Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

These Are Obama's Wars Now: Will We Stand Up to Oppose Them?

By Joshua Frank, AlterNet. Posted June 19, 2009.


Barack Obama may be more dangerous than even his predecessor when it comes to the U.S.'s motivations internationally.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On Tuesday the Democrat controlled House voted 226-202 to approve a rushed $106 billion dollar war spending bill, guaranteeing more carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan (and lately Pakistan) until September 30, 2009, which marks the end of the budget year. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill’s first draft last month, with the final vote on a compromised version to occur in the Senate sometime in the next couple of weeks.

The majority of opposition in the House came from Republicans who opposed an add-on to the bill that would open up a $5 billion International Monetary Fund line of credit for developing countries. This opposition in the House led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday to quip, “It'll be interesting to see what happens here. Are my Republican colleagues [in the Senate] going to join with us to fund the troops? I hope so.”

No longer can the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan rest at the feet of George W. Bush alone. This is now Obama’s War on Terror, fully funded and operated by the Democratic Party.

The bill that passed the House on Monday, once approved by the Senate, will not be part of the regular defense budget as it’s off the books entirely. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has passed similar emergency spending bills to finance U.S. military ventures in the Middle East. The combined “supplementals” are fast approaching $1 trillion, with 30% going to fund the war in Afghanistan.

In addition to the latest increase in war funds, Obama is also asking for an additional $130 billion to be added on to the defense budget for the new fiscal year starting on October 1. The president is upholding his campaign promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which also means increasing the use of remote controlled drone planes in neighboring Pakistan that are to blame for hundreds of civilian deaths since Obama took office last January.

Despite Obama’s historic (albeit rhetoric filled) speech in Cairo, the new Commander in Chief is still not about to radically change, let alone reform, the U.S.'s long-standing role in the Middle East. A master of his craft, Obama is simply candy coating the delivery of U.S. imperialism in the region.  Given the lack of opposition to Obama’s policies back home, it is becoming clear that he may well be more dangerous than his predecessor when it comes to the U.S.'s motivations internationally.

Had Bush pushed for more military funds at this stage, the antiwar movement (if you can call it that) would have been organizing opposition weeks in advance, calling out the neocons for wasting our scarce tax dollars during a recession on a never-ending, directionless war. But since Obama’s a Democrat, a beloved one at that, mums the word.

Certainly a few progressive Democrats are dismayed by what the Obama administration is up to, but how many of these Democrats that are upset now will be willing to break rank and oppose their party when it matters most, like during the midterm elections coming up next year? Obama had the majority of antiwar support shored up while he ran for the presidency, with absolutely no demands put on his candidacy. And not surprisingly, antiwar progressives have little to show for their fawning support.

All this begs a few questions: If not now, when exactly will Obama’s policies be scrutinized with the same veracity that Bush’s were? When will the media end its love affair with Obama and hold his feet to the fire like they did Bush once the wheels fell off the war in Iraq? When will progressives see their issues as paramount and oppose Obama and the Democratic Party until they embrace their concerns?

If these questions are not answered soon, we are in many more years of war and bloodshed, funded by U.S. taxpayers and approved by a Democrat controlled White House and Congress.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: neocons, iraq, afghanistan, barack obama

Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush and edits http://www.BrickBurner.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This was posted on Counterpunch yesterday.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 19, 2009 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't it credited to the original site?

This is a pattern; is there a feud between the two?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We still call Vietnam Johnson's war
Posted by: badkitty on Jun 19, 2009 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We still call Vietnam Johnson's war, not Nixon's war. I see no reason to call Afghanistan and Iraq Obama's wars. We need to continue to call his attention to the fact that they are illegal wars and need to end now, and if you have a representative who voted for this funding, complain. Mine voted against this funding because she knows she'd be out of office if she voted any other way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LIEberman laughs in your face
Posted by: weathered on Jun 20, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this UTX/GE....cash cow. AIPAC bought Congress at a discount, now look what you've got?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Party names
Posted by: Scarabus on Jun 24, 2009 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re the primary question, Yes, I'm opposed to this war/these wars, regardless of who gets to pardon the turkey.

*****

However, the post says this: "On Tuesday the Democrat controlled House voted 226-202…." Separate issue— Nomenclature. Four possibilities:

Democratic Party/Republican Party
Democratic Party/Republic Party
Democrat Party/Republican Party
Democrat Party/Republic Party

Does it matter? Republicans think so. That's why they keep referring to the "Democrat Party" rather than the "Democratic Party."

"Democratic." Good, right? "Republican." Say what? Well-educated persons know what it means, of course, but not the general public. Get a clue, folks. Don't go to a "connotation fight" with an inferior weapon!

The "Republic" Party string-pullers understand this. No one on the progressive side should allow those string-pullers to choose the ground of battle, distribute the linguistic weapons, establish the "frame" or "cognitive map."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

now that the oil has been auctioned off...
Posted by: lalala on Jun 25, 2009 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they are finally leaving Iraq. This oil crap has got to stop. If the oil companies wanted to hire mercenaries and wage war they could have done it on their own like they usually do. Or are we once again protecting "our" interests?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Writer Must be a Closet Republican
Posted by: joellblock on Jun 25, 2009 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only a closet Republican would write a post claiming the war in Iraq is "Obama's War", thus deflecting public awareness of GW Bush's responsibility. Only such a person would claim that Obama is more dangerous than GW Bush.
The author also seems to believe that all efforts to combat the genuine threat of Al Queda are in support of American oil interests. This is absurd. Al Queda never attacks oil interests, except possibly in Iraq. Al Queda always goes after vulnerable civilians in numerous locales around the world. There is a real threat which needs to be addressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement