If you wanna the war to go onna then vote for Obama!
Commentary by Bob Witanek bwitanek@igc.org http://endocciraq.org/
Respond and discuss at http://antiwar2008.blogspot.com/ or at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prowarobama
send to prowarobama-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Notwithstanding support he is receiving from Amiri Baraka, Ted Glick, Move On and various national figures known to travel in anti-war circles, Obama’s position on Iraq is far from anti-war. While he states he is anti-war and that he has always been against the war, a careful examination of his stated position on his campaign website as well as scrutiny of his voting record proves otherwise. Keep in mind also that during election time, politicians pander, they all do – so even what he is promising now is suspect and is inconsistent with his own history in the senate, let alone that his position supports permanent occupation of Iraq and implies support for permanent bases in Iraq. His position is hardly one that merits support nor is it one that should earn his candidacy support from anti-war activists at all.
Does Obama Ever Intend to Get the US Out of Iraq?
In a word, the answer is NO! As part of Obama’s Iraq war plan, taken directly from his campaign site, he states:
“Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safehaven.”
He does not state how many troops will remain or for how long. The assumption is that he means indefinitely or he would have stated a time frame. He calls it a “residual” force, a force that would stay resident or remain as occupant . . . the occupation continues indefinitely under Obama in his very own words.
Before he gets to the point of admitting that his plan is for permanent occupation, which means permanent US bases in Iraq, he talks of a his plan to “begin redeploying American
troops from Iraq:”
“The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year.”
His so-called redeployment is conditional, or as he states, it would be “strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas.” Read between the lines . . .that means the so-called withdrawal plan can be interrupted by the following:
1. Decisions of “commanders on the ground”
2. Strategic concerns
3. Consultations with the Iraqi government (as if it has an independent will of its own.)
4. The failure to create “secure areas”
5. And the failure to eliminate “volatile areas”
An example as to what making any such withdrawal contingent upon the direction of “commanders on the ground” will mean can be seen currently. The Bush Administration has touted a supposed “draw down” of just some of the troops deployed during the “surge” escalation and now Defense Secretary Robert Gates is balking even at that miniscule reduction of combat troops, stating, “I think the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably it makes sense….how brief will that be, that is one of the things we are still working out."
Obama’s conditions make his promise, which he states after mentioning all those conditions, that “ all troops engaged in combat operations (will be) out by the end of next year,” nothing more than a mirage. Since he will take his direction from commanders on the ground, his promise to begin the ‘draw down’ immediately and to redeploy one to two brigades a month and to get all troops engaged in combat “redeployed” (which is not the same as “out”) by the end of “next year” a political stump that leaves him all the wiggle room in the world to evade. His claims to be anti-war are pandering but without substance.
He also neglects to mention that any such “redeployment” whether it ever really happens or not will be accompanied by an increase in use of aerial bombardment of Iraqi targets. Rest assured that any civilian toll will be under the cover of “striking at al Qaeda” as it currently is stated when anyone other than a woman or child is killed by Americans.
Also, be aware that his promise of redeployment of troops in Iraq is a promise to *escalate* the US role in the war in Afghanistan. According to his own plan, “Barack Obama believes that we need to begin to end the war in order to finish the fight in Afghanistan. He would redeploy at least two combat brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.”
He has also promised a greater role for the US military in Pakistan, with or without the approval of the Musharaf regime. In speeches made years before the current campaign, Obama threatened the prospect of military action against Iran.
The clearest way for congress to end the US war and occupation in Iraq is to withdraw the funding from the war. At no time during Obama’s tenure as a US Senator has he led an effort or demanded of his Democratic Party senate colleagues that they vote against funding for the war. He promises to end the war after his election but he already has had the power to demonstrate leadership to oppose the war and he has not done so. He is and has been a leader of his party but has failed to show the leadership needed to get his partisans to vote as a block against funding for the war.
In fact, using this source: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 , you will see that his voting record on Iraq is at best inconsistent, sometimes voting for funding and sometimes against and sometimes not bothering to make it to role call (not voting at all).
As the famous jazz standard put it, “It Don’t Mean A Thing if it Ain’t Got that Swing!” Obama makes a good speech, he hits a lot of high notes and can excite his audience. His promise of change and the prospect of electing the first U.S. president of African descent is alluring. However, our role must be to look at what he is truly offering and as for the war in Iraq is concerned, he offers more of it. We need to be clear in that fact. If you are basing your vote for Obama on what he plans to do in Iraq, then you are voting for continued U.S. war and occupation there, as well as for escalation of U.S. war in Afghanistan and possible incursions into Pakistan.
