike force in Iraq, as well is to Afghanistan; and leave a "residual force," whose size Obama has not identified, but aides have said could be 30,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq.
When Obama is asked about private security contractors, like the infamous Blackwater, he told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now that he would not remove these 140,000 private troops from Iraq. Adding it together Obama would leave as many as 225,000 troops and mercenaries in Iraq after his withdrawal is complete.
Obama has also said he would send the military into Pakistan to attack al Qaeda and the Taliban - even without that government's permission..... Such steps could lead to a high-risk conflict in a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
And, while Obama has said he would talk to Iran, he keeps the military option available. The senator told the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, that he would do "everything" in his power to prevent nuclear weapons in Iran, repeating "everything" three times.
'In a worst case scenario," the release sums up, "where all these policy pronouncements by Obama become reality -- continued war in Iraq, with Kuwait drawn into the conflict, escalation in Afghanistan, strike forces attacking Pakistan and a military attack on Iran -- the picture is of an enlarged mid-east war. No wonder Obama has called for 92,000 more troops, at a cost of tens of billions annually; he may need them..."
Other peace groups have expressed similar concerns. On July 25, Code Pink criticized Obama's call for a troop surge in Afghanistan, as "the exact same solution" as that of Republican John McCain. (2)
As far back as July 2, Black Agenda Report was mercilessly deconstructing Obama's new post-primary rhetoric of "bring[ing] the war in Iraq to a respectable, responsible and honorable end":
The closer the Illinois senator gets to the White House, the farther he projects the Iraq occupation into a future just as murky as that envisioned by George Bush and John McCain. In Obama's endlessly conditional world, withdrawal from Iraq must be done "responsibly" - meaning, in actuality, that the U.S. must retain the power to keep the Iraqis "responsive" to American military, economic and political demands. A U.S. military pullout (of who knows how many troops, since Obama has always been elusive on the question) must be "honorable" - meaning, it should not give the appearance of weakness or admission of criminality. Most important, the U.S. must emerge from the withdrawal (or reduction, or draw-down, or other conjure-word) in a position of "respect" - a total impossibility, unless respect actually means evoking terror throughout the neighborhood at the very thought of ever again provoking the Americans into violating the laws of modern civilization.
Such is the endless elasticity of terms like "peace" and "withdrawal" when mouthed by Barack Obama, a master of bait-and-switch, a game he apparently believes he can play indefinitely on the people of the United States and the planet. (3)
"Peace Voters are beginning to wonder whether this is more like LBJ vs. Goldwater, where Goldwater was the militaristic hawk and LBJ the candidate opposed to war," muses V4P excutive director Kevin Zeese. "LBJ won in a landslide and then escalated the Vietnam war trapping the U.S. in a deadly and costly quagmire."
V4P ends by warning Obama, and advising peace voters, that they have other options besides supporting his campaign:
Peace voters -- who were the foundation of his political success so far -- do not have to continue to contribute or volunteer for his campaign. And, there are peace candidates running from across the political spectrum; on the right are Bob Barr, the Libertarian and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party; on the left are Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and independent Ralph Nader. [Obama] needs to earn the vote of Americans opposed to further war.
To view the Voters for Peace petition, go here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1312/t/6850/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1314
------------
Sources
(1) Frank James, "Obama worries peace movement," The Swamp, Chicago Tribune, July 24, 2008. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_worries_peace_movement.html
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
