Imperialism And Resistance

I think it is important to spend some time analyzing Obama, and his policies, given the sway amongst Muslims towards him – that can only be a result of not bothering to take a closer look at his policies and imperial strategy.

This is Obama’s agenda – as presented on his website change.gov

“The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.”

The first part of his agenda is for domestic consumption, and is about the economy – without fixing the economy he cannot even begin to address health care, education, and social security systems. If we now look at his economic transition team, we find that his team primarily consists of big business CEOs, millionaires and billionaires, with only one mayor, and one governor (of Michigan who advocates pumping more tax $$$ into a failed auto industry). Not a single representative from the grass roots, not one person invited from consumer advocacy groups, nor from any of the economic justice groups. Meaning, not a single person representing the tens of millions who voted for Obama. No change.

The second part is about Obama’s policy towards Muslims, i.e. the war on Islam and Muslims. Lets take this one item at a time:

1. End the war in Iraq responsibly.

What does this mean? Well, contrary to what has been assumed, it does not mean a withdrawal, and/or ending the US brutal occupation of the country. In fact, it does not even mean an end to the killings of the Iraqi people. Because Obama’s plan including maintaining upwards of 50-60,000 troops in Iraq, along with military bases.

Opposition on the part of Obama to a full withdrawal was also reflected in the admission (during a primary debate) that he could not guarantee a full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. This claim demonstrates the full extent of Obama’s commitment to misrepresenting his views to the American public. His promise to “end this war now” amounts to little more than propaganda in light of claims that U.S. combat operations will continue for at least the next five years, perhaps indefinitely. It is difficult to see how substantively different this is from Republican presidential front-runner John McCain, who recently claimed he would remove most troops by 2013 as well.

Well first, there’s his adamant condemnation of the war in Iraq. Why, he was against it from the very start. Of course, that hasn’t prevented him from voting continually to fund the Occupation. But hey, he has to get elected before he can implement all his wonderful changey policies, right? You know, like maintaining a presence of 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, along with a dozen or so permanent military bases and the world’s largest foreign embassy.

2. Finish our mission in Afghanistan.

This is part of Obama’s expansion of the war on Islam and Muslims, he intends to use troops taken from Iraq for a surge in Afghanistan, and future attacks on Pakistan. And he has praised Bush for taking these war expansion steps.

Barack Obama said … he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

With regards to the expansion of the war into Pakistan, Obama is worse than Bush: While Bush sends in drones that kill families and children, this guy thinks of those as “baby steps.”

US Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has termed the cross-border raids by the US forces into Pakistan as a small step in the right direction.

Obama supported the raids but described them as “baby steps” by the Bush’s administration.

“The Bush administration has come to that point of view. That’s the kind of policy we have to pursue and continue …This is a baby step, but it’s a baby step in the right direction and something that John McCain hasn’t been willing to acknowledge,” Susan Rice, the top foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama, said.

“Senator Obama has been saying for well over a year, in fact, has been saying frankly since before the invasion of Iraq that the central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to invest there,” she noticed.

3. Iran

Obama has basically repeated the same ‘ol nonsensical Bush refrain of Iran “building nukes” and “supporting terr.” He has also been especially belligerent when speaking in front the Zionist lobby audience, and has said:

The Iranian “regime is a threat to all of us,”

Ultimately, based on Obama’s own stated policy positions, there is little or no change that we can expect. It is important to recognize this fact, otherwise we may end up going to sleep, while the Obama regime continues to make things worse for billions around the world.

These are the children who may be killed when Obama unleashes his surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Are these children any less precious than any other children?

“Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

“We’re confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama, the Democratic contender and now clear front-runner to replace George W. Bush, said Wednesday.

“It’s time to heed the call … for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan,” he said in his most hawkish promise to date.”

Muslims in the US, who are thinking of voting for either of two major war parties, might want to remember the authentic hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings on him and his family) :

“The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe.”

Muslims living inside of the empire have an even greater responsibility to not ally one’s self, or vote for anyone who has promised to expand the war on Islam and Muslims (and thus killing more Muslim children and families) – both war party’s candidates have promised more of the same.

Obama, in particular, has promised to further intensify the war in Afghanistan, and expand it to Pakistan. Even mainstream newspapers have recognized, that the recent attacks by the Bush regime on Pakistan is an implementation of Obama’s policies: A vote for Obama/McCain is a vote for more war on Muslims, and more killings of Muslim children and families – such a vote clearly goes against the sunna of our beloved Prophet (peace and blessing on him and his Family).

From Washington Post, 9/15/08:

U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government’s approval — an idea that Obama first endorsed.

When Bush announced the new troop deployments to Afghanistan, for example, Obama said he was “glad that the president is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years.”

