I was critical a week or so ago of Chris Hedges’ call for the antiwar left to consider third-party candidates who are unequivocal on the war, given that a John McCain presidency would likely result if there was a mass revolt.
But then I read stories like this — via Chris Floyd’s Empire Burlesque — and I think that maybe Hedges is right. Here are two quotations from the AP story that raise the hair on the back of my neck and make me wonder if he is pandering or lost on this:
“The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that’s been naive and it’s people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world,” he said.
Foreign policy realism is code for “I’d use force, but I’d be less likely to be a cowboy.” It doesn’t mean he’d be less likely to flex his muscles than McCain or Bush, only that he’d be more careful about creating a coalition — a la, the first President Bush and the 1991 Gulf War, which Obama said relied on a large coalition and had carefully defined objectives.
He then tried to tie current Bush administration policies to Hillary Clinton.
“I do think that Sen. Clinton would understand that George Bush’s policies have failed, but in many ways she has been captive to the same politics that led her to vote for authorizing the war in Iraq,” he said. “Since 9/11 the conventional wisdom has been that you’ve got to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the Republicans, and I disagree with that.”
Instead, he appears to endorse a different kind of conventional wisdom, one still tied to the notion of American exceptionalism and leadership, that still relies on the idea that we have a right and responsibility to reshape the world to our needs — so long as we can cobble together a decent-sized international coalition.
Floyd deconstructs the comments this way:
Obama is also signaling to the real masters of the United States, the military-corporate complex, that he is a “safe pair of hands” — a competent technocrat who won’t upset the imperial applecart but will faithfully follow the 60-year post-war paradigm of leaving “all options on the table” and doing “whatever it takes” to keep the great game of geopolitical dominance going strong.
What other conclusion can you draw from Obama’s reference to these avatars, and his very pointed identification with them? He is saying, quite clearly, that he will practice foreign policy just as they did. And what they do? Committed, instigated, abetted and countenanced a relentless flood of crimes, murders, atrocities, deceptions, corruptions, mass destruction and state terrorism.
This is a difficult pill to swallow, if you’re in anyway looking for a candidate to redirect the United States away from its long-standing imperial ambitions.
This brings me to a piece that ran last week in The Guardian (U.K.) — Tuesday on Alternet — by a couple of journalists from The Nation. In it, Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill say antiwar voters who uncritically back a Democrat are making a “serious strategic mistake.”
There is no question that the Bush administration has proven impervious to public pressure. That’s why it’s time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.
Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We’ll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices–from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation–have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.
This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions–thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.
Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of “unity,” it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed.
Klein and Scahill point out that the Democrats have been receiving significant cash from the military-industrial complex with a bottom-line tied to the prolonging the war.
In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans Against the War, who held the historic “Winter Soldier” hearings in Silver Spring, Md. earlier this month, are not supporting any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists, the “out now” position has been dismissed as naive. It is distinctly harder to ignore coming from hundreds who have served–and continue to serve–on the frontlines.
The candidates know that much of the passion fueling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. It is this desire for change that has filled stadiums and campaign coffers.
Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp: When The Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton abruptly changed course. She became the most important U. S. political leader to endorse the ban, scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.
This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of issue-based battle has the power to energize voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.
Obama’s comments last week, however, along with Clinton’s “pragmatic” vote on the war in 2002, offer me little hope.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 