Obama and McCain on Iraq: Imperial Double-Talk

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

"Neither has any intention of withdrawing all American
troops from Iraq."

If it seems that Barack Obama and John McCain's stances on
Iraq appear to converge, these days, it's because both candidates are on the
same page when it comes to American Empire. Neither is willing to accept that
the United States has no right to be encamped on Iraqi soil in any shape
or form. Having broken every international law in the book to invade and occupy
that country, the United States compounds the crime every day it remains. John
McCain is the more honest of the two imperialists; by insisting on achieving
something he calls "victory," McCain makes the candid admission that the U.S.
goal is to crush any and all resistance to American hegemony in Iraq. Obama
plays word games to mask the same ambitions.

Let's be clear: John McCain and Barack Obama are not
arguing about a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. That's
because neither has any intention of withdrawing all American troops
from Iraq - McCain, not for a hundred years, and Obama, at no time in the
foreseeable future. A total pullout has
never been "on the table" as far as Barack Obama has been concerned, and the so-called
"responsible" withdrawal that he talks about is, in reality, a sketchy outline
to bring troop levels lower depending on a host of circumstances, but never,
never envisioning a total U.S. military pullout.

Obama fools the public by talking about removing one or two
combat brigades a month until they are all gone. This would supposedly take
about sixteen months, subject to unspecified circumstances on the ground. But
anyone who understands the U.S. military doctrine of "force protection" knows
that combat units must stay as long as any substantial U.S. forces
remain in Iraq. The U.S. does not allow other people's militaries to protect
U.S. troops. Therefore, as long as so-called "non-combat" American troops are
in Iraq, combat troops will be there to protect them - and Obama knows that.

"As long as so-called ‘non-combat' American troops are in
Iraq, combat troops will be there to protect them."

Obama invents a whole new word to describe "combat" troops
that he has no intention of withdrawing. He calls them "residual forces," whose
supposed job will be to chase around remnants of Al Qaida but who in fact will
watch over the huge Green Zone in Baghdad and other U.S. "vital interests" -
meaning, the oil. Obama's military experts estimate this "residual force" will
require 30 to 50,000 troops - and that's if things go smoothly. Obama refuses
even to talk about the 100,000-plus American mercenaries in Iraq. Are they
leaving, ever, or will their numbers increase as uniformed soldiers depart?

In other words, Obama has no intention of ending the
occupation; he'll just call it by some other name. The differences between
Obama and McCain on Iraq are largely rhetorical. Both consider Iraq a place of
"vital interest" to the United States, and both intend to stay there. Since
Obama is more dishonest than McCain about his Iraq policy, he gets caught in
his own convolutions, so to speak. Obama endorses the lie, that the purpose of
the American presence is to safeguard Iraqi lives. When Iraqi civilian deaths
declined, Obama had no choice but to say that the U.S. troop "surge," in his
words, "has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." Obama's agreement with McCain
is, in fact, much more fundamental. They are both willing to kill millions to
preserve so-called U.S. "vital interests" - the Empire, by any name you wish to
call it.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted
at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Broadcasters and others desiring a downloadable MP3 copy of this Black Agenda Radio commentary can find it on the Black Agenda Radio archive page.

More Stories