Worldview Politics

Obama Can Win on National Security
20 February 2008

Obama just won a convincing victory is mostly white Wisconsin — his tenth in a row. It seems he is well on his way to winning the nomination against Hillary, a welcome development indeed. Now some lefty voices are very concerned that mean, old McCain will crush naive, young Obama on national security. Here is why I think Obama has the qualities to win, no matter what scare-mongering slime the Repubs throw at him.

Obama does have detailed positions on the Iraq war

First of all, and contrary to all the hype from pundits who seem incapable of the most basic homework, Obama does have detailed positions on Iraq. If you go to his website, you will learn that he opposed the war prior to the invasion, at a time when all the lemming pundits and opportunistic politicians like Hillary were putting their fingers to the patriotic winds and clamoring for war. This is a solid and basic fact, because Obama was also no doubt pondering a presidential run at that time.

As for the present, he correctly says that the 'surge' has not reduced violence below 'unsustainable' 2006 levels, and, most importantly, the Iraqi politicians have made no progress at solving their political differences. This is another basic fact that too many establishment pundits are overlooking as they wax enthusiastic about the surge. In 2005, he called for a 'phased withdrawal' of troops. In 2006, he called for 'a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors'. In 2007, he 'introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008'.

In September 2007, he laid out a 'detailed plan' for ending the war. Upon assuming the presidency, he 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 will 'make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq'. He will keep some troops to protect the embassy and fight Al Qaeda. He perspicaciously argues that 'the best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving'. He will engage all sectors of Iraqi society and invite the UN to participate. He will 'launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors — including Iran and Syria'.

As a confirmed but responsible opponent of the war, I cannot improve on this. So much for all the foolish comments that Obama lacks details and substance. The question is whether we trust him. And if we can't trust him, whom can we trust? Besides, in the real world, contingencies may arise, such that no promise is absolute. Again, it comes down to a question of trust and judgment. Obama has convinced me by his appearances on television that his intelligence, character and judgment are about as good as anything I've seen in a serious presidential contender during my entire life — better than muscle-flexing JFK, unctuous, pious Carter, or the corrupt, ruthless and pathologically lying Clintons. (Forget the Republicans.)

Can Obama withstand the Republican smear machine?

Now what about the vicious, fear-mongering Republican attack machine? Can young, tender, idealistic, naive Obama stand up to that? Well, maybe he isn't so tender and naive. He has managed to run rings around the Clintons, who are among the most sophisticated and shameless of political operatives. That is no mean accomplishment! Moreover, he has campaigned shrewdly, relying on a combination of internet savvy and grass-roots organizing, as opposed to Hillary's arrogant presumption that she owned the Democratic machine and was thus entitled to be coronated as Democratic presidential candidate. And not only is he shrewd but he is also a good manager. Hillary blew through $100 million of her mostly fat-cat money prior to Super Tuesday and has little to show for it. Obama has raised lots of money on the net by actually being popular, and he has spent it well. All good qualities for being a president. Even many Republicans will be impressed by this managerial competence.

So what about the Republican nuclear weapon, namely, the fear-mongering card? Terrorists everywhere! A 9/11 every day if this dreamer is placed in the White House! I'll tell you the dirty little secret about why the Democrats have been unable to withstand the Republican fear machine. It is because the Democrats have allowed themselves to become a bunch of wimps, who lack brains and, more importantly, the courage of their convictions. This is the consequence of selling their souls to corporate America, just like the Republicans, but without having the innate Republican love of the military and of military solutions. Thus, Harry Reid always looks like a tired old sad-sack on the Senate floor, Pelosi looks like some flimsy socialite, and Biden is just an ineffectual nice guy who loves his own voice and wants you to like him. Poltroons all of them!