Obama, although supportive of the shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, criticized the effort as too little and too late.

via press tv:

US Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has termed the cross-border raids by the US forces into Pakistan as a small step in the right direction.

Obama supported the raids but described them as “baby steps” by the Bush’s administration.

“The Bush administration has come to that point of view. That’s the kind of policy we have to pursue and continue …This is a baby step, but it’s a baby step in the right direction and something that John McCain hasn’t been willing to acknowledge,” Susan Rice, the top foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama, said.

“Senator Obama has been saying for well over a year, in fact, has been saying frankly since before the invasion of Iraq that the central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to invest there,” she noticed.

I have not read the book linked below, but after reading this interview with the author, I’m gonna order it:

“A major part of the problem is that American liberals really seem to think there’s a decent, representative democracy under all of the machinery and violence. If only the Democrats ran all branches of government, and did so for an extensive period, many of these obstacles would be cleared away — or so the mantra goes. This naturally extends to war. I can’t tell you how many local yards have both ‘War Is Not The Answer’ and ‘Obama `08′ signs in them. As if one goes with the other. Since Obama has promised to expand the Terror Wars, and continually speaks in hawkish tones, this would seem odd to a skeptical outsider. But it’s very common within the US. As there’s no serious political alternative to the corporate-owned state, people have to dream, create scenarios, in which their votes ostensibly ‘make a difference.’

While the neo-con imperialists slaughter children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the liberal imperialists (Obama and his followers) say that the US needs to send more troops to Afghanistan:

“”His (Bush) plan comes up short — it is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency,” Obama said.”"

This election year is all about playing with the lives of children: US imperialist style.

The only thing that the left-liberal can do in response, is attack the religion of the VP candidate of one of the two war parties.

A very good analyses of Obama’s speech (excerpts):

… the central purpose of the speech was to show that he can provide a new and supposedly more “progressive” rationale to mobilize popular support behind American militarism.

…his indictment of the Bush, McCain & Co. was notable for what it left out. There was no mention of Guantánamo, torture, secret CIA prisons, illegal wiretapping, or all the other violations of democratic rights carried out on the pretext of conducting a “war on terror.” In a key Senate vote last month, Obama backed expanded wiretapping and surveillance powers for agencies like the National Security Agency and the FBI.
…

Equally significant, Obama criticized the war in Iraq as a strategic blunder, not an act of aggression that has resulted in the slaughter of over one million innocent people. He presented the US occupation, which has shattered Iraq as a functioning society, as though the Bush administration was favoring that country at American expense. “Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits,” he complained.

…in his acceptance speech, he made it clear that he was running not as a principled opponent of the Iraq war, but as an advocate of a different war.

“While Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face,” he said. “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.”

Obama argued that Bush’s bellicose posturing over Iraq had served as a substitute for a more coherent global strategy. “You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington,” he said. “You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances.”

In other words, instead of continuing the stalemate in Iraq, Obama wants to extract US troops from that quagmire so they can be used in Afghanistan, against Iran, or in the struggle against more powerful antagonists like China and Russia.

The candidate invoked Roosevelt and Kennedy as Democratic predecessors, not for their association with liberal social reforms, but in their capacity as leaders during World War II and the Cold War.

It is both true and damning to note that Obama’s rhetoric and approach are reminiscent of the Democratic president responsible for the single greatest atrocity in the history of American imperialism, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

An Obama administration would involve the use of liberal demagogy—without any actual economic concessions to working people—to support an aggressive program of American militarism in the Middle East, Central Asia and throughout the world.

While the despicable liberal imperialists parade their “cute” children on stage at the Democratic Convention, Obama’s favored war, in Afghanistan, resulted in the killing of 60 children by the US military forces. I have to wonder if even the Germans, under the Nazis, were so cynical as the US imperialists: while its forces continue to indulge in mass killings, about 1/2 of the country rallies around a guy who has promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and even expand it into Pakistan.

UN: 90 Afghan Civilians, Including 60 Children, Died in US Attack

In Afghanistan, a UN probe has backed claims of a massive civilian death toll from a US air strike last Thursday. The UN mission in Kabul says investigators found some ninety civilians, including sixty children, were killed in the attack. There are concerns the toll could mount once the rubble is cleared. The slain children were said to be between the ages of three months and sixteen years old. All died while they slept.

There are only a bare 6 or 7% of Americans who will cast their vote for someone other than a war monger of either of the two so-called “parties.” Cindy Sheehan had this to say in the comments section of this news report on Afghanistan:

I do support and will vote for Cynthia McKinney, i am not going to vote for anyone who supports killing Afghan children (or Pakistanis or Iranians or Iraqis or American). I don’t care if it is McCain or Obama.