Worldview Politics

To Hell With Obama
6 July 2008

Doing Nothing to Stop War with Iran

Obama has flip-flopped so brazenly and so egregiously since clinching the nomination that I simply can't trust him anymore. Prostrating himself to AIPAC was only the beginning. He has also reversed himself on NAFTA, on campaign financing, on FISA, and on many other basic items. And he did it so soon after winning the primary, as if he delighted in offending those progressives who pulled him out of nowhere and enabled him to win. Considering that his entire campaign was based on little more than fluff and his own supposed integrity, that's quite a bit of chutzpah, which may further please AIPAC.

Look, I understand that in politics one must win an election in order to be effective. But there are some issues on which one must not equivocate or compromise, and the most fundamental one is war, in which thousands or millions of people die a horrible death. We Americans have become incredibly callous about the toll of war, perhaps because most of us have not suffered from it in living memory. It's just a video game for us, helped along by the deceitful self-censorship of the media when it comes to showing the horror of war. We mustn't upset our own children with images, though it's OK to drop real bombs on foreign children, based on fabricated intelligence. Sadly, Obama never discusses any of this.

Of course, the most urgent issue facing us now is the imminent war with Iran, though the erosion of our constitution under the misguided 'war on terror' is even more important in the long run. Obama has said little about either, except to assure AIPAC that he's prepared for Armageddon in order to keep Iran from getting even one nuclear weapon. Never mind that our government's own recent NIE claimed no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The hawks in the US and Israel don't want Iran to exercise its legal rights under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, since that could potentially bring it closer to a bomb program. All history and context are tossed aside: we installed the Shah in a bloody coup in 1953, we supported Iraq in a bloody war against Iran in the 1980's, we invaded Iran's next door neighbor based on false intelligence, we have repeatedly spurned Iranian peace overtures, Israel already has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and so on. Iran is simply demonized by the hawks, and our flaccid media does little to educate the public, nor does Obama. He would rather calculate his electoral strategy based on the same old tired and cynical formulas, in direct violation of the core of his message. How can I now have any faith in him whatsoever?

Further worrisome details are provided by the Margolis article: The UN inspectors concur with the American NIE that there is no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Yet President Bush has reportedly told Prime Minister Olmert that he trusts Israeli intelligence more than his own. Seymour Hersh claims that the US is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on covert operations to sabotage the Iranian government, which is tantamount to provoking a war. Israel openly threatens to attack Iran and recently staged an 'exercise' in Syria. There are claims that the US may use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Senior American officials and officers are warning of war, and some are getting fired. Congress is under 'intense pressure' from the Israel Lobby to blockade Iran, in what would be an act of war under international law. As Margolis says,

Israel asserts the right to maintain its Mideast nuclear monopoly by destroying all fissile-producing reactors in the region. Iran vows to retaliate against Israel with its inaccurate Shahab missiles, shut the Strait of Hormuz and mine the Gulf, producing worldwide financial panic, severe fuel shortages, and $400-$500 per barrel oil. Iran likely will attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait, and strike Saudi and Kuwaiti oil facilities. Canadians in Afghanistan could also become targets.
The embattled Bush administration’s bunker mentality is leading to war that will gravely damage long-term U.S. Mideast interests. A single Iranian missile hit on Israel’s reactor would do more damage to the Jewish state than all its previous wars. Besides, Israel cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. A US or Israeli attack on Iran will guarantee Tehran decides to build nuclear weapons.

As cataclysm stares us in the face, the 'audacious hope' that was Obama during the primaries turns out to be just another politician-as-usual. I guess I should have been more cynical when I kept hearing the utterly meaningless mantra of 'change'. It's amazing how a fresh face can fool you when you are desperate for a glimmer of hope. It seems that one can sell hope just as one can sell sex.

Same Old Foreign Policy

There is much more evidence that Obama will bring no real change to US foreign policy. He has called for increased military spending, even though the current DOD budget equals that of the rest of the militaries of the world combined! His advisors are top-heavy with 'liberal interventionists' from the Clinton years, like Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, and so on. These are the people who inflated a nasty Balkan civil war into 'genocide' and proceeded to ignite a humanitarian catastrophe through illegal NATO bombing. Or who caused the deaths of half a million Iraqi children through sanctions during the 1990's. Or who aided and abetted Suharto against East Timor, causing another half million or so of deaths. Such a record is surely no better than that of the evil Republicans. As reported by Alex Cockburn, Obama backs off under criticism from any bellicose member of the establishment, even a Republican like David Brooks. And he seems to worship the opinions of US generals, which Cockburn rightly labels as 'Caesarism'. I used to think Obama was bright and informed, because he went to Harvard Law School, so that he must know at least the basics of the dark side of US foreign policy. But now I think his goal in life is simply to please the establishment and to be part of it. Hence, his rise out of nowhere — a temporary fig-leaf for a bipartisan imperial establishment that knows it has gone too far in Iraq. Another Jimmy Carter, perhaps.