What Obama needs to do is talk intelligently about the Iraq disaster, with a calm and self-confident voice, and a bearing full of gravitas. Hey, guess what? He just happens to be very good at this! So just do it, Barack! Don't listen to anyone who tells you to fight a food fight with a food fight. That is a sure way to lose, because the Republicans are experts at throwing slime. However, this is a new era. Even the chronically uninformed American public mostly realizes that something went terribly wrong in Iraq. No WMD! No connection between Saddam and Osama! POW scandals that make us look like Nazis! A gigantic mess when there was supposed to be a cakewalk and flowers. Only the most die-hard, Neanderthal, white males can fail to realize that Bush blundered big time! The public is ready for an honest and uplifting talk on how to set America on the right path again. All Obama has to do it talk calmly and intelligently about reality, and McCain will look like the doddering old warmonger nut that he is. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, except that our illegal and foolish invasion has inflamed the Muslim world. Does any Democrat have the guts to just tell it like it is? If not Obama, then who?

The AIPAC factor

There is one more factor in all of this. It is not just imperialistic, warmongering neocons and Republicans who are trying to plunge us ever further into the Middle East, this time into Iran. It is also the right-wing sector of the pro-Israel lobby, represented by AIPAC and considered a third rail by most Democrats. The hawkish Jews running AIPAC are rich and influential but represent a minority of the basically liberal Jewish-American population. The AIPAC-oriented 'centrist' Democrats seem to be pretty much the same as the DNC, which is the inner sanctum of the Democratic machine dear to Hilary's heart. It is no accident that Hillary voted to declare the Iranian National Guard as 'terrorists', in order to give Bush yet another blank check for war, this time in Iran instead of Iraq. This was to please AIPAC, as it is no secret that the right-wing Israeli government has been clamoring for us to attack Iran, on top of the Iraq disaster. Too bad that inconvenient little NIE denied the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. But Hillary doesn't care any more about genuine intelligence than Bush did; she's much more concerned about what AIPAC and her neocon advisors want her to do.

These same Zionist hawks in the Democratic party also present a serious danger to Obama. So far, he has skillfully avoided a confrontation with them. It would be wise of him to continue to do this until he has secured the nomination. No doubt, many of the 'superdelegates' are AIPAC-obeying party-hack 'centrists'. Once his nomination is secure, Obama can take careful steps towards resisting the neocon/AIPAC forces when dealing with McCain. Having American soldiers die so Israel can strangle the Palestinians in the West Bank will not fly with the general American public, if put in those terms. Terrorism and Muslim hatred are the result of specific American and Israeli policies in the Middle East. They do not arise from the bogeyman of 'Islamofascism', which is a neocon/Zionist fabrication to rival the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Sure Muslims go bonkers when attacked, but so do we, and we've hurt them way more than they've hurt us. Thus, AIPAC and the neocons need to work behind the scenes with cowardly Democrats and with the stupid and brainwashed mainstream media. Obama's popularity is such that he need not cower, once he is the uncontested presidential candidate. Good luck to him! And remember, Obama, just keep your cool and respond to the smears with reality and justice. It can work!

Obama never proposed ground troops for Pakistan

UPDATE (20 Feb 08): Juan Cole makes an important point that is new to me, no thanks to the worthless mainstream media. Obama never advocated sending ground troops into Pakistan. He only raised the possibility of some commando raids against Al Qaeda. There is a huge difference between ground troops and commando raids, though the latter can lead to the former, especially when they go wrong and we don't want to back down. Now Obama said he would do this even without Musharraf's permission, if the intelligence were 'actionable' enough. As Cole says, this is already US policy, so McCain is a hypocrite to attack Obama on this score. And as Cole points out, the McCain-fawning journalists might ask him what he would do in a comparable circumstance. For a long time I had been disturbed by Obama's seemingly belligerent remarks on Pakistan. This just goes to show that one needs to get the whole story. Lord knows I spend too much time already on the internet! Oh, and this also shows that McCain's 'straight talk' can be as duplicitous as anybody's. Obama, be sure to do your homework and be ready for all these bullets. Maybe you should hire Cole, who has plenty more dirt in this post on McCain's past involvement with terrorists. (Yes, you heard that right.)