I continue to maintain that anti-war activists need to politically oppose the war and use their vote accordingly. The only way to do that is the complete rejection of the Democratic Party as the pro-war institution that it is. While much precious time has been lost, we need to re-orient ourselves and vote enmasse for candidates and parties which oppose the war from an anti-imperialist and anti-racist perspective. If we do not get it this time around, another 4 years of war, now administered by a Democratic Party regime, is what we will face. When will we ever learn?
On the other hand, as I entitled this article, “If you wanna the war to go onna, then cast your vote for Obama.”
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, May 3, 2007
How Best to Mount a 2008 Election Political Challenge
How Best to Mount a 2008 Election Political Challenge to the Pro-War Parties
From: solidartattack@verizon.net
Date: 2007/05/03 Thu AM 09:20:03 CDT
First, we have to assess the difficulty and plan to avoid the pitfalls of the past. In my opinion, another Ralph Nader campaign is to no one's advantage, and neither is the creation of another tiny splinter group led by an ideologically pure elite cadre. To have genuine relevance in the 2008 election, a new party or candidates running on an anti-war platform would have to attract a much broader swath of people than typically participate in non-mainstream political action. From the beginning our call would need to be a call to political activism, not just a call to vote in November or donate money. To do this, we can't rely on old leaders (ourselves included) and we can't set anything up in the initial stages in a rigid fashion. The process has to be broad and democratic and exploratory, letting excitement build before any kind of national or regional event.
Second, we'd have to create a logo and a package of materials that would mark us as a seriously different alternative. We need a working group to begin this process, one that possesses a breadth of experience and talent, fired up by passion and energy. We also need an initial action plan, which would focus on web site creation and on identifying opportunities for attracting new people and meeting people face to face. The web site would be the joint effort of this group, which would then expand itself into committees, as new people enter into the planning and the execution.
Third, we need to use the internet creatively.The internet site should be a resource center (news updates and analyses, recommended readings with reviews, speakers bureau) and a platform through which people share their experiences and their dreams. In addition to on-line contacts, the web site should be tapped as way of quickly creating and communicating public live events.
Fourth, as a kind of bottom line, there eventually has to emerge a group of viable candidates with the kinds of credentials that make them estimable competitors. The goal of all of our organizing, I believe, should be to create the opportunity for an exciting nominating convention (or series of regional nominating conventions), to be held no earlier than September 2008, where delegates will debate over platform issues and vote for presidential and vice-presidential
candidates.
From: solidartattack@verizon.net
Date: 2007/05/03 Thu AM 09:20:03 CDT
First, we have to assess the difficulty and plan to avoid the pitfalls of the past. In my opinion, another Ralph Nader campaign is to no one's advantage, and neither is the creation of another tiny splinter group led by an ideologically pure elite cadre. To have genuine relevance in the 2008 election, a new party or candidates running on an anti-war platform would have to attract a much broader swath of people than typically participate in non-mainstream political action. From the beginning our call would need to be a call to political activism, not just a call to vote in November or donate money. To do this, we can't rely on old leaders (ourselves included) and we can't set anything up in the initial stages in a rigid fashion. The process has to be broad and democratic and exploratory, letting excitement build before any kind of national or regional event.
Second, we'd have to create a logo and a package of materials that would mark us as a seriously different alternative. We need a working group to begin this process, one that possesses a breadth of experience and talent, fired up by passion and energy. We also need an initial action plan, which would focus on web site creation and on identifying opportunities for attracting new people and meeting people face to face. The web site would be the joint effort of this group, which would then expand itself into committees, as new people enter into the planning and the execution.
Third, we need to use the internet creatively.The internet site should be a resource center (news updates and analyses, recommended readings with reviews, speakers bureau) and a platform through which people share their experiences and their dreams. In addition to on-line contacts, the web site should be tapped as way of quickly creating and communicating public live events.
Fourth, as a kind of bottom line, there eventually has to emerge a group of viable candidates with the kinds of credentials that make them estimable competitors. The goal of all of our organizing, I believe, should be to create the opportunity for an exciting nominating convention (or series of regional nominating conventions), to be held no earlier than September 2008, where delegates will debate over platform issues and vote for presidential and vice-presidential
candidates.
