Is Obama Really a Peace Candidate?

[DP]

Since the race for president began, many war-weary Americans have embraced Barack Obama as the candidate of peace. In response to Obama’s early and vocal criticism of the Iraq war, a wide variety of organizations, ranging from neighborhood peace groups to uber-PACs such as MoveOn, have vigorously endorsed him for president.

Not surprisingly, there are many examples of Obama campaign paraphernalia that incorporate peace symbols in their design. (Surely you’ve seen them bumper stickers with a peace symbol for the “O” in Obama; Obama t-shirts decorated with doves and olive branches, etc.)

Many friends have told me they’re voting Obama because they think he’ll end the war in Iraq and will scrupulously avoid starting any new ones, but this isn’t the way the smart money is betting. For whatever else he may be, Barack Obama is not a “peace candidate” in any meaningful sense of that term.

As we’ve seen, Obama began moving steadily rightward as soon as he pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton last summer. A major clue to his future course and intentions came in his June 4th speech to the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), wherein he reiterated his unconditional support for Israel and made ominous statements regarding Iran and Syria. “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real,” Obama told the audience of diehard Israel supporters, “and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

Hmm . . . Now where have we heard that kind of talk before?

In the same speech Obama voiced his unequivocal support for recognizing an “undivided” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a fundamentally unjust and partisan position which has fueled hatred toward the United States throughout the Islamic world and has been a contributing factor in more than one war.

These are certainly not peace positions that Obama has been taking; in fact they are not even “left” or “moderate” positions. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, for example, is such a hard-line position that even the Republicans have not pushed for it . . . until now.

Of course, when you compare Barack Obama to a Hillary Clinton or a John McCain, it’s hard not to see Obama as the dove. But this is really an illusion, fostered by the Democratic Party and designed to convince voters that Obama represents an alternative to McCain on the issue of peace.

As regards the war in Iraq, Obama has failed to call for removing US bases, scaling back the “Green Zone,” or barring US military contractors from doing business there. At the same time he has expressed approval for Bush’s “troop surge” policy and has called for an indefinite US military presence. These positions are virtually identical to the Bush/McCain positions on Iraq. When you look at what they candidates have actually said, the only real differences between Obama and McCain on Iraq are that Obama has been critical of the war, calling it a mistake —as if anyone didn’t know that— and that Obama has a timetable for a partial troop withdrawal. However, far from calling for a complete end to the US military presence in Iraq and elsewhere, Obama has expressed approval of maintaining, and even extending, the reach of US military might around the world.

Consider the war in Afghanistan. In a recent speech Obama made clear his intention to use troops withdrawn from Iraq to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a September 10 speech in Riverside, Ohio, Obama made the following response to President Bush’s announcement that an additional 4700 US troops would be sent to Afghanistan:

“Bush’s plan comes up short,” Obama declared. “It is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency.”

Barack Obama’s position on Afghanistan is not the least bit ambiguous: he doesn’t want to end the war there, he wants to escalate it. His only criticism of the Republicans is that Mr. Bush is not moving quickly enough to do so.

After nearly seven years of making war on Afghanistan, the US is clearly no closer to “winning” there than in Iraq. The notion that we might have originally had a slightly better pretext for attacking Afghanistan than for attacking Iraq place doesn’t change the reality that we are destroying both countries. Regardless of its original objectives, the war in Afghanistan is a moral abomination and a military disaster.

Let’s be honest: a candidate who calls for escalating war and favors military solutions to problems is not a peace candidate, he is a war candidate.

If you have your suspicions about Obama, but you want to vote for him anyway, because you think he’s smarter than McCain, that he’ll be able to wave a wand and fix our crippled economy, then go ahead. But please don’t vote Obama thinking he’s for peace, because he’s not. And if Obama wins, please don’t complain later on that he’s betrayed us by attacking Iran, by sanctifying the apartheid state of Israel, or by getting us further mired down in Afghanistan –because none of that should come as a surprise to anyone who reads the papers.