Obama will not withdraw from Iraq quickly

UPDATE (20 Feb 08): Tom Englehardt throws some cold water on the notion that even Obama will quickly end our military involvement in Iraq. Obama may have called for withdrawing the 'combat troops' within a rather explicit 16 months, but these are only about half of the military personnel in Iraq. For one thing, troops would be left behind for 'training'. (Englehardt asks why one side in Iraq needs endless 'training', while the other side simply fights.) Then there is the 'monstrous' US embassy that will require protection from a vast Blackwater mercenary army — a dangerous innovation in itself. To his credit, Obama did explicitly reject permanent US bases. But if they are already 'facts on the ground' when he arrives, he may find it difficult to get rid of them, even if he wants to. (When have we voluntarily relinquished a base?) Meanwhile, the Bush administration is quietly negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement with a 'weak' Iraqi government that could commit us for years to come. Of course, the weakness of the Iraqi government is not only their lack of popularity but also the physical danger they would face without us. One can hardly call this a fair negotiation representing the will of the Iraqi people. Also, this new SOFA is not quite a treaty, which conveniently skirts Senate ratification. Naturally, there is little discussion of all this in our MSM, but if Obama can mention bases, then perhaps he might mention this too. Let's give him a few more victories. (And with a bit of luck, maybe the Iraqi factions will come together just long enough to demand our withdrawal. That would give Obama plenty of cover.)

Obama and McCain

UPDATE (24 Feb 08): Alexander Cockburn has a good article on what a hothead McCain is and how dangerous it would be to have his finger on the nuclear button. Can Obama do a Goldwater on him? Obama should definitely use his presidential cool to make a telling contrast to nutso McCain. Then there is McCain's grandstanding and hypocrisy, on lobbies, pork barrel spending, etc. Obama may have more trouble here, as there are reports circulating of his closeness to various lobbies, which belie his rhetoric. Finally, there is McCain's tendency to shoot his mouth off, such as saying we would be in Iraq for 100 years, that Michigan voters would never get their jobs back, and that he didn't understand anything about the economy. As Cockburn says, 'A Republican debacle of Goldwater proportions could be in the offing.' Well, that would be true if the US democratic process were rational and based on reality.

Obama and 'liberal interventionist' Samantha Power

UPDATE (26 Feb 08): I just found out that Samantha Power is a close Obama advisor, and this is a cause for concern. Power is a human rights advocate at Harvard. She is known as a 'liberal interventionist', in favor of sending US military force to stop 'genocide' wherever it appears. I share a libertarian skepticism regarding this view. Edward Herman has pretty much persuaded me that the Serbian 'genocide' in the 1990's was overblown and that US/NATO really took sides in a nasty civil war and bombed civilians without justification. Regarding Darfur, about which I know little, I just heard on Antiwar radio that some kind of peace agreement seemed doable, until the liberal interventionists made a fuss and upset the delicate negotiations. Really, liberal interventionism is very close to neocon thinking but has nicer looking people arguing on its behalf. I don't believe the US has the wisdom or integrity to interfere in other countries' problems. For instance, we like to call ourselves an 'honest broker' in the Middle East, but this is a transparent lie. Also, we tend to get so lathered up with moral fervor that we totally fail to consider the consequences of intervention, even when those consequences were widely predicted. Our well-intentioned but ignorant blundering often seems to make problems far worse, not least because humans everywhere really hate to be invaded. Now there is always the case of Rwanda, where clear-cut genocide did occur. Such horrors must be dealt with by the UN. The US has no legitimacy, given our past history. Our role should be limited to encouraging the UN to take care of such cases, with our support if needed. I could get a bit cynical about Power, if I wished. She provides an attractive, humanitarian-looking face for more US interventionism, unlike the ghoulish neocons. No wonder the establishment loves her, and no wonder she has such as nice, cushy job at Harvard. The Anglo-Americans have a brilliant talent for wrapping their military adventures in a cloak of morality, and they are now receiving much support from important sectors of the Jewish community, for the obvious reasons. Nobody seems to care how bad the track record is.

