Obama Would Send 100,000 Troops…Why Am I Not Surprised.
by Dax-Devlon Ross
So Obama plans to expand the military. I can’t say that I’m surprised, though I am disappointed. For the most part, I really like Obama. I feel like he’s got some phenomenal qualities, but his latest speech on foreign policy just doesn’t sit right with me. It put me into a hyper-critical mood and suddenly now I’m wondering if I can take anything he says at face value. If I wasn’t a skeptic before, I am now. Now I’m starting to think Obama’s ambition is potentially dangerous and that he can no longer get a free-pass because he’s a great speaker and he’s attractive and he makes people feel good about voting for a black man. I think he has to be held accountable for the stuff he says.
The foreign policy speech he delivered before the Council on Global Affairs followed a tried and true formula he’s been using for at least three years. Obama starts with some general remarks that everyone can agree on:
We all know that these are not the best of times for America’s reputation in the world. We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect.
Then he switches to the personal experience story designed to give him credibility and to make him appear compassionate.
But while we know what we have lost as a consequence of this tragic war, I also know what I have found in my travels over the past two years.
In an old building in Ukraine, I saw test tubes filled with anthrax and the plague lying virtually unlocked and unguarded – dangers we were told could only be secured with America’s help.
Then he launches into some optimistic blather about the virtues of America.
I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth.
Once he’s laid the groundwork (i.e. proven that he’s a loyal American with an unwavering belief in our global supremacy), he starts to build his case for the broadening of the military industrial complex.
In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.
Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.
But before he commits himself to a military strategy, he reminds us of his past (inconsequential, given his political obscurity at the time) principles.
In 2002, I stated my opposition to the war in Iraq, not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light.
Once he reminds us of his position on the war, he flips the script and starts making his case for remaining in the Middle East.
I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission – we must lead the world, by deed and example.
We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people.
Now that he’s prepped us, he lays out his plan,
The first way America will lead is by bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocusing on the critical challenges in the broader region.
By this he means creating a permanent military force in the Middle East
The second way America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it.
Obama wants 100,000 new troops. Where will he get these men and women? A new conscription law? Mandatory military service? Bigger signing bonuses?
No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.
Did he just do what I think he did? Invoke the name of the current president’s father? As if to say we were facing some “imminent threat” in 1991 when he invaded Iraq?
The speech goes on, but I stopped paying attention once I realized Obama is no different than any of his opponents. Whether he is being pressured to take this stance or actually believes his own rhetoric, it’s important to recognize that Obama must be measured by the same standard as everyone else. When it’s all said and done, he’s an artful, poetic speaker with the same message we’ve heard before.
Lamenting the ultimately recycled message implicit in the speech, Washington Post columnist Bill Akrin wrote,
It sounds an awful lot like John Kerry, with shades of Bill Clinton. A kinder, gentler military will be valued by President Obama; the big, bad military needed for Iran and North Korea (and the completely unmentioned China) will be fed to make space for the president’s non-martial trifles.
It’s not as if anyone could get elected president in 2008 arguing that we need a smaller military. I just wish that the visionary Senator had followed his own instincts and asked whether our “technological edge” and “armor” and equipment — the military we now have and the one he says we need — points us in the right or needed direction.
I couldn’t agree more.
The HNIC Report 
Hello!
My nephew will be eighteen in 2011. So, there’s a bit more at stake for me than making sure my ballot doesn’t get tossed in the trash.
Now you see where a bit of my skepticism comes from. At the very least, he’s an imperialist.
i genuinely don’t think that he’s got the imperialistic bent to sending troops out. more that he is the presidential version of mel martinez’s senatorial campaign from 2004.
mel was definitely a man of the people in florida and completely deified by the conservative cuban and hispanic voters. his win was completely engineered by the rnc and they ran his campaign from front to back, leaving no mistake where his priorities now lay.
barack has the dnc behind him at a time that they feel like a steamroller gaining momentum. he has lots of idealistic supporters who will get pushed aside or absorbed by clinton-era party members. let’s see what happens when old-school chicago politics enter the competition part of the primaries.
fact is, he appears to be much more like a triangulator and middler than the man who owns the netroots, albert gore. imagine a campaign where gore is pitted as the visionary using clintonian diplomacy (however inaccurate it may be) against obama who could be seen as centrist and lacking real political capital.
early prediction, democratic infighting could be a major factor in drawing lines between candidates.
I heard the speech and didn’t arrive at the same conclusions that you did.
As with all his formal speeches, Obama speaks in measured tones and broad strokes. He is knowledgeable, but he relies on his charm and charisma to carry him. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it is part of what makes him so popular.
Winning in America has never been about WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.
Your analysis of this speech was forward thinking, but I think you are guilty of an understandable cynicism.
Any of the quotes you used can be taken in multiple ways. Your inherent cynicism has led you to a certain mistrust, which I completely understand.
For me, it represents a political necessity, a necessity probably borne out of his ambition.
I would implore you to consider the possibility that Senator Obama is a man who will govern as he speaks…in measured, thoughtful terms.
I encourage you to reread the speech and consider the alternate possibilities that lie in this speech.
I don’t think that what people say when they run for president means very much. Because America is still a capitalist and imperialist country, no candidate is going to get elected running openly against capitalism and imperialism. To the contrary, Democrats build a winning coalition is by convincing audience after audience that they are “really not that bad.”
It takes a lot of discernment to distinguish between what a Democratic candidate says for this purpose and what a candidate actually has in his heart. My approach to this discernment is that I take the candidate’s voting and advocacy history to reflect his heart, and I take the candidate’s present campaign pronouncements to reflect, in many cases, the necessity to get his/her ticket punched in as many places as possible. That’s for Democrats.
