|
US Elections: The Iraq Factor
By Ramzy Baroud
16/02/08 "ICH"
-- - -As the race for the United States presidential nominations
progresses, the stances of and attitudes towards both Republican
and Democratic candidates continue to bring up causes for
concern, in terms of their past behaviour, current appeal and
general trustworthiness.
Republican Mitt Romney's exit has practically assured Senator
John McCain's victory in his party. While we might expect
McCain's narrow-mindedness and pro-war rhetoric to make him an
uncontested darling of conservatives, the doubts that remain
about his credibility -- and the seemingly absurd accusations by
some that he is more liberal than Democratic liberals --
highlight two disturbing trends.
The first is the extent of the moral corruption among many
Republicans that would enable viewing McCain as a liberal. Then
again it might be a fair assessment in the context of Armageddon
enthusiast, Mike Huckabee, surpassing expectations on Super
Tuesday. The rise of the former Arkansas governor --
highlighting the growing power of fundamentalist evangelical
Christians -- should have been picked up as an alarming trend by
Americans, but the media was largely unmoved.
The second is that making such comparisons between McCain and
Democratic nominees doesn't necessarily point to a lack of
judgement in characters. Clinton's hawkish foreign policy views
would indeed qualify her as a faithful follower of the
warmongering policies of Bush himself.
On the Democratic side, Super Tuesday only served to confirm
Barack Obama's recent gains. After the vote count, Clinton, who
was previously seen as the uncontested frontrunner was now
conceivably the underdog. True, the numbers of delegates' votes
garnered by both nominees is too close to place either on top,
but Obama's speed in squashing Clinton's lead in national polls
and his fundraising ability should be a cause for great concern
in the Clinton camp.
Naturally, as both nominees will vie for as many votes as
possible in the next round, charm and charisma alone can no
longer suffice. The sizeable dilemma is that Obama and Clinton
elections programmes are in many ways only superficially
different.
Both nominees claim to be establishment nominees. Clinton
appeals to an older generation by virtue of her "experience".
Obama appeals to the impressionable young, who have been taught
political correctness early in life, and who are eager for new
language and a new approach.
Obama's record is certainly more honourable than Clinton's. His
genuine involvement in community activism at a young age and his
anti-war stance during his Senate years point at a certain
degree of moral clarity, a rare quality in Washington indeed.
But both nominees walk a very fine line. Aside from the Iraq
issue -- Obama voted against the war while Clinton voted for it
-- the remaining differences are not significant enough to be
exploited by either to guarantee the decisive victory needed
before the August Democratic Convention. If neither have enough
votes to become the uncontested nominee, the party's more
influential delegates -- the super-delegates -- will have the
final say, a worst-case scenario that could compromise the very
democratic nature of the entire process.
There is a good chance that both candidates will avoid an
all-out war over issues that are significant concerns for most
Americans. While race and gender are supposedly defining issues
for most voters, the fact that Clinton is a woman, and Obama is
African-American does not mean they represent the interests of
their respective group. Moreover, neither Obama wishes to be
defined solely by his colour nor Clinton by her gender.
The Iraq war will most likely define President Bush's legacy.
Moreover, once the presidential candidates for both parties are
determined, the war will probably position itself as the lead
point of contention. Senator McCain is already gearing up for
the anticipated fight over war with the democrats. In Norfolk,
Virginia, he attacked Obama and Clinton for wanting to set dates
for withdrawal from Iraq. "I believe that would have
catastrophic consequences. I believe that Al-Qaeda would trumpet
to the world that they had defeated the United States of
America, and I believe that therefore they would try to follow
us home."
McCain -- presumably a "war hero" -- realises that the
disastrous Iraq war is most likely to be his campaign's weak
point, and the faltering economy will not divert attention from
it. In fact, in the minds of many Americans, both issues are
linked. According to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll after Super
Tuesday, the majority of Americans believe that the best way to
escape recession is to pull out of Iraq.
If the Iraq debate has indeed emerged as the most significant in
coming months, the chances are Obama will have the upper hand.
But Obama's anti-war stance has become a source of concern to
Israel, whose "pro-Israel" camp in the US remains too
significant to overlook. Justin Elliot, writing for Mother
Jones, discussed Obama's challenges in putting that group at
ease. After all the man is black, his middle name is "Hussein"
and has a few "slips" of a tongue on his record --
notwithstanding his statement last March that "no one has
suffered more than the Palestinian people," which he grossly
reinterpreted later.
MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish advocacy
group, told Elliot, "the more right-wing segments of the Jewish
community are the least likely to be comfortable with an
African-American president."
To prove them wrong, Obama sent a letter to the US ambassador at
the Security Council demanding that the council "should clearly
and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel...
If it cannot... I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at
all." He also claimed to understand why Israel was "forced" to
impose a siege on Gaza, a siege that human rights organisations
have held responsible for causing mass starvation and
unparalleled catastrophe.
What's important about Obama's dramatic shift is that he has
proven to be just as self-serving and easily manipulated as the
rest. If he can so readily support the starvation of 1.5 million
people, who is to guarantee that he will not renounce his moral
stances on issues pertaining to Iraq, Iran, and indeed America
itself?
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has
been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His
latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a
People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