The Proposal: Anti-War Electoral Challenge for 2008
This text also appears at the front page of http://EndOccIraq.org which will be the base website for this initiative. This blog will provide opportunity for discussion around the proposal and the shaping of action:
We are revamping this site to dedicate it to promoting an anti-war choice in 2008. This anti-war choice needs to also be leftist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist in nature and independent of the pro-war Democratic Party. We are looking for links and articles and opinions around this question to link to here. This idea is not to strategically back independent candidates in states where the major parties are strong or weak (so-called Safe States strategy of 2004 Green Party) but to run unabashedly all out in all states. We are promoting the idea of a coalition of candidates that meet this criteria and recommend that all anti-war proponents genuinely use their vote against the war, not by supporting pro-war posers like Clinton or Obama, but by voting for president candidates who are in opposition to the war and the trappings of the pro-war Democratic Party.
For too long, the agenda of the anti-war movement has been controlled by operatives of the Democratic Party. The knee jerk "anti-war" response right now is to protest Bush's veto and thus support the $120 billion for continued war funding. This action by groups such as UfPJ, Move On!, the Peace Action offices and others all around the country demonstrates the epitome of the bankrupt policies of the "anti-war" movement backing the pro-war policies of the now Democratic Party controlled congress. We are chasing our tails and going nowhere.
The only real political power that we possess is our vote. We can march a thousand miles against the war and absolutely negate that action by using our vote and throwing it behind the pro-war and imperialist Democratic Party.
Call to Convention . . .
We need to coalesce and seek to place anti-war candidates on the ballot in every state. We need to mobilize to support those candidates and fight politically the retrograde tendency of "anti-war" groups to promote the pro-war agenda of the Democratic Party and to lend that pro-war institution political support of any kind at election time or any time.
The time for anti-war proponents is long past to break with the Democratic Party and to never look back.
If you know of organizations, parties, individuals, websites, etc., willing to work to make this a reality, write to us at ceoi@endocciraq.org . We will try to maintain this website and see where this goes.
If you are interested in this effort, join our list serve and contact us. Also, please keep us in the loop of your plans along the lines being suggested here. This is not a new idea, just a rededication of this website to politically oppose the war and occupation.For now, take a look at these links / sites:Veto Protest is Phony Anti-War Action
COMMITTEE TO END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ (CEO-I)PO Box 1214, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 * 908-881-5275 ceoi@endocciraq.org
List serve: ceo-i@yahoogroups.com
We are revamping this site to dedicate it to promoting an anti-war choice in 2008. This anti-war choice needs to also be leftist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist in nature and independent of the pro-war Democratic Party. We are looking for links and articles and opinions around this question to link to here. This idea is not to strategically back independent candidates in states where the major parties are strong or weak (so-called Safe States strategy of 2004 Green Party) but to run unabashedly all out in all states. We are promoting the idea of a coalition of candidates that meet this criteria and recommend that all anti-war proponents genuinely use their vote against the war, not by supporting pro-war posers like Clinton or Obama, but by voting for president candidates who are in opposition to the war and the trappings of the pro-war Democratic Party.
For too long, the agenda of the anti-war movement has been controlled by operatives of the Democratic Party. The knee jerk "anti-war" response right now is to protest Bush's veto and thus support the $120 billion for continued war funding. This action by groups such as UfPJ, Move On!, the Peace Action offices and others all around the country demonstrates the epitome of the bankrupt policies of the "anti-war" movement backing the pro-war policies of the now Democratic Party controlled congress. We are chasing our tails and going nowhere.
The only real political power that we possess is our vote. We can march a thousand miles against the war and absolutely negate that action by using our vote and throwing it behind the pro-war and imperialist Democratic Party.
Call to Convention . . .
We need to coalesce and seek to place anti-war candidates on the ballot in every state. We need to mobilize to support those candidates and fight politically the retrograde tendency of "anti-war" groups to promote the pro-war agenda of the Democratic Party and to lend that pro-war institution political support of any kind at election time or any time.
The time for anti-war proponents is long past to break with the Democratic Party and to never look back.
If you know of organizations, parties, individuals, websites, etc., willing to work to make this a reality, write to us at ceoi@endocciraq.org . We will try to maintain this website and see where this goes.
If you are interested in this effort, join our list serve and contact us. Also, please keep us in the loop of your plans along the lines being suggested here. This is not a new idea, just a rededication of this website to politically oppose the war and occupation.For now, take a look at these links / sites:Veto Protest is Phony Anti-War Action
Contact us at: Committee to End the Occupation of Iraq, PO Box 1214, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 * 908-881-5275 * ceoi@endocciraq.org
List serve: ceo-i@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
