Obama's Foreign Policy Speech---Defend, Extend, Expand Empire Thursday, 17 July 2008
By Kenneth J. Theisen Barack Obama delivered a major speech on “national security” on July 15th at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. In his speech he attempted to demonstrate that he is fit to be the next commander-in-chief of the largest war machine in history. He made clear that he intends to expand the “war on terrorism”, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He pledged to use both military might and aggressive diplomacy to achieve the goals of U.S. imperialism. His speech was timed to occur before his expected “fact-finding” trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Germany, France and Britain, where he undoubtedly will continue to advocate for U.S. imperialism. Obama has been quite vocal in his ambition as a future military leader. He supports increasing the overall size of the U.S. military by 92,000 troops and increasing the number of U.S. and allied troops sent to Afghanistan. He wrote that he would send two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. He has also called for the use of U.S. military force in Pakistan even against the will of Pakistani leaders. This would be both similar to and an escalation of U.S. missile strikes on Pakistani sites regularly carried out by the Bush regime. Taking the War into Pakistan A central theme of the foreign policy Obama has expounded for years entails extending and expanding the U.S. led wars. A foremost example is that he promises to expand the war into Pakistan. “The greatest threat to (the US’s) security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.” This is a declaration of intent to attack sites in Pakistan regardless of the violations of international law and the wishes of the Pakistani people. Obama also stated “The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists...From the cave- spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.” In other words, Obama wants people in this country to believe that the mortal dangers to people in this country and throughout the world derive primarily from Islamic militants in Pakistan and the Iranian regime in Tehran, not the U.S. hyper power, which has a military, and especially nuclear, force more than the rest of the planet combined. The Commander in Chief in Waiting Obama criticizes the Bush regime for failing to adequately take advantage of the 9/11 attacks to increase U.S. dominance of the world. Obama states, “It was time -- once again -- for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world. Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11…We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.” He points out one of his tactical differences with the Bush regime by criticizing the war in Iraq. “We have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats -- all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.” Notice how he fails to mention the one million Iraqi dead, the 4 million refugees, or the other massive suffering of the Iraqi people. In plain English, Obama’s real criticism of the Bush regime in Iraq is that it has not made U.S. imperialism stronger by allowing the U.S. to control the Middle East in order to achieve hegemony in the world, and bringing in imperialist “allies” to do more of the fighting and pay more of the cost. Obama argues that rather than making the U.S. an unassailable force for world domination, the Bush/Cheney strategy have opened up opportunities for others, including the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic fundamentalist forces who pose a threat to American dominance in Central Asia. “This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.” He also makes his case for his role as commander-in-chief. “I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction…I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America -- once again -- to lead.” “As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy -- one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against Al Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.” He states that he can better manage domination of the world for those he serves – the U.S. ruling class. While he may dress up his strategy as the “best to defend the American people” he really is talking about defending U.S. hegemony. When he talks about ending the Iraq war “responsibly” he is still talking about achieving victory in that war for the U.S. Obama has criticized the way the Bush Regime initiated and has been waging the war in Iraq as “dumb”. In his foreign policy speech, he said “Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months…we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of Al Qaida; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces…” For one thing, Obama is only talking about redeploying “combat brigades.” That would still allow the presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq as a “residual force.” He also talks about the need to “make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy.” In others words don’t hold to any timetables or promises. But the problem with the U.S. war in Iraq isn’t that Bush is “dumb”, and the response to the problem from the people can’t be overcoming “carelessness” with “care”. The war, from its deceitful inception and through every blood drenched day of the invasion and occupation has been and remains unjust, immoral, and illegal. Expanding the War Machine As a future commander-in-chief, Obama expresses concern for U.S. military might and calls for military expansion. “We cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn't made us safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time.” Anyone who supports Obama needs to ask themselves – what will this war machine of his be used for? Obama promises to expand the “war on terrorism”, and by this he specifically means sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. He says, “That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. …I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions -- with fewer restrictions -- from NATO allies.” He does not neglect Iran in his speech. He states, “We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table...I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy -- diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.” When he refers to “no tool of statecraft” he is referring to the use of military force as one of these tools. While he claims to put emphasis on diplomacy, we hear similar words from the Bush regime. We can not forget the speech that Obama made just last month to AIPAC where he told Israeli supporters that he would do “everything” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama emphasizes his goal of “rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century. For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners.” Obama is among those in the ruling class that believe the so-called “unilateralism” of the Bush regime has weakened U.S. imperialism. He and they believe that the U.S. should utilize alliances whenever possible to achieve U.S. hegemony in the world. He argues for strengthening NATO and reforming the United Nations, ”so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values.” He believes the U.N. should help achieve U.S. goals in the world, not act on the needs of the vast majority of people. He also