Obama Threatens to Attack Iran

I just listened to a pretty amazing speech that Barack Obama gave last Thursday in Boca Raton, Florida. I'll leave it to others to comment on the one-sided, pro-Israel, pro-Zionist nature of the speech. One commentator called it "a high-wire exercise of political pandering."

I'd just like to point out this section which demands to be quoted at length:

"And the gravest threat to Israel today obviously comes from Iran, that their radical regime continues to pursue the ability to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and his disturbing denunciations of Israel.

The threat of Iran is real and is great. And my goal as president will be to eliminate it. Ending the war in Iraq will be, I believe, an important step towards achieving that goal, because it will give us increased flexibility in our dealings with Iran and increased legitimacy in the region.

Make no mistake about it. Our invasion of Iraq has empowered Iran. It is one of the biggest strategic blunders that we have made.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: And I intend to change it when I'm president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: We cannot just keep talking tough from Washington, in the naive belief that bluster alone will cause Iran to give up its nuclear program in support of terrorism. It has not happened over the last eight years. There's no reason to believe that it would happen in the next eight years. The time has come for tough, principled and direct diplomacy to lay out our clear terms, an end to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, an end to their support of terrorism, and an end to their threats against Israel and other countries.

And to...

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: To achieve this, I think we have to offer sticks, like economic sanctions. And we should not take our military options off the table.

That's one of the reasons that I was the chief sponsor of the bill that Congressman Wexler referred to that calls for greater ability to divest resources from Iran, to put the economic squeeze on them. But it also has to provide carrots, incentives, like the prospects of better relations, and integration in the international community, in order for these things to be effective.

I would seek sanctions through the United Nations and encourage our friends in Europe and the Gulf to use their economic leverage against Iran outside of the United Nations. We will be in a stronger position to achieve tough international sanctions if the United States shows that we are willing to come to the table.

And I would -- I will continue to work on strengthening sanctions. And make no mistake. If and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first. That's how we gain legitimacy. That's how we are going to be more effective."

My interpretation:

Obama is pledging to solve the Iraq problem in order to more effectively confront Iran. He lays out his demands to the Iranian government, calls for economic sanctions against the country, but makes it very clear that if this "diplomacy" fails, he will, as President, and having gained "legitimacy" first, order the US military to attack Iran if Iranian leaders don't do as he demands. So much for the "antiwar candidate."

I don't see any other way to interpret this.

Last month, Secretary of Defense Gates spoke at West Point. Remember that Gates is supposed to be the "moderate" who replaced the alleged war criminal Rumsfeld. Here's what he said:

"A drawdown of U.S. force levels in Iraq is inevitable over time — the debate you hear in Washington is largely about pacing. But the kind of enemy we face today -violent jihadist networks -will not allow us to remain at peace. What has been called the 'Long War' is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity. This generational challenge cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies. To paraphrase the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the long war, but the long war is interested in us."

In a few short months this bogus election will thankfully be over and we will need to face reality. The "Long War" will continue (whether or not some kind of Iraq "adjustment" is made in tactics) and the War Party will continue its molding of America to suit its purposes. War with Iran? Another assault on Lebanon? Or maybe a little side trip into Africa? Who knows? It's not for us peasants to know or care about such matters.

America, this is your future. So says Gates. And so says Obama, as long as it's not a "dumb war," I guess. Obama's formulations are well within the parameters defined as acceptable by the foreign policy elite. He is a 100% approved War Party candidate and offers no challenge whatsoever to the "Long War" framework. It is nothing but wishful thinking to claim otherwise. He's months away from taking office and yet he's already laying the groundwork for some "engaged combat" that may be of considerable "size and intensity," to put it mildly.

There is a tremendous political vacuum out there. The sentiments of ordinary Americans for peace and against big brother have no avenue of expression. The antiwar movement can fill that vacuum if we create the organizational structure to take advantage of the situation. The Ron Paul campaign shows that we have only scratched the surface of what is possible.

I recently finished reading Bill Kauffman's new book, Ain't My America. Some people have said that we need a new Anti-Imperialist League (Mark Twain, Carnegie, Samuel Gompers, etc., back in 1898), but Mr. Kauffman has made me think that perhaps a better model is the America First movement that opposed US entry into WW2. He writes that it was the largest antiwar organization in American history -- nearly a million members from across the political spectrum.