On Iraq, Obama has been equally disappointing. He clearly stated on his webpage during the primaries that he would begin withdrawing troops once elected, and this would be completed according to a 16-month timetable. Now he is waffling, or 'fine-tuning', as he prefers to call it. He says he will adapt according to 'conditions on the ground', which sounds reasonable, except that it is a sure prescription for staying indefinitely. We shouldn't be there in the first place. Those like McCain who claim that the war was just but the execution was bungled are completely wrong. Their mentality is pure militarism, which, if unchecked, will be deadly to our democracy. The war was illegal and foolish, and our presence is a major part of the problem. Conditions will never be right as long as we are there. The Shias and the Sunnis have been ethnically 'cleansed' by the civil war we have unleashed, which should reduce the bloodshed of any further civil war, and it is up to them what to do with their future. The days of patronizing colonialism are over. We should just get out, but it is clear that the real intent of the administration is to keep permanent bases and a huge embassy, as well as to control the oil and the region. By the way, if the surge is 'working', all the more reason to get out now. Anyhow, recent news events suggest the Iraqis may be getting ready to kick us out.

The Centrist Diversion

Now some argue that elections are always won from the 'center', and that progressive 'purists' are their own worse enemy, guaranteeing that the evil Republicans will win. The problem with this line of thinking is twofold. First, it guarantees that the bipartisan imperial establishment continues forever, and second, it ignores the fact that the current 'center' is a result of massive brainwashing on the part of that imperial establishment and its media acolytes. The Americans were lied into the war, just as into Vietnam, and they continue to be confused and bamboozled. Above all, the purpose of the president is to use his precious bully pulpit to tell the truth. There can be no just or wise policy that is not based on the truth. Americans are basically decent people but are woefully uninformed, or misinformed. The job of a courageous and honest president is not to follow the crowd but to enlighten that crowd, even if it brings the wrath of the elites down on his head. True democracy always challenges the elites.

It seemed that Obama would provide that honesty, like a burst of fresh air, but our hopes are dashed as he surrenders to the imperial establishment. If his goal is to be a figurehead for that establishment, then I don't see that he is much better than John McCain. We get endless war in either case. Some may worry that voting for McCain is playing with Armageddon, but who knows? Perhaps some McCain bluster and idiocy would cause the whole imperial enterprise to collapse. We're up to our ears in debt, the dollar is weakening, economic bubbles are bursting, and so forth. It's not entirely clear to me that McCain would be that much worse than Obama.

At any rate, I just can't stomach voting for a con-artist. If the election is nothing but a farce, I want no part of it. I'll agree that Nader does not have the personality for president, even if his ideas are basically correct. However, an Obama loss, with a large bloc of voters going to Nader, might send the message to the Democrats that they lost by pretending to be Republicans. Note that if all the progressives vote for Obama as the lesser of evils, then this will provide a self-confirming prophecy that only the center can win. Moreover, let us not forget the 83 million eligible voters who did not vote in the last election. How many of them were disillusioned progressives or libertarians? Or simply disillusioned? The bottom line is that I just can't vote to perpetuate the empire, which makes a travesty of what this country stands for, and which is seriously eroding the very foundations of our constitution. Democracy must mean something.

Sirota on How Change Really Happens

POSTED (7 July 08): See the video by David Sirota, called 'People, not presidents, bring change'. There is much food for thought here!

Justin Raimondo Bashes Obama-Bashing

POSTED (7 July 08): Whoa! My man Justin Raimondo is taking us angry antiwar progressives to task for dumping on Obama. I'm not sure I follow all the logic of his article, but apparently Obama has insisted that the 16-month timetable still holds, sort of. I don't know. What I reported earlier sure sounded like a loophole to me. I would like him to say that we will get out within 16 months regardless of the conditions on the ground. Perhaps that is too extreme, but I doubt any Iraqis will be shooting at our troops because they are leaving. I'll agree with Raimondo that those who call for immediate withdrawal are silly. And he's right that the 'left' shouldn't be so surprised, since Obama has been voting to fund the war all along, and his rhetoric is mostly BS anyway. But I don't know that Ariana Huffington is as much of a simpleton as Raimondo claims. It's true we never got any real promises that Obama was to the 'left' on social issues, but he's been pretty clear about the 16-month withdrawal timetable, and that's what I care about the most, so I'll hold him to that. It is surely foolish for leftists to be stubborn about late-term abortions or gun control, but FISA is of fundamental importance, as far as I am concerned, since the excellent Glenn Greenwald says it is. I like Raimondo's notion that the 'tired old Left/Right, blue state/red state paradigm' is outdated, but is that really true? For instance, suppose progressives and libertarians were to unite on an antiwar platform? Would they then split over social issues? Maybe we could hold together long enough to save the constitution, if we are serious enough. Raimondo also has this optimistic idea that somehow Obama has broken the logjam on decades of bipartisan 'consensus' imperialism based on fear and perpetual war. Really? I hope so. Anyhow, Raimondo is always worth reading. You thought Chomsky was neglected by the powers-that-be? What about poor Raimondo, who makes as much sense as any of them?

