http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/no-retreat-if-you-want-to_b_110916.html
Posted July 4, 2008
by Tom Hayden
Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama's core position on Iraq
has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up
with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the
mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his
candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.
I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement
supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement
among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope,
still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of
their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President
Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of
social movements.
And of course, there is the need to end the Republican reign that
began with a stolen election followed by eight years of war and
torture, corporate gouging, environmental decay, domestic spying and
right-wing court appointments, just in case we forget who Obama is
running against.
Besides the transforming nature of an African-American presidency,
the issue that matters most to me is achieving a peaceful settlement
of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and preventing American
escalations in Iran and Latin America. From the beginning, Obama's
symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced
again and again by his campaign pledge to "end the war" in 2009.
But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats
that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill
Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now. As I pointed out in
Ending the War in Iraq [2007], Obama's 2002 speech opposed the coming
war with Iraq as "dumb", while avoiding what position he would take
once the war was underway. Then he wrote of almost changing his
position from anti- to pro-war after a trip to Iraq. He never took as
forthright a position as Senator Russ Feingold, among others. Then he
adopted the safe, nonpartisan formula of the Baker-Hamilton Study
Group, which advocated the withdrawal of combat troops while leaving
thousands of American counter-terrorism units, advisers and trainers behind.
That would mean at least 50,000 Americans, including back up forces,
engaged in counter-insurgency after the withdrawal of combat troops,
a contradiction the media and Hillary Clinton failed to explore in
the primary debates. To his credit, Obama said that these American
units would not become caught up in a lengthy sectarian civil war,
leaving the question of their role unanswered.
The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers' forced resignation
earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a "monster"
off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his
whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the
media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers
was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in
writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner
thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.
Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise
questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of
credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:
The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq
position later this summer:
"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated
by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain
stability" -- two conditions that could justify leaving American
troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a
chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll
have more information and will continue to refine my policies" --
another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.
Then there came the later "clarification":
"Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].
"I intend to end this war." [intention only].
"My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in,
and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war --
responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." [ Sounds positive, but
"decisively" can mean by military threat in the worst case. And it's
pure theatre, borrowed from Clinton, since the plans most likely will
be drafted and finalized immediately after the November election.]
"And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we
can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a
month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert
that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]
Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now
plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American
voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon
Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's
"secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and
the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.
It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his
lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential
opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being
surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call
"precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly
uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.
What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the
grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a
shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic
rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time
that public interest in the war is receeding before economic
concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter
demands for peace.
The challenge for the peace and justice movement is to avoid falling
into Republican divide-and-conquer traps while maintaining a powerful
and independent presence in key electoral states, including
Congressional battlegrounds, between now and November. There should
be at the least:
- A demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace
movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.
- A Democratic platform debate and plank that is unequivocal in
pledging to end the war and avoid military escalation elsewhere.
- An energized antiwar voter education campaign that builds towards a
clear November peace mandate to end the military occupation and shifr
to political and diplomatic approraches.
- An organizational strategy to widen the base of the antiwar
movement through the presidential campaign in preparation for a
massive peace mobilization in early 2009.
Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the
astute sense of pragmatism that led Obama to criticize the coming war
in 2002. The stakes are higher now, and the enemies far more shrewd,
wishing to rip asunder the Obama coalition. The peace movement
assumption should be that there is no one in Obama's inner circle of
advisers to be counted on, no mainstream columnist to catch his eye
with a persuasive column favoring withdrawal. They never have. Only
the voice of the peace voters - and the countless activists who have
volunteered on his behalf - can command his attention now.
--
For more developments and analysis, see 'Progressives for Obama' at
progressivesforobama.blogspot.com
.
No comments:
Post a Comment