If you wanna the war to go onna then vote for Obama!

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.”