Establishment Lies About US Public Opinion

POSTED (8 July 08): The brilliant Glenn Greenwald brilliantly shows what liars the talking heads are on the pro-establishment talk shows. Mara Liason claims that it is a fringe 'left-wing' view that wants the troops out of Iraq now, even if civil order is not achieved. Bill Kristol claims that this shows how 'radical' the Democrats have become — a ridiculous assertion given that the Dems have continued to fund the war and have been less than forthright on leaving. Greenwald simply quotes all of the latest mainstream polls to debunk this propaganda. The majority of Americans clearly want out of Iraq regardless of 'conditions on the ground'. The establishment talking heads function just as Pravda did. They simply lie and make facts up to support the empire. In fact, they're worse than Pravda, because the Russian people knew not to believe their elites, while the American people continue to be mostly clueless, especially if they get their news from the Sunday morning networks. Do we have a truly brainwashed public? Or do most of us realize the truth, and the establishment is simply putting on a fake show of a democratic discourse?

UPDATE (12 July 08): In this video, Noam Chomsky reminds us that in 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, polls showed that some 70% of Americans were opposed. Yet it dragged on for another 8 years. This number surprises me. Weren't 'average, working-class Americans' represented by the hard-hats beating up the college-age protesters? Or maybe it was the the public knew that the Democrats got us into it, and Nixon said he 'had a plan'? I guess all this goes to show that a large majority can be opposed to the war, but the elites have ways to play politics to keep the war going, at least for a while.

The Real News: Obama Saying Nothing To Stop War With Iran

POSTED (8 July 08): You can read liberals like E.J. Dionne sticking up for Obama and saying that he has not really waffled on Iraq and that he is still much more antiwar than the alternative John McCain. I will simply reiterate what I said above, namely, that the imminent war with Iran is even more important than Iraq, and Obama is saying little to cool things down. Hence his 'waffling' on past commitments is not really the main issue. It is now his 'Hillary Clinton moment' regarding the potentially much greater disaster of a war extended to Iran. Will he play it safe and go along with the currents in Washington as she did back then? It sure looks that way.

'Conditions on the Ground': Iraqis Want US Out

POSTED (9 July 08): Raimondo hits the nail on the head regarding Iraq. All this blather about 'conditions on the ground' simply ignores the most important condition: the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out! The cavalier way our leaders have brushed this aside betrays the insincerity of their pro-democracy rhetoric. It's all about projecting American power and hegemony. Yet another crucial item that Obama never mentions. I wonder why? As for Admiral Mullen's warning to Israel, I'm intrigued, but is he in charge?

Obama and Dems Cave on FISA

POSTED (9 July 08): As reported by Glenn Greenwald, the Democratic-controlled Congress, with Obama's approval, has surrendered to Bush and passed a surveillance bill that grants immunity to the telecoms for crimes already committed under FISA. These crimes include blatant violations of the sacred 4th amendment — no trivial matter. It's really about the constitution and the rule of law. I'll write a longer blogpost on this soon, but the important point is that this new legislation is utterly corrupt and serves only to get Bush and the telecoms off the hook for violating FISA. Obama had promised earlier to fillibuster this bill if it contained immunity for the telecoms, but we are fast learning that an Obama promise means nothing.

Vote, but Not for the Establishment

POSTED (11 July 08): Reading the comments on progressive blogs, I realize that many readers are disillusioned with Obama, and some say they will not vote at all. It is always a mistake not to vote. You simply turn yourself into a zero, as far as politics is concerned. Moreover, failing to vote may confirm the appearance that the winner is truly popular and has a mandate. Now, many think it is also a waste to vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning. I disagree. For instance, if Obama barely loses, and a large bloc of voters go to Nader, then the Democratic party will eat its heart out that it lurched to the so-called 'center'. This may be the only way to change American politics. As discussed above, moving to the 'center', under the premise of the 'lesser of evils', guarantees that the bipartisan imperial establishment lasts forever (or until our economy collapses).

As for those who predict cataclysm if the right wins under McCain, I say this. There is always some emergency, and it isn't clear that Obama would really be any safer than McCain. Both have promised to do 'whatever it takes' to keep Iran from getting a bomb, presumably including tactical nuclear weapons. Obama has even threatened to invade Pakistan, and all his talk of diplomacy amounts to little if he prostrates himself to AIPAC and to the War Party. In fact, as discussed by Tom Englehardt in some detail, the US may not be able to attack Iran now, due to the catastrophic effects involving oil prices and our over-stretched forces. Besides, we mustn't just look at the 4-year presidential cycle but also at the 2-year congressional cycle. A huge protest vote for Nader and Bob Barr (or Ron Paul) could send a powerful signal to congress and possibly embolden the electorate to put a lot of third-party congressmen in office in 2010. Change will not happen if we are obsessed with the next election. That will only drive the voters to the mythical 'center' fabricated by the establishment to split the difference between its two wings.

Online Articles

Obama Betrays His Base

Amy Goodman: Obama runs to the middle