Why Is Obama's Policy On Expanding Military and Terrorism So Similar To Current Policy?

[RestoreGore]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2648/

That world view restates the threats facing the United States in Bush’s hyperbolic terms. The notion that al-Qaeda, for all its terrorism, represents a threat as vast and dangerous as fascism or communism has been a staple of the Bush doctrine. Al-Qaeda in particular and terrorism by definition could never amount to a threat on the level of fascism or communism. Terrorism is a crude and short-range method, not a program nor an ideology nor a sustainable enterprise. Yet here’s Obama again, reinvigorating the absurd premise: “This century’s threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.” That last, about global warming, is the closest he gets to an accurate comparison to global, existential threats. But conflating it with the threats of terrorism or rogue militarism confuses the issue to the point of sensationalism. Global warming aside, “this century’s threats” are not as or more dangerous than the last. They’ve been made more dangerous than they are because of rhetorical exaggerations and catastrophic strategic mistakes: Bush calling the war on terror a war, and Bush fighting it by expanding it to Iraq while neglecting it in Afghanistan. If terrorism had been fought globally as effectively as it has been in the Philippines (for example), which is how some of us wanted it fought beginning on Sept. 12, 2001, the facile language of war that presidential candidates are using today, left and right, would have been shown to be folly. As it is, the language’s folly pales compared to its ongoing execution.

Obama gets worse. Repeating his idea for a “phased withdrawal” from Iraq only to call it a “redeployment” in the same breath (the coy deflection from cutting and running, which is what this is and what it must be, dates back to Ronald Reagan calling the Marines’ withdrawal from Beirut in 1984 a “redeployment”), he leaves open the door for a longer stay “if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed” and settles on the deceptive language of a permanent stay in the form of “a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities.” Facilities? The previous line-I’m not kidding you-was this: “e must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq.” It isn’t Obama’s only blatant contradiction (more of those in a moment), although what Iraqis and other Mideasterners will read in this passage is nothing new under American policy’s sun.

There’s more to Obama’s hawkish compulsions. He wants military ranks increased by 100,000. In this, he sounds indistinguishable from Mitt Romney’s prescription for the military, in the same issue of Foreign Affairs: “First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense. The need to support our troops is repeated like a mantra in Washington. Yet little has been said about the commitment of resources needed to make this more than an empty phrase.” But where has the case been made for an expanded military force, if not for expanded and semi-permanent military commitments abroad? And who at this point ought to be enabling existing commitments, let alone expanded ones? We remain by far the nation with the biggest and costliest military in the world. The Pentagon’s budget is well in excess of all other nations’ military budgets combined. There’s not a force on earth that can challenge the military conventionally. It doesn’t need expansion. It may need some redirection. It certainly needs considerable contraction: There’s no need for a fleet of 400 ships, no need for a $10-billion-a-year “missile shield,” no need for the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, no need for an endless list of military procurement that does nothing for the defense of the country and everything to grease the job-making base of a few congressman. And there’s no need for an American presence in Europe anymore. Those forces should redeploy. The Pentagon is sucking the marrow out of the federal budget and making a Sparta of this alleged “city upon a hill.”

end of excerpt.
~~~~

After reading this report of Barack Obama's own words regarding military expansion, pre-emptive war, nuclear policy, and terrorism and his own quotes in debates, I am really beginning to think that the "change" he talks about is the status quo hidden under pretty words. I already know the Clintons are part of that status quo as McCain is as well, but I expected different from someone who claims to be progressive.

To many however, Barack Obama is a new face they are flocking to without even caring to delve deep enough into the words to get their true meanings. Well, after eight years of the deception, lies, and crimes of the Bush regime I am looking into the words and frankly, I'm not liking all I see. What I see is business as usual and it is so frustrating to think that we may have no choice but to go along.

Consider this quote of his from the linked article: “To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.” How is this different from the current policy? So I think the overriding question to this is: will this policy be accepted if continued and if so, why? Why would we approve of expanding this military even more when this country already has the largest military budget in the world? And, would this expansion include nuclear?

* Also, I am currently not supporting any candidate, but am truly concerned that regardless of party we may not see the change we need to see regarding finally ending the war mentality that has dessimated our constitution, our economy, and our environment.

[Straight Shooter]

1. Invoking anticommunism and the Cold War.

*cough* Reagan worship *cough*

[RestoreGore]

4. Sure makes me uncomfortable...

But you won't get a reasoned debate about it. Seems people don't want to actually discuss the future. This is nothing but an American Idol campaign. Who cares if he would nuke Pakistan just based on "credible evidence" without explaining what that is? Who cares if he doesn't call for the missile defense shield program to end? Or challenge the Bush Nuclear Posture Review? Their plans to control and weaponize space? Or wants to expand an already bloated military as if he will get anyone to enlist? He's got charisma!

[Straight Shooter]

10. There is an iron fist hiding within the velvet glove of his pretty words.

Not very many look beyond the rhetoric of his rallies and campaign brochures, which is aimed largely at the anti-war citizenry. I think he will over-react, instead of act, if there is a crisis.

[mmonk]

2. This is getting old.

Clinton's team is made up of pro Iraq war hawks and American expansion.

[RestoreGore]

5. They all are, and you then support it.

[mmonk]

7. Don't even pretend to know me.

I can say untrue things about you as well if you like. Obama is a default candidate for me.

[RestoreGore]

13. You support his policies, you support war as well.

because that is exactly what they portend based on his own words.

[mmonk]

17. Show me where he advocates for war.

[IndyOp]

3. Article date: July 20, 2007. Obama's rhetoric has changed

- perhaps because of John Edward's positive influence - perhaps because he's had more time to study the issues and/or has been influenced by foreign policy advisers like Samantha Power.

Obama isn't perfect by a long-shot - but he is, in some ways, a breath of fresh air in terms of foreign policy. Simply by stating that he would meet with leaders we don't like because he doesn't believe that the U.S. should hold itself above other nations -- that is a tectonic shift. Stating that he would pull U.S. troops immediately and completely if the Iraqi government asked -- that is a tectonic shift.

Peace.

[RestoreGore]

6. And what have I got to look to to be assured in that?

Words mean nothing.

[indimuse]

8. he's the REAL Progressive..didn't you know?

sarc..

[mmonk]

9. I'm usually in your camp on most arguments because of Gore.

But listen to Obama advisor Samantha Power if you think the approach is so close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUUOO5cCNVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRY_m8dlXMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNt7XsV-Dg

[RestoreGore]

14. And? she's another millionaire speaking for him

People will say anything to get elected. I don't trust any of them regarding war and nuclear power. NONE of them.

[mmonk]

16. So she writes books she doesn't really believe

and teaches at Harvard things she doesn't believe?

[OHdem10]

11. It has been my observation that American Foreign Policy and

National Defense Policy is essentially one policy. For example
when Bill Clinton was President, he pretty much followed his predecssors
steps.

[RestoreGore]

15. yes, and so it shall be again...

And this is what they call "change."

[stillcool]

12. Geo-politics...

is something that is very murky to me. Foreign Policy and US Interventionism is not a topic that is spoken of with any clarity. As a matter of fact, I do not believe I have ever heard any politician discuss in depth the actions we as a country have taken over the last 50+ years. I believe that the only defining factor that would give me a glimpse of what any of these candidates 'might' do, is the people they surround themselves with.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008
Foreign Policy In Focus
-----------
Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issue
------------------------

Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.

Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
------------------------------------
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."