Obama and Clinton: The Siamese Twins
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
"Their shared Iraq
position is no different than George Bush's stated goals."
Barack Obama is engaged in a high-profile/low substance
effort to distance himself from Hillary Clinton on the Iraq war. It's like
watching Siamese Twins slap each other around, knowing that the two are
genetically identical and inseparable. Clinton and Obama are conjoined War
Democrats who pretend to disagree on a phrase here and there. Both intend to
stay in Iraq as long as so-called "U.S. interests" dictate. In that regard,
their shared Iraq position is no different than George Bush's stated goals.
Last week, the New York Times gave Obama acres
of space to spin his illusory Iraq "withdrawal" plan - more space than the
newspaper has afforded Dennis Kucinich, the real peace candidate, during the
whole primary campaign. It was a waste of words, see-through clothing on a
naked body. Obama claims he doesn't plan to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
So, by the way, do Hillary Clinton and George Bush. But Obama says he'll employ
a "broader strategic" approach than Clinton - that he won't shy away from
"talking" directly to the leaders of Iran and Syria. Sen. Clinton says she'd
have to study the matter awhile, before deciding whether to have face-to-face
meetings.
But, meetings about what? Obama and Clinton both insist
that the U.S. military reserves the right to remain in Iraq until it serves
U.S. interests to do otherwise - in Obama's words, until "we see some
stability" in the region. But, what is "stability"? Apparently, it means pacification
- just as it did in Vietnam. The "withdrawal" of which Obama speaks is
predicated on leaving behind "secure" areas - again, in his words, "so we can
afford to remove troops." And that depends on getting the "cooperation" of the
Iraqis, friend and foe alike. George Bush sings the same
song: "When Iraqis Stand Up, We Stand Down," says Bush, bringing back an
oldie-but-goldie phrase that presidents Johnson and Nixon deployed endlessly in
Southeast Asia, two generations ago.
"Like Bush and Clinton,
Obama refuses to take any military options ‘off the table.'"
Obama assured the New York Times that he doesn't
intend to stay in Iraq for
another "ten or twenty years" - that is, if those
pesky Iraqis just act right. If they don't, all bets are off. Here's a
definitive quote from the candidate: "I will remove all our combat troops, we
will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we
will engage in counter terrorism activities," said Obama. However, he
continues, "How large that force is, whether it's located inside Iraq or as an
over the horizon force is going to depend on what our military situation is."
In other words, Iraq will have to be pacified for Obama's
14-to-15 month, piecemeal and totally iffy "withdrawal" plan to take place.
Hillary Clinton won't even mention anything smacking of a timetable, but that
really doesn't make a difference, since Obama's schedule depends on achievement
of some kind of U.S. "victory" before withdrawal - which is George Bush's
stated scenario, as well. Like Bush and Clinton, Obama refuses to take any
military options "off the table," including nuclear options. Although Obama is
less rhetorically bullying than Bush, and more charming than Clinton, all three
reserve the right to launch a first strike against Iran. This is the language
of war criminals.
It seems our problem is not the Siamese Twins, Obama and
Clinton, but Siamese Triplets, Hillary, Barack and Bush.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
"Play, Black Girl, play! (For the Oakland Public Conservatory of Music’s girls)" is the latest from BAR's Poet-in-Residence.
It should be clear to Gulf Arab states hosting US bases that the American presence does not protect them but instead places them in danger.
Kenyan workers are still the underpaid labor behind A.I. training, moderation, and sex chatbots. The Data Labelers Association is fighting back.
Washington is using economic warfare to manufacture unrest in Cuba, then using that unrest to justify more aggression.
The agreement was signed by more than a dozen right-wing and far-right Latin American governments and ensures Washington’s dominance and leadership in the Americas.