The inconvenient truth here is that ‘we the people’ are going to have to work every bit as hard for peace under an Obama presidency as we did under Bush –if not harder. People were discouraged under Bush because they felt that they were being ignored, and I understand that. However, the danger we face now isn’t being ignored; it’s getting suckered.

Don’t kid yourselves. Obama is not a peace candidate.

Share This

[WSMom]

Frankly, even if I didn’t believe that Obama had the leadership qualities we desperately need in a POTUS, do you believe that Sen. McCain would be a better choice? Mr. “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” and Mrs. “Putin rearin his head over Alaska” are far more frightening than Obama/Biden. I agree with Fareed Zakaria that Obama is a statesman with a positive world view, while McCain is, IMO, stuck in the cold war. I think we will find that Obama is a realist, but I don’t believe going to war will be his first impulse (like Bush II), but last resort.

Share This

[ellenater]

DP, you’re post is so long and so well researched and more importantly, so excerpted out of context that I don’t even see the point in trying to convince you otherwise. If you had taken the time to research in a fully representational way I think you would feel otherwise.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Thanks ellenator …those were my exact thoughts. :)

Share This

[ellenater]

thanks beachdrivegirl!

Share This

[acemotel]

the post reads like a confused endorsement of McCain who is mired in the culture of war, so what’s the point?

Share This

[JoB]

I have to agree with DP.. Obama is not the peace candidate..

if you define a peace president as one who will take us out of all wars…

but the shades of grey are what matter in our world

and a candidate who tends towards peaceful negotiation as a first resort trumps one who thinks talking is best accomplished after you have trounced your opponent with war.

We are going to have a difficult time extracting ourselves from the mire this administration has not only blundered into but intentionally fostered.

I will rest easier knowing we are doing so with a President who prefers negotiation to bloodshed.

Share This

[walfredo]

I believe Obama is a diplomacy and prudent thinking candidate. He is not a peace candidate. This does not mean he is the same as McCain, or Bush, or even Clinton for that matter… But it does mean, that he is not Dennis Kucinich and isn’t pretending to be.

I personally, fall way further left then Obama on most of these issues. But I do recognize the significance of having someone who is intelligent, who favors diplomacy first and soft power, and who has the judgement and character to handle a crisis in a respectful and prudent manner. Traits John McCain clearly does not possess.

Share This

[DP]

My main concern about Obama is that people are putting blind faith in him and treating him as some kind of political savior, which he is not. However good he looks compared to McCain, Obama is certainly no savior, and people are going to be bitterly disappointed in the coming years. Mark my words.

Many people who wouldn’t dream of getting off their butts and going to a peace rally are delighted by Obama’s candidacy because they think it lets them off the hook. Voting for a smart, “sexy” candidate like Obama relieves them of having to actually do anything (other than voting) to take politics into their own hands. I wish it were that easy, folks, but it ain’t.

If you look at the actual Obama program (what you can actually pin him down on, that is) you will find that it is not very different from Bush/McCain. Two years from now, under President Obama, we’ll still be wasting billions in Iraq, we’ll still be wasting billions more in Afghanistan (and possibly Iran) and Obama won’t have done anything to reign in corporate control of our economy and political system.

As someone from an earlier movement once said: “If voting could really change the system, it would be illegal.” That has never been truer than now.

Go ahead and vote for Obama, but don’t kid yourself. If you really want change, YOU have to work for it.

-D.P.

Note to ellenater: Talk is cheap.

The Obama quotes I used are unambiguous enough not to need context, but if you want to give us some “context” or other info that demonstrates that Obama WASN’T making threatening remarks toward Iran at AIPAC, or that he wasn’t advocating an escalation in Afghanistan during his Riverside speech, please do so. Both those speeches are readily accessible online.

Share This

[walfredo]

DP- I think the pledge to remove troops from Iraq, and the strong will to use diplomatic strength to engage Iran are markedly different then Senator McCain’s positions.