However, when Republican candidates say that they are out to get us and send our issues back one hundred and fifty years, I think we should take them at their word. Usually their voting and advocacy history confirms what they are saying, and the advocacy groups supporting Republicans confirms the powers that will control their presidencies once they are in office.
speaking as someone who is on the selective service board in his city (so if there is a draft, I will be one of the folks determining who is going and who isn’t in his city), i still think people miss the point.
we are one catastrophe away from calling a draft. but check this out: the Bush administration has figured out a way to fight wars and catastrophe’s with only half the troops! They are using private armies. Now don’t get me wrong, mercenaries were used in almost every war in history. Yet this is the first time in American history where private troops have a 1:1 ratio with American troops.
We cannot fight a guerrilla war with volunteer troops. it is just too unpopular. All this talk about surges and expanding troops will equal only one thing: A draft…..
my next thing is that as a former veteran with several friends still in the military (a good number in Iraq), I cannot see putting people in charge who have never even thought about serving in the military.
On a related note, Jeremy Scahill, author of “Blackwater” recently appeared on the Daily Show to discuss this company’s expanding combat and security role in Iraq.
Amazon provides the following :
“Book Description – Meet BLACKWATER USA, the world’s most secretive and powerful mercenary firm. Based in the wilderness of North Carolina, it is the fastest-growing private army on the planet with forces capable of carrying out regime change throughout the world..”
There are all sorts of public accountability, oversight, and national security issues raised with this type of outsourcing.
Scary stuff, indeed!
he has a website….http://www.blackwaterbook.com/
Your comments HNIC, is why I have decided that we must elect Ron Paul the next president. Who put Obama and Clinton up before us as OUR candidates? When I hear Obama, I feel like I am listening to an adult on Charlie Brown. Wha..whawha..wha wha…And I consider myself a good listener…but I cannot take his slow, endless, pointless blather… And Clinton is just good at trying to be sassy like she thinks Black women want her to talk…I think I saw a little neck and eye action in the last debate… Let their records speak, all the way back through her First Ladyship! Or is AIDS only 7 years old?
On another note…
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
In the state I live in 623 Black men are admitted to prison for drug charges for every 23 white men…that does not include the hundreds more who are arrested or charged. Most of these probably include federal crimes. And it certainly does not include the numbers of Black men that are arrested on federal gun charges. Charges that do not often stem from a violent incident… Aren’t Black men only about 7% of the population? 623 to 23….???
Here is Mark Scott Emery’s analysis of some other things that effect Black people in America.
http://www.sistersinbiz.com/2007/06/ron_paul_whats_your_opinion.html
“In our 2006 survey of all 435 members of the House of representatives, we analyzed 10 votes on
1) gov’t sponsored marijuana advertising
2) State’s Rights to Medical Marijuana Act
3) the Budget of ONDCP (Drug Czar)
4) Byrne Justice assistance Grants
5) Plan Colombia
6) Iraq War reauthorization
7) Patriot Act
Homeland Security
9) Indecency Act
10) School of the Americas torture school at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Congressman Ron Paul scored the only perfect score in the House, voting correctly each time, to:
1) oppose tax-paid ads against marijuana
2) support state’s right to medical cannabis
3) opposed the budget of the drug Czar
4) opposed the RACIST Byrne Grants (used to target blacks and hispanics)
5) opposed Plan Colombia
6) opposed Iraq War
7) opposed Patriot Act
opposed authorization of Homeland Security
9) opposed a ten-fold increase in fines on radio broadcasts
10) supported closing the torture school CURRENTLY OPERATING (for over 40 years!) at Fort Benning, Georgia, known as The School of the Americas.
Dr. Paul is the best person to represent the millions, hopefully tens of millions of Americans, who believe in a fundamentalist approach to the constitution and their libery. In the years I have analyzed his record, Dr. Paul is always #1 out of 435 US reps. Impressive.
Our magazine has 50,000 paid readers and we have 30,000 friends on myspace and I am urging all stoners to come to the aid of the Republican Party and to the Presidential campaign of Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul has voted against every aspect of the drug war, which will benefit more African Americans than any other measure by any other politician. Dr. Paul’s votes in Congress are ones that would remove more oppression from minorities than any other REPs voting record would show. Dr. Paul is a friend and ally to all African-Americans who know someone in jail, on parole, on bail, with a criminal record, or on probation for drugs.
25 million American marijuana smokers – black, white, and all colors, need to wake up and smell the oppression and do something about it, and thats supporting
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT.”
Obama is the Council of Foreign Relations’ newest Imperialist puppet.
One only need read Obama’s bill S.1430 to realize he’ll not reach out of peace or diplomacy, but rather continue the attempt of implementing Western Capitalization in the Middle East. The endeavor is a pipe dream; that quite frankly, has brought us the closest we’ve been to a nuclear war since the Cold War.
Get Obama out of our Party; he, like Lieberman, are too cowardly to admit they’re Republicans.
I’m not sure what latitude the man has, frankly. This is not a defense of Mr. Obama – but a statement that the Presidency of the United States is not the decider of wars and foreign policy for this nation.
If the empire is to continue to dictate terms, with respect to energy and prices, to nation states like China and India and Japan, the empire must be on the ground in the “Middle East.”
There is no choice here for the empire. If the US is unable to put feet on the ground, Washington will not be able to impose their will. Francis is correct – all candidates with hopes of winning must play this game. Once the person is elected, if they choose to play another game it is presumed they’ve brought along enough loyal people to stay alive as President for more than two weeks.