Antiwar purists and Obama

UPDATE (28 Feb 08): Antiwar purists who reject Obama, because he doesn't say everything they want him to say, could be committing a fatal blunder. The simple fact is that too much honesty or decency will likely destroy a politician in the real world. For instance, it could be dangerous to argue against fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the hawks will have a field day with that, stirring up fear that the president is too weak or pacifist to defend the country. We must expect some militant language from a presidential candidate, or he will never be president. Our job is to read between the lines.

Now this doesn't mean that I want the US in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan. Why does it even matter whether 'terrorists' have 'training camps' in 'rogue' countries? They could train anywhere, including in New Jersey basements. There is no 'training' involved in being a suicide bomb; it's only a matter of will. Nuclear weapons cannot be developed in primitive camps. Biological or chemical weapons could be developed in any bathtub or kitchen sink. Our war in Afghanistan seems worse than futile to me, because of the inevitable 'collateral damage' in human lives, which is both immoral and highly counterproductive. Taking on Al Qaeda in Pakistan means taking on the large Pashtun tribe, and we will probably lose, as when we took on the highly popular and determined Viet Cong, with only a corrupt and fringe government on our side. Even supporting an apparently decent but undeniably weak leader like Karzai seems futile and counterproductive to me. We should simply stay out of Muslim countries, but this kind of 'isolationism' could easily be twisted and exploited by the advocates of empire.

Obama is indeed a politician, with an ear for what line not to cross. A radical departure in foreign policy could be used against him ... to make him look 'radical'! These mind games are an unfortunate but inevitable part of politics. Of course, this is one reason why the Democrats are unwilling to fight for withdrawal from Iraq, the other being that they either embrace the principle of American empire or are supported by those who do. Obama represents an improvement, in that he has at least clearly stated his intention to withdraw from Iraq, if not Afghanistan. Pushing him further at this point could easily backfire, and he knows it. It comes down to a question of trust, and for this one must rely on one's human intuition and instincts regarding the personality of another human being. I could be naive, but I think that Obama's basic nature is to avoid confrontation and to work out a solution. This could lead to a weaker healthcare initiative at the domestic level but could avoid war at the international level. The latter is by far the more important consideration, to those who care about the mass slaughter of innocent people. At any rate, Obama is far better than McCain, and it now looks like we can write Hillary off. I think it's fair to say that any 'progressive' who votes for Nader is being foolish and irresponsible. At the same time, we musn't fall in love with Obama. If he makes it to the presidency, he must be a politician!

Poll: Antiwar Americans for McCain

UPDATE (12 Mar 08): The article by Ira Chernus called Looming Threat for Dems is very worrisome. Apparently, polls show that even many Americans who are against the Iraq war would vote for McCain, because of the lure of a 'strong' leader in the fight against terrorism. McCain's simplistic soundbite 'No Surrender' is working as effectively for him as similar language did for Nixon during the Vietnam war. I'll have to review this unfortunate trend at some point, but for now I highly recommend reading the article. Fear works, and reason doesn't — a fact known to all professional politicians, such as McCain and Hillary, and probably even Obama. What does this say about Democracy? It's enough to make a progressive despair.

A cold shower on Obama

UPDATE (17 Mar 08): Here is a gushing cold shower for antiwar Obamaphiles from Brendan O'Neill. I must say, his claims are consistent with Obama's close relationship with liberal interventionist Samantha Power (until her recent flap that led to her exit from the campaign). Oh well! What's the alternative to Obama?

John Nichols: Obama's dramatic Wisconsin win