No they aren’t the peace movements ideal positions, specifically adding troops in Afghanistan and providing tough talk towards the Pakistani government. But don’t be fooled, he is not singing “bomb, bomb, Iran”, or pledging to stay in Iraq until we “acheive victory” or for the next “100 years” without ever defining what victory is.

Share This

[CP]

DP – how is that any different than how people (namely women) and followed behind Sarah Palin? Mark MY words, that choice will come back to bite us if she makes it into that White House.

Share This

[Ken]

Kucinich was the “Peace” candidate. You will notice how well that worked out.

Obama is still more likely than McCain to keep us out of silly preemptive wars, police actions, extra constitutional conflicts and money sinks.

Anyone who thinks other wise is not paying attention.

Actual NATO operations, and UN organized relief and even a no fly zone supporting the African Union troops who want to stop the genocide in Darfur may indeed get the support of President Obama with the support of congress.

Most of us can live with that.

And in other news:

Remember, without John McCain, it would have been called the Keating Four.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

and

Bush/McCain Republicans apparently always choose “borrow and spend” over tax and spend”. Which strategy is the more conservative?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/24/perlmutter-bushs-borrow-and-spend-party-is-over/

Share This

[Ken]

Everybody makes threatening remarks to Iran at AIPAC. It is a requirement. Publicly financed campaign laws will be the only way to change that. Too many Senators and Congress critters are feeding at that trough to expect otherwise. The Justice Department will also have to get a full scale cleaning before we can even attempt to get AIPAC to quit funding treason and espionage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal

Afghanistan is more broken than it had to be because of our actions. There was a time when a full scale effort could have at least made it a relatively safe region, but that time is long gone now.

The Karzai government has reached heights of corruption and malfeasance only dreamed about by the previous generations of warlords and tribal sheiks.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/keyplayers/karzai.html

We can either walk away or try to create a semi-stable state. I suspect a walkaway might save us a lot of money but the we should at least try to leave it only as broken as we found it.

The last period of stability there was during the period of the last stages of the Ottoman Empire.

Share This

[oddreality]

Obama would not have been my first pick for Presidential candidate.I am not blinded by the glitz or dreaming of pie in the sky ideals. I was not sure who to vote for.

After observing for these months the behavior of these candidates I can tell you that it is my own observations that are what has put me on the side of Obama.I much prefer a thoughtful intelligent man that surrounds himself with equally intelligent, skilled and experienced people to one that seems to be a mean spirited impulsive changling that surrounds himself with people of limited intelligence that are as mean spirited as he is and have so little experience as to be laughable .

My vote is going to Obama.It will take the whole population to put this country back together ,not one man.It takes a leader that inspires others to work for the country and each other and to not be afraid.I’ve watched each candidate and Obama seems to inspire people. That cannot be a bad thing.

I’ll take inspiration and hope over fear any day.

Share This

[ellenater]

I agree with oddreality completely. Our candidate is just one piece of the puzzle. And it takes someone with genuine presence to be willing to admit their weaknesses and to fill in the gaps by surrounding themselves with people who possess those qualities. My mom, who is a Republican, was swayed by Obama choosing Biden for VP.

Share This

[vincent]

This whole post is pretty nonsensical. It sounds like a Larouche or Nader proposal.

waaaa Obama isnt perfect!!

McCain is the answer then? we live in a two party country. Do we need a 15 paragraph diatribe to point out the obvious?

Share This

[B-squared]

Obama may not be the “peace” candidate, but when held up next to McCain, it’s pretty easy to vote for Obama come November.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

(oddly, the above article is date 10/16/2008. it is very long and very disturbing. please. no more spoiled frat boys!)

Share This

[JanS]

OK…it’s the Twilight Zone, looking into the future…you’re right, it says October 16…

disturbing, yes, even if some consider it a bit onesided.

Share This

[Author]

Posts