Obama: "I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place."
By Kevin Zeese
2008 Campaign provides the opportunity to build a movement for fundamental change away from militarism
The issue on which Sen. Obama scored the most points in the January 31st debate with Sen. Clinton was the Iraq occupation. While Iraq has been pushed from the front pages, despite continued carnage, it remains a priority for many voters. Iraq persists to be an area of weakness for Clinton in the primary.
Indeed,
the most recent CNN poll, which has Obama in the lead nationally for
the first time, shows Democratic voters trust Clinton more on health
care and the economy, but trusted Obama on Iraq. Iraq is the issue propelling Obama ahead of Clinton.
Obama made a number of points on Iraq in their last debate, finishing with: �I
don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got
us into war in the first place.� He followed that lofty goal with a
promise: �That's
the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of
the United States. That's what I intend to provide.�
Obama blames conventional, Washington thinking for the war saying:
�.
. . conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits
judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the
President. Despite, or perhaps because of how much experience they had
in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to
ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of
reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President
the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was
lost.�
The mindset for war often infects Washington. Since
World War II the U.S. has been a nation at war more often than not, and
whether at war or peace, consistently invests in building the most
powerful military in world history.
Peace Voters have already begun the process of changing that conventional thinking mindset in Washington. Even Senator Clinton, who has voted for the war from the beginning, is now saying �I will do everything I can to get as many of our troops out as quickly as possible.� She promises to take one to two brigades out per month.
Ending the �mindset� of war is essentially the position of the organization I direct, VotersForPeace. Not only do we want to end the Iraq occupation but also prevent future wars of aggression. We
urge people to take the peace pledge which states: �I will only vote
for or support federal candidates who publicly commit to a speedy end
to the Iraq war, and to preventing future �wars of aggression�.� See VotersForPeace.US.
Obama�s
soaring rhetoric of hope and unity along with the proposition of the
U.S. electing the first African American president makes me want to
exclaim �eurkea!� finally a candidate who can bring much-needed change
to the United States.
And,
changing the mindset that leads to war would result in other changes in
Washington. On foreign policy the U.S. will need to work with other
countries, not dominate them and rely on negotiation and diplomacy
rather than force. And, to prevent violence, the U.S.
will need to help put in place solutions to the underlying problems
that lead to military conflict.
Ending the mindset of war would also change domestic policy. For decades the U.S. has been investing in the military economy at the expense of the civilian economy. And, it shows � in the loss of industry, a weakened middle class, a failing infrastructure, and a deteriorating economy.
Could Obama really mean it? Does he really want to end the mindset that leads to war?
How do
voters opposed to war square Sen. Obama�s comment with his advocacy for
an even bigger military � adding 100,000 more troops? The average annual cost of maintaining a single service member currently exceeds $100,000. The cost of these troops is tens of billions more dollars for the military. And, if the U.S. has another 100,000 troops isn�t its leadership more likely to use them? Isn�t this a signal to the military industrial complex that Obama will not challenge them?
Many members of VotersForPeace, including me, have been critical of Obama�s votes on the war. We all know he spoke out against the war when he was a state senator. He described it as �a
rash war� that would result in �an occupation of undetermined length,
with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.� He was right. But we also know that since coming to the senate his record has been the same as Sen. Clinton. He has voted to give Bush all the funds he has requested, with no strings attached and continue the occupation of Iraq.
And,
peace advocates have seen Obama play to the right wing Israeli lobby,
missing his first senate vote to speak to AIPAC event and telling them
what they want to hear regarding Iran � �all options are on the table.�
Yes, he says he wants negotiation with Iran at the same time he keeps the military option available.
So, what is the meaning of Sen. Obama�s comment? Can
we trust him to really �end the mindset� that gets the U.S. into
continuous wars? It is a lofty goal and would be an epic political
struggle. It would require him to challenge the military
industrial complex, the oil industry, the pro-war Israeli lobby and
others who profit from war. Does Obama have the strength to overcome
these political adversaries?
So what is a peace voter supposed to do?
Obama
has consistently said, on issue after issue, that change is going to
require the people to be organized, active and vocal. He says �change does not happen from the top down, but from the bottom up.� An organized citizenry is especially required when a fundamental paradigm shift is needed in a policy that has deep roots. And
militarism runs deep in the United States where half the discretionary
spending goes to the military and with the U.S. already spending as
much as the rest of the world combined on its armed forces. The
strength of the military industrial complex was evident way back when
Eisenhower warned the country about it in his farewell speech in 1961.
During the election
year some peace voters will take Obama at his finest words and work to
elect him hoping that he will provide the leadership he promises. Some may even be satisfied with Hillary Clinton�s election year conversion.
Others,
will look to the Green Party which has two strong peace candidates in
Ralph Nader and former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney or other third
parties like the Libertarians and Constitution Parties which also are
running anti-war candidates. Nader has questioned whether
Obama has the backbone to stand up to the special interests on the
issue of militarism and points out how Bush justified the war based on
Clinton policies. McKinney seeks to lead a �peace slate� to end the war and, like Nader, opposes the bloated military and intelligence budgets.
Whatever
choice is made, the 2008 election year is an opportunity to build a
movement for deep-seated change away from militarism. And
after the election peace advocates need to come together to pressure
whoever is elected, to end not only the mindset that has led the U.S.
to ongoing wars but the ongoing investment in the military economy.
The election promises to continue to be a debate on the Iraq war. Obama said as much during the debate: �I
will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a
John McCain, or any other Republican -- because they all want basically
a continuation of George Bush's policies.�
Clinton
concurs that Iraq will be central to the election year saying �There
will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the
Republicans are still committed to George Bush's policy, and some are
more committed than others� specifically mentioning Senator McCain.
In
fact, Obama seems to relish the battle, especially if it is with
Senator McCain: �I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in
going up against a John McCain . . . because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea.�
In
fact, the peace movement�s job in the 2008 election is to make sure the
war is an issue through November no matter who the nominee. Senator
McCain is a superhawk who jokingly sings about bombing Iran and told a
town hall meeting in New Hampshire that it would be �fine with me� if
the U.S. stayed �maybe a hundred years in Iraq.� McCain will be quick to the trigger in using the U.S. military.
Building the anti-war movement is a major goal of the election year. It
will be critical in 2009 that the movement be stronger than it is today
because it will either be facing a militarist in John McCain, or a
Democrat who has consistently voted for war funding while saying they
will begin to withdraw troops from Iraq. How much
progress the United States makes on ending the mindset that leads to
ongoing wars will depend more on how well peace advocates organize and
how aggressively political pressure is applied to the next president.
VotersForPeace
2842 N. Calvert St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
443-708-8360
Copyright 2017 VotersForPeace.US. All rights reserved.