"The Second World War was not an imperialist venture, but the America Firsters were heirs to the Anti-Imperialist League. They were Little Americans, fiercely loyal to their place and protective of their liberties. Home was big enough for them." (page 92)

Of course their movement was crushed by Pearl Harbor. However, today the War Party has already had its Pearl Harbor, and the antiwar movement is still standing, and in a position to seize the initiative in my opinion. But in order to do so, we must turn our backs on the establishment candidates and create a new type of America First movement which shatters the boundaries imposed on us by the Long War framework and boldly says to our fellow citizens the words that need to be said now more than ever: it's time to come home, America.

Doug Fuda
dougfuda@aol.com


^ TOP

Posted on 2008-05-24T14:16:07-05:00 by dougfuda - No comments

Our Solemn Duty

Here's some great antiwar summer reading.

We need a program around which all anti-empire, non-interventionists can unite. We can't "fix" Iraq. The damage is done. But these three articles help us get specific about what we can do to insure that the US government never perpetrates such an atrocity again. That is the duty of all Americans who understand the nature of the crimes which have been committed in our name.

Investigate and indict war criminals:

from "Yes to Recriminations" by Sheldon Richman

"The disaster that is Iraq is the fault of Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who stampeded the American people into war with tales of weapons of mass destruction, and the conservative intellectuals who pressed their case for an unprovoked imperial war so the United States could remake the Middle East. They unleashed the violence that takes place there now, having sent the military in without regard for the reaction a Western invasion and occupation would ignite. They are responsible for the deaths."


Scrap the US nuclear arsenal:

from "The Real Nuclear Threat" by Anthony Gregory

"Unconditional, unilateral disarmament is the only answer. Ideally, no state should have such weapons, but war in the name of disarming foreign states is a recipe for wide international aggression. The US ought to begin rapidly disarming itself if it really has any interest in a more peaceful world. The rest of the countries are most likely to follow suit when they see that the one state ever to engage in nuclear terrorism is no longer such a threat."

Abolish the CIA:

from "Agency of Rogues," a book review by Chalmers Johnson

"I believe that this is where we stand today: The CIA has failed badly, and it would be an important step toward a restoration of the checks and balances within our political system simply to abolish it."

See the Antiwar League platform.


Doug Fuda
dougfuda@aol.com
^ TOP

Posted on 2007-07-27T06:08:11-05:00 by dougfuda -

Jack Bauer and the Antiwar League

From The American Conservative:

What Would Jack Bauer Do?

by Michael Brendan Dougherty.

Comments:

Sometimes it is easy to get so caught up in the day to day details of organizing to defeat the War Party that one forgets what we are really fighting for. This compelling article about the War on Terror's most famous fictional hero helped me to get things in perspective again. Friends, we are literally locked in a battle for the soul of America, and understanding that is necessary if we are to have any chance of marshalling the common sense and decency which still exists among Americans into an effective moral and political force that can rescue our country from its accelerating downward spiral. The fact that this article appears in The American Conservative should also remind us that "left vs. right" has become a useless concept for antiwar purposes. The Antiwar League, as far as I know, is the only political (as opposed to educational or intellectual ) organization which exists to take advantage of this potentially earthshaking paradigm shift.

Doug Fuda
dougfuda@aol.com ^ TOP

Posted on 2007-04-29T05:58:17-05:00 by dougfuda -

Who Really Bought the War?

Bill Moyers is making a big splash with his PBS special dissecting media coverage of the run-up to the Iraq invasion. A word of caution is in order here for the antiwar movement. Do not be taken in by the apparent "self criticism" and introspection of various factions of the "War Party." Do not look at what they say about the "mistake" of the Iraq War. That's old news for them. They are ready to move on to more great adventures in the War on Terror. Like bombing Iran or Hezbollah. Just look at how they are treating the recent invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian troops backed by the US:

The Lies of the Times: NYT Pushes Bush Line on Somalia

Maybe three or four years from now, when Africa is in flames, Mr. Moyers will do another special: "Buying the War (Again)." My impression of his show is that he looks at the Iraq War as a singular event in isolation from the context of the history of US policy in the Middle East. And because of that he adds little to our understanding of the grave dangers that we face (perpetual war abroad, possibly nuclear war, and fear and loss of liberty at home) or what we can do about them.

And Moyers has some wartime "cheerleading" of his own to answer for. I strongly suggest that people read the following Bill Moyers article from 2004 which is online here:

Winning the War on Terror

Then read this article which takes him to task:

Beware the Liberal War on Terror

This odious passage from Moyers' article cannot be lightly dismissed. It is what it is:

"Either party could lose this war but both parties together just might win it. Why not a wartime cabinet to serve a wartime nation? Al Gore as head of Homeland Security. Gary Hart at Defense. The independent-minded John McCain or Warren Rudman at State. The world would get the point: This time we mean it, all of us - the war on terror no longer a partisan cause."

