Obama the Weasel: On Iraq, Antiwar Candidate Delivers More Carnage

December 28, 2008

Ted Rall • The Smirking Chimp   see more in  NEWS & ANALYSIS header


NEW YORK-Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency by speaking out against the Iraq War. Now that he’s packing for Washington, however, the old Chicago lawyer is using Harvard Law weasel words to make sure the war goes on for years.

Germans are organized. The French are snotty. Americans have a national character trait, too: inattention. It’s now obvious that Obama exploited our hard-wired inability to read between the lines to lay the groundwork for what many of his supporters will soon view as a terrible betrayal.

Right there, in a July 14th op/ed, is Obama’s triumph of plausible deniability: “The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep,” he wrote in The New York Times. “Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president.”

Seems clear. End means end. Finito. No more. But there’s an interesting phrase in Obama’s promises to pull out, repeated throughout the campaign”: “combat troops.” “We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated,” he wrote in his op/ed. “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades.”

“It’s time to end this war,” Obama concluded. Ending the war would mean following the political cartoonist Matt Bors’ prescription: The troops would go to the airport. They would board planes. They would fly away.

But Obama doesn’t want to end the war.

Obama will classify some units as “combat troops” and send them to Afghanistan, which he wants to expand into an even bigger war. But tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of troops, will remain in Iraq, killing and getting killed.

“Even though the [U.S.] agreement with the Iraq government calls for all American combat troops to be out of the cities by the end of June [2009],” reported the Times on December 22nd, military planners are “now quietly acknowledging that many will stay behind as renamed ‘trainers’ and ‘advisers’ in what are effectively combat roles. In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else.”

Obama isn’t just recycling Clinton’s staff. He’s also into his aphorisms: It depends on what the meaning of “combat troop” is.

How many non-combat combat troops will still be shooting and bombing Iraqis after 2011? “My guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops,” says Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Bush appointee who has been asked by Obama to stay on-presumably because he approves of the superb job the Bush Administration has done in Iraq. Obama’s military advisors, reports The Los Angeles Times, “have said that residual force could consist of as many as 50,000 troops.”

When Americans hear about military advisers helping to train foreign forces, they think of JFK, who sent a skeleton crew of 1,400 advisers to South Vietnam in 1961. (Let’s not dwell on how that turned out.)

50,000 troops-this being the Pentagon, you know it’ll be more-is a full-scale war. Indeed, when President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and overthrew its government in 1989, he used 57,000 troops.

Of course, we should have seen this coming. Obama talked and talked and talked about his opposition to the Iraq War. He’s good at that. But whenever he had a chance to put his vote where his mouth was, he chumped out. Time after time, he voted for Bush’s requests to send billions of taxpayer dollars to Halliburton and other war profiteers. He never voted no.

“I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely,” Obama said during the campaign. “So I don’t think there is any contradiction there.” But the money isn’t provided to get our troops home safely. It’s to keep them in Iraq, fighting and killing and being killed. As Obama well knew.

With Detroit automakers and three million jobs teetering on the brink of disaster for lack of a $25 billion bailout, you’d think Obama would want to end a war that wastes that much in 12 weeks. Yet, even in a depression, Barack Obama is no less devoted to the pit of blood and treasure that is Iraq than George W. Bush.

Forget preemptive war. How about preemptive impeachment?


One comment

  1. You got it right in that this country has a big problem with the apathy-factor.

    I just don’t see the weasel-ness here. We went into our neighbors home and killed the father of the house. There is never a easy or non-bloody solution to what the US has committed on Iraq and its people. ANY intension of a leader to see forces draw down and hopefully exit the region entirely is progress. Now that we stepped into this cow-patty we need to clean up before we can move on. I don’t find any part of what you shared here wrong I just wanted to say that as a realistic liberal progressive I am glad to hear ‘draw-down’ rather than ‘surge.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: