Obama Is A Hawk
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger reaches back into the history of the Democratic Party and describes the tradition of war-making and expansionism that Barack Obama has now left little doubt he will honour.
By John Pilger
14/06/08 "ICH"
-- -In 1941,
the editor
Edward Dowling
wrote: "The two
greatest
obstacles to
democracy in the
United States
are, first, the
widespread
delusion among
the poor that we
have a
democracy, and
second, the
chronic terror
among the rich,
lest we get it."
What has
changed? The
terror of the
rich is greater
than ever, and
the poor have
passed on their
delusion to
those who
believe that
when George W
Bush finally
steps down next
January, his
numerous threats
to the rest of
humanity will
diminish.
The foregone
nomination of
Barack Obama,
which, according
to one
breathless
commentator,
"marks a truly
exciting and
historic moment
in US history",
is a product of
the new
delusion.
Actually, it
just seems new.
Truly exciting
and historic
moments have
been fabricated
around US
presidential
campaigns for as
long as I can
recall,
generating what
can only be
described as
bullshit on a
grand scale.
Race, gender,
appearance, body
language, rictal
spouses and
offspring, even
bursts of tragic
grandeur, are
all subsumed by
marketing and
"image-making",
now magnified by
"virtual"
technology.
Thanks to an
undemocratic
electoral
college system
(or, in Bush's
case, tampered
voting machines)
only those who
both control and
obey the system
can win. This
has been the
case since the
truly historic
and exciting
victory of Harry
Truman, the
liberal Democrat
said to be a
humble man of
the people, who
went on to show
how tough he was
by obliterating
two cities with
the atomic bomb.
Understanding
Obama as a
likely president
of the United
States is not
possible without
understanding
the demands of
an essentially
unchanged system
of power: in
effect a great
media game. For
example, since I
compared Obama
with Robert
Kennedy in these
pages, he has
made two
important
statements, the
implications of
which have not
been allowed to
intrude on the
celebrations.
The first was at
the conference
of the American
Israel Public
Affairs
Committee (Aipac),
the Zionist
lobby, which, as
Ian Williams has
pointed out,
"will get you
accused of
anti-Semitism if
you quote its
own website
about its
power". Obama
had already
offered his
genuflection,
but on 4 June
went further. He
promised to
support an
"undivided
Jerusalem" as
Israel's
capital. Not a
single
government on
earth supports
the Israeli
annexation of
all of
Jerusalem,
including the
Bush regime,
which recognises
the UN
resolution
designating
Jerusalem an
international
city.
His second
statement,
largely ignored,
was made in
Miami on 23 May.
Speaking to the
expatriate Cuban
community –
which over the
years has
faithfully
produced
terrorists,
assassins and
drug runners for
US
administrations
– Obama promised
to continue a
47-year
crippling
embargo on Cuba
that has been
declared illegal
by the UN year
after year.
Again, Obama
went further
than Bush. He
said the United
States had "lost
Latin America".
He described the
democratically
elected
governments in
Venezuela,
Bolivia and
Nicaragua as a
"vacuum" to be
filled. He
raised the
nonsense of
Iranian
influence in
Latin America,
and he endorsed
Colombia's
"right to strike
terrorists who
seek safe-havens
across its
borders".
Translated, this
means the
"right" of a
regime, whose
president and
leading
politicians are
linked to death
squads, to
invade its
neighbours on
behalf of
Washington. He
also