wants to create new tools for U.S. imperialism. He calls for the creation of “a Shared Security Partnership Program -- a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks…That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas.” This is a straight up call to strengthen the U.S. ability to militarily interfere in Africa and Central and South America. In many countries on both of these continents, the U.S. hold has receded somewhat over the last few years and the U.S. ability to bring these nations into line has been diminished. Examples include Venezuela and Bolivia where U.S. domination has been challenged at times. Obama said he will “double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states…” While on the surface this sounds like he wishes to help other countries, anyone who has ever studied the role of U.S. foreign aid knows that it is used as a tool to dominate other nations. Such aid always comes with substantial strings. It is used to prop up reactionary forces in these countries which are willing to sell out their own people in order to serve U.S. imperialists. It also ties these countries even closer to such imperialist financial agencies such as the World Bank and the Export Import Bank. These agencies destroy local economies and make them ever more dependent on the U.S. And even though such institutions do not generally kill people directly, they result in tens of millions of deaths each year as a result of their actions. Despite words in his speech that suggest Obama is calling for major changes in the way the U.S. relates to the world, it is really nothing more than a rehash of imperialist goals. If his policies are implemented, the war in Iraq will not end. But the war in Afghanistan will intensify. There is also the real possibility that war with Iran and Pakistan will also intensify. (The U.S. has already engaged in acts of war against both of these countries.) The possibilities of conflict in the Americas and Africa will also increase. Implementation of Obama’s plans will not bring about “peace and prosperity” for the people of the world. It will only lead to further attempts by the U.S. to achieve world hegemony. These attempts will cost the lives of millions. While they may differ tactically with those used by the Bush regime, they are part of the same political trajectory that has been fashioned over the last seven plus years and they must be opposed. Ken Theisen is a veteran activist of movements opposing U.S. imperialism, its wars and domination of countries throughout the world, and an advocate against domestic violence in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Earlier this week, when we heard that protest groups in Denver are not planning one march against the occupation of Iraq and the potential attack on Iran, we wrote this. I'm inviting you to sign on to the letter here. 16 July 2008: In six weeks, the Democrats meet in Denver. As recent news makes clear, an attack on Iran could happen before the election, driving the Bush Agenda into the next administration, no matter who the president is. Who will stop an attack on Iran? Not the Democrats who secretly authorized military operations George Bush already has underway inside Iran. Not the Democratic leaders - including Senator Obama - who insist, again and again, that "all options" remain on the table for military action against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons! Not the Democrats who, in their majority, including Obama, not only sanctioned retroactive immunity for the large telecom companies who went along with Bush and spied on people, but have given them prospective immunity in expanded government spying. This war now belongs to the Democrats no less than the Republicans. If it is left to McCain and Obama, the occupation will continue for years. It was wrong to go into Iraq, it's wrong to stay in Iraq, it's wrong not to get out now! If there is not a strong showing from the anti-war movement against this whole direction outside the convention, it will signal those who make war and the victims of these wars around the world that the people of this country will go along with continued occupation, with McCain or Obama sending many more troops to Afghanistan, and with threats to Iran. The Bush regime promised a war to last generations. Are we against this, or not? The anti-war movement must set a standard of resistance, not accommodate what is intolerable. Only the people - not the politicians - can force open debate over why the U.S. occupation must end now. Only we can act on our convictions, letting others know that an end to the illegal, unjust and immoral wars and occupations will not happen without massive mobilization of the people, and that putting all your hopes and energies into the elections will not bring the change millions desire. Some people say protest does not work. They are WRONG! What does not work is passivity in the face of a government being more widely exposed as committing war crimes and a public increasingly sickened by what is being done in their name. If the anti-war movement was so ineffectual why did the New York Times have to call it the "other superpower"? Whether one plans on voting for Obama or not, we all must be in the streets making our clear opposition to torture, bloody occupations and any new war against Iran vividly clear. People are traveling the country to campaign for Obama. With a strong call from the anti-war movement, some will be willing to bring an anti-war message to Denver. Local Denver activists have gone to court for permits for political protest outside the convention, and have permits for nearby parks. Recreate68 plans a march against the war on Sunday August 24, the day before the convention starts. The Alliance for Real Democracy, another coalition, is currently not planning to join this march. Whatever differences exist, they pale in comparison to the responsibility those of us who are not at peace with being at war have to stop the US occupation of the Middle East. The world needs to see us in the streets in Denver, marching together on the eve of the convention opening. If you're concerned this protest will be too small, you're not alone. The people in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan whose lives may be lost to further US aggression share that concern. It is the responsibility of those of us who know the devastation and misery the continued occupation of Iraq and an attack on Iran would bring to the world to struggle to bring many more forward to participate in this. This is a call to MARCH together with the demand Stop the war in Iraq/ Afghanistan, and Stop an Attack on Iran! You could have separate rallies and speakers at different sites in the park, but call out the many thousands of people to march together. We will join with others in mobilizing everyone who has ever been against this war, and all those who know in their hearts this is wrong, to be in the streets of Denver, standing with the people of the world and refusing to be party to these wars. We the undersigned will do all we can to get people to Denver to participate. Missy Beattie, Elaine Brower, Larry Everest, Ron Kovic, Dennis Loo, Cynthia McKinney, Dede Miller, Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Debra Sweet, Sunsara Taylor,Kevin Zeese Add your name to the letter here. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
