Considering Barack Obama, part 2

More on Obama's foreign, military, and trade policies

 

Diplomacy

 

Obama says a lot about diplomacy and talking to our 'enemies,' but Bill Clinton was also a multilateralist, and he still attacked the civilians of Iraq and Cuba through sanctions, tried to provoke his own Iraq War, bombed Sudan and Afghanistan, and occupied Somalia and Yugoslavia.  Obama thinks "We can help build accountable institutions that deliver services and opportunity: strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, honest police forces, free presses, vibrant civil societies" in other countries as "a partner mindful of his own imperfections."  If one reads his FA article, he does not seem very mindful of American imperfections and seems more like an arrogant American exceptionalist, like FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK, who he seems to admire.  He thinks Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy "ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders." 

 

He says "This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more," more empty words (and similar to Bush's good and evil talk), though they are an example of the delusion I think Obama is selling, whether he believes it or not.  Of course US imperialism is always just (except when its crimes can't be denied or blamed on individual actions), unlike those evil Iranians, north Koreans, and Iraqi and Palestinian patriots.  As many others have said, one reason for the capitalists to like Obama is because they hope the next president can "restore the American people's trust -- if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility -- then I believe the American people will be eager to see America lead again," as if American foreign policy has ever been designed in the "best interest" of the majority of Americans, and not for the good of the capitalist elite and their politicians.              

 

Military, veterans, and intelligence

 

For the aims of US imperialism, the military cannot stay bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In FA Obama writes that "To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military."  A result of the "War on Terror" is that "The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas," as if the Guard is meant only for offensive use, where it is out of reach in the case of domestic disasters like Hurricane Katrina.  Of course "We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests."  He advocates "adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines," though unlike Bush he is for adequately equipping soldiers so they have armor, and providing them with more "incentives." 

 

Like a true imperialist he writes "I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."  Of course Americans have to be defended, but so much of US policy is offensive and uses our taxes and soldiers in the "vital interests" of a minority.  He advocates aggressive policies, at least as aggressive as Bush's idea of war for what he calls "democracy:"  "We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."  So are we going to stop our crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and instead stop our so-called allies' attacks on the Palestinians and Turkish Kurds?  Does Obama want to occupy Sudan instead of Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 

Besides terrorism, Obama writes in the FA that we are threatened by "rising powers [like China] that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy" and by "weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people," in other words, Obama is advocating national security states, since the US has historically had few problems with countries that are poor as long as they are still able to make their people toe the line, and fears the rise of new competitors, such as China.    

 

Obama seems to support veterans, which is proper. 

 

He would establish a set term of office for the Director of National Intelligence, to remove political influence, yet this could also further set the national security apparatus above our supposedly elected political leaders, with bad consequences both for American citizens and the world.  A unique proposal is requiring "national security" officials to periodically discuss foreign policy with the people through "broadband national town hall meetings," which sounds interesting, though it still gives the public little control over what the national security apparatus does in our names.    

 

Obama's pro-war advisers

 

We can see where Obama is getting some of this by looking at his advisers.  Hillary Clinton has the people from her husband's administration, who showed their colors in Iraq and elsewhere, but Obama has Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose program of proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan resulted in al Qaida, Anthony Lake, who crafted Haiti policy under Clinton, Dennis Ross, chief adviser to George HW Bush, Clinton, and George W Bush on Israel and Palestine, and former Pentagon official Sarah Sewall, who introduces General Petraeus' manual for fighting guerillas. 

 

Obama is pro-Cold War

 

Besides the above imperialist double standards and American exceptionalism, Obama praises Cold War policies and compares the Cold War to Bush's "War on Terror" (though Obama does not use that term).  This means comparing a global ideological, economic, and military struggle between two superpowers to a global military struggle between the dominant superpower and a ragtag group of terrorists nurtured by that superpower and its supposed allies.  Obama praises Truman's "bold new architecture to respond to the Soviet threat -- one that paired military strength with the Marshall Plan and helped secure the peace and well-being of nations around the world," I guess excluding Greece and other countries that suffered from Truman's foreign policy.  Apparently Obama thinks a major problem for Kennedy was that the USSR became an equal of the US in nuclear weaponry, and forgets that Kennedywasn't very humble when he attempted to install a pro-US government in Cuba and propped up puppets in south Vietnam.  Obama is right that American "security and well-being" depends on that of the rest of the world, but he is wrong in saying that this is what his Democratic presidential models promoted.  The US depends on other countries to keep their people down and follow American dictates, and if that does not work, there are always the options of subversion and war, whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican.  Obama wants an anti-al Qaida version of the "anticommunist alliance," which temporarily united many of the imperialist powers to destroy the first lasting socialist state.        

 

Foreign Aid

 

Obama wants to double annual foreign aid to $50 billion dollars by 2012.  News-Journal editorialist Pierre Tristam (see www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2648/) notes in a July 20, 2007 article that Bush himself has greatly increased aid, but it has strings, which Obama does not specifically address, and even without inflation, Obama's promise would only be 0.38% of our gross domestic product, and is predicted to be only 0.3% by 2012.  European countries give more.  Presumably this aid furthers imperialist goals, such as creating economic dependence, as a type of soft power, and may not benefit the working majority of the world, but Obama is also being misleading in saying he will greatly increase aid.  He does not say we owe reparations to Iraq, debt relief, and economic reparations to oppressed groups in the US itself.   

 

"Free trade"

 

Both Obama and Clinton are unreconstructed supporters of so-called free trade, which has hurt workers and small business in the US and around the world.  In Ohio on February 24^th Obama said "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America, and I never have," yet in September 2004 he promoted NAFTA's benefits for exporters and was for agreements similar to NAFTA.  On the 24^th he also said "What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade." 

 

In his Blueprint it says "Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs.  "He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security."  He will "fight" to "[open] up foreign markets" for the capitalists, while the additional profits are supposed to trickle down to the rest of us and immigration will increase.  "He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world," which is supposedly what prior agreements would do.  He opposes the Central America Free Trade Agreement and says NAFTA's "potential" was "oversold," apparently in part by Obama himself.  He will negotiate with Canada and Mexico "to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers," but if it worked for Mexicans there would not be so many undocumented immigrants in this country and "free trade" was never meant to benefit the working class.