The enemies of peace speak out:
Obama may have sold himself as a “peace” candidate to the nation’s liberal-Democratic primary voters, but he has made sure to repeatedly remind that elite of his basic commitment to the imperial agenda. He will continue the occupation of Iraq for an indefinite period, escalate U.S. assaults on Afghanistan and Pakistan, reflexively defend Israel’s oppression of Palestine, continue the United States’ provocation of Russia, oppose independent and left nationalism in Latin America, and possibly assault Iran. All of this and more is clear from his numerous foreign policy statements to date, including his claim that “the Surge” in Iraq has “succeeded beyond our wildest imagination”, his insistence that “all options” (including nuclear attack) are “on the table” when it comes to Iran, his repeated call for increased commitment to George Bush’s “good” and “proper” war on Afghanistan, and his call (last year) for incursions into Pakistan.
Obama has never criticized the brazenly petro-imperialist, mass-murderous Iraq occupation on moral or legal grounds. He claims that the U.S. invaded out of the “best of [democratic] intentions” and even that we are “spending billions each month re-building Iraq” (he tells voters the U.S. should “stop” that altruistic project and “start re-building America”). A committed “American exceptionalist,” he recently told CNN that the U.S. has done nothing for which it should apologize for in terms of its foreign policy because “we [the U.S.] are a force for good in the world.”
In the summer of 2007, Obama published an article in the establishment Council of Foreign Relations journal foreign Affairs. In this essay he said, “The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew.” Obama argued that “we must not rule out using military force” in pursuit of “our vital interests…A strong military,” Obama wrote, “is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” We must “revitalize our military” to foster “peace,” he argued, echoing Orwell, partly by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines.
Obama gave reasons to expect future unilateral and “preemptive” wars and occupations carried out in the name of the “war on terror” by an Obama White House. “We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests,” Obama pronounced. “But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground.” Reassuring the more militarist segments of the U.S. power elite that he would not be hamstrung by international law and civilized norms when “our vital interests” (translation: other peoples’ oil resources) are “at stake”. Obama added that “I will not hesitate to use force unilaterally, if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests…We must consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense…to provide for the common security that underpins global stability.” Obama wins accolades from American neoconservatives like Robert Kagan (a leading McCain advisor) for such language.