I know that many good people admire Bill Moyers, but they cannot change the meaning of his words. War means War, not Peace.

More than anything else the antiwar movement needs a program or statement of principles to apply as a litmus test to politicians and establishment figures who claim to be "antiwar," to help us distinguish friends from enemies. I would gladly welcome Bill Moyers' support for our cause if he is willing to clarify his position and answer a few questions about that bizarre article he wrote. To me, his article has a simple explanation: he's angry that the "partisan" Republicans have screwed up the noble vision of the War on Terror and he wants better leadership to unite all Americans in this glorious enterprise, just like in the good old days of WWII. Mr. Moyers, I am ready to be proven wrong.

In the meantime I have a suggestion for you if you would like to make amends for your previous failure to expose the phony "war on terror." Instead of spending 90 minutes of precious TV time interviewing celebrity newspeople and intellectuals who are complicit along with the government and the War Party in enabling and promoting a war of aggression and possible war crimes, why don't you do a show about the many courageous people in the antiwar community who got the story right from the very beginning. I will be happy to provide you with a list of experts and activists (not just liberals and progressives, but people from across the political spectrum) who consistently stood for peace and non-intervention. Such a show might give us a fighting chance to head off the next installment of "the long war" in which we are now embroiled by our so-called leaders.


From the Antiwar League Platform:

1. The "war on terror" is a fantasy war, a totalitarian construct that clearly illustrates that "war is the health of the state." Iraq is not a diversion from the War on Terror. Iraq is the War on Terror.

2. We propose not just to end the Iraq occupation but to bring home all US troops, close foreign military bases and shutdown the War on Terror. The US government must not go abroad in search of enemies.

email the author
^ TOP

Posted on 2007-04-27T05:58:16-05:00 by dougfuda -

The Scott Ritter Interview

Here is a link to a great interview with Scott Ritter:

Regime Change Is the Reason, Disarmament the Excuse

It is very long and when I scanned through it the first time, I found two quotes which were fairly disturbing to me:

"If Iran goes down that path [nuclear weapons development], I myself would support a military strike against Iran, because then it's legitimate. We have a legitimate right to say Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. There's nothing wrong with that stance."

and

"My prejudices about Iran were formed in the 1980s with the bombing of Beirut barracks. I had friend who participated in the Desert One Hostage Rescue mission, I had friends who were held hostage in the Embassy. I had friends who were blown up in Beirut. I have a deep, dark hatred for Iranians for what they did to the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. military and what they've done to our country. They held Americans hostage for 444 days. I don't like these people. But as a professional intelligence analyst, I have to step back away from my own prejudices and say, where do the facts take me on this one?"

I then went back and read the entire article carefully and I think I can say that, although I disagree strongly with what Scott has to say here in these two quotes, there is much that he has to say that is right and very powerfully antiwar. In fact his more warlike pronouncements, taken in context, ironically lend credence to many of the good things he says. Just a couple examples here:

"Genuine security is not brought about by searching for enemies. Right now Israel is in the hunt for enemies."

and this:

"Because we have ideologues who have bought into a singular direction of travel for the United States. When you're the sole remaining superpower – I've been in Washington DC and seen this many many times – you say, 'we are America. We are the sole remaining super power. We don't negotiate. We don't want to treat others as equals. It's our way or the highway.' That's just the way that it is.

When a policy gets staffed in Washington DC, it becomes dogma. It becomes unchallengeable by anyone – especially in the international community. You don't let others dictate your terms because that is a sign of weakness. That old saying, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' is absolutely true. The United States is an extremely corrupt superpower."

and another:

"The policies that have been formulated vis-à-vis Iran are very simplistic policies that are part and parcel of the National Security Strategy promulgated in September of 2002 that divides the world up into spheres of American national interests where we are allowed to dictate and impose our will economically, politically, militarily, and preemptively if necessary with total disregard for international law. After all, international law is nothing more than contract law that can be renegotiated at our whim. This is what is going on.

We don't have responsible policy formulators right now. We have arrogant, global hegemonists in power."

You really have to read the whole thing to get the full impact of it. It's fascinating and scary and one of the best interviews I've ever read. Scott Horton, the interviewer, did a fantastic job on this one.

Doug Fuda
dougfuda@aol.com
^ TOP

Posted on 2007-03-02T09:22:05-06:00 by dougfuda -