These are Obama's Wars Now
It's time to toss those Obama t-shirts in the trash.
Last Monday the Democrat controlled House voted 226-202 to approve a rushed $106 billion dollar war spending bill, guaranteeing more carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan (and lately Pakistan) until September 30, 2009, which marks the end of the budget year. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill's first draft last month, with the final vote on a compromised version to occur in the Senate sometime in the next couple of weeks.
The majority of opposition in the House came from Republicans who opposed an add-on to the bill that would open up a $5 billion International Monetary Fund line of credit for developing countries. This opposition in the House led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday to quip, "It'll be interesting to see what happens here. Are my Republican colleagues [in the Senate] going to join with us to fund the troops? I hope so."
No longer can the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan rest at the feet of George W. Bush alone. This is now Obama's War on Terror, fully funded and operated by the Democratic Party.
The bill that passed the House on Monday, once approved by the Senate, will not be part of the regular defense budget as it's off the books entirely. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has passed similar emergency spending bills to finance US military ventures in the Middle East. The combined "supplementals" are fast approaching $1 trillion, with 30% going to fund the war in Afghanistan.
In addition to the latest increase in war funds, Obama is also asking for an additional $130 billion to be added on to the defense budget for the new fiscal year starting on October 1. The president is upholding his campaign promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which also means increasing the use of remote controlled drone planes in neighboring Pakistan that are to blame for hundreds of civilian deaths since Obama took office last January.
Despite Obama's historic (albeit rhetoric filled) speech in Cairo, the new Commander in Chief is still not about to radically change, let alone reform, the US's long-standing role in the Middle East. A master of his craft, Obama is simply candy coating the delivery of US imperialism in the region. Given the lack of opposition to Obama's policies back home, it is becoming clear that he may well be more dangerous than his predecessor when it comes to the US's motivations internationally.
Had Bush pushed for more military funds at this stage, the antiwar movement (if you can call it that) would have been organizing opposition weeks in advance, calling out the neocons for wasting our scarce tax dollars during a recession on a never-ending, directionless war. But since Obama's a Democrat, a beloved one at that, mums the word.
Certainly a few progressive Democrats are dismayed by what the Obama administration is up to, but how many of these Democrats that are upset now will be willing to break rank and oppose their party when it matters most, like during the midterm elections coming up next year? Obama had the majority of antiwar support shored up while he ran for the presidency, with absolutely no demands put on his candidacy. And not surprisingly, antiwar progressives have little to show for their fawning support.
All this begs a few questions: If not now, when exactly will Obama's policies be scrutinized with the same veracity that Bush's were? When will the media end its love affair with Obama and hold his feet to the fire like they did Bush once the wheels fell off the war in Iraq? When will progressives see their issues as paramount and oppose Obama and the Democratic Party until they embrace their concerns?
If these questions are not answered soon, we are in many more years of war and bloodshed, funded by US taxpayers and approved by a Democrat controlled White House and Congress.
Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in July 2008.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
So?
By Davidson, Carl at Jun 22, 2009 21:07 PM
Instead of 'waiting for answers' to rhetorical questions, why not put out some plans for what we need to do now, at the base. In addition to developing a new antiwar presense in the streets, probably best connected to economic justice issues, we have to make a credible case to our Members of Congress that a majority of their constituents want the wars to end, and if they won't represent them, who will? Then we have to have the credible means to take them down in 2010, and with a replacement that will cut off the money, not a GOPer who'll make matter worse. If Obama doesn't reverse course on these wars, he'll be up against his LBJ-Great Society moment, ie, they will destroy him, his presidency and anything decent he's asserted he wants to do. We need to say that now, no waiting required.
Reply this comment
Re: So?
By Hegarty, Terence at Jun 22, 2009 21:51 PM
It's funny, Carl, you seem to be suggesting we do what we've always done in the past, which has never worked, as you accuse the rest of us of "waiting for answers to rhetorical questions." You indicate as much yourself with your LBJ "Great Society" moment, which, as I recall, did nothing to stop the escalation of the Vietnam War, although it may have (as you so bluntly put it ) "destroyed" LBJ. Although I'd love to "destroy" hypocrite Obama, I don't see how that alone would solve anything, The congressmen you seem to think can save us will continue to favor the big guys with the big bucks, i.e., imperialists and weapons manufacturers. Congress has always known what "the people" want, but they wouldn't dream of obliging. What a mainstream US political scientist you are!
Reply this comment
Re: So?
By Davidson, Carl at Jun 23, 2009 06:34 AM
What we've always done in this past? Really? Have you put the wars on the ballot in your district, then taken the results to your Congressman? Do you have a political instrument and antiwar candidate to take him or her down? Does your independent grassroots organization have the clout and votes to do so, or credibly threaten it?
We've had huge demostrations over and over, and we should have more, but I know very few cases were we 'have already done' the former.
If you have a better approach, spell it out for us.
Wars end when one of three things happen--soldiers refuse to fight, a Congress cuts off the money, and a President give the order. It's a long march through the institutions to get from here to any one or two of these, and you may find it boring, but unless you have another approach, let's just get on with it.
Reply this comment
Re: So?
By McGehee, Michael at Jun 23, 2009 06:32 AM
pretending Obama is his electoral rhetoric and that we need to save him from himself is a shitty plan
Reply this comment
"Rebranding War and Occupation"
By Street, Paul at Jun 22, 2009 14:57 PM
A related and excellent conversation/report: Jeremy Scahill and Anthony Arnove, "Rebranding War and Occupation"
http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/17/rebranding-war-and-occupation
The corporate and imperial ruling class is getting away with more with Obama and a Democratic Congress than they could through Republicans in power right now. As Arnove notes,"It's important to get past the very short-term framework that not just the establishment media but so much of the left has in this country."
"Essentially, during the Bush administration, whole sections of the left acted as if empire began with George W. Bush. As if it was something managed only by a handful of people: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, sections of the neo-conservative movement, perhaps even the Republican Party more generally."
"That takes the events of the last eight years out of the context of a history of U.S. empire and aggression and intervention in global affairs going back to the 19th century."
"If you look at that history, you come to see a number of things. First of all, you come to see that the Democrats are as much a party of empire as the Republicans. In fact, one can make the case historically that the Democrats have been more aggressive in the expansion and the assertion of American power than Republicans, who have always tended to have an isolationist wing."
Reply this comment
Right on, brother!
By Hegarty, Terence at Jun 22, 2009 13:42 PM
Nice to see those fighting words at last.
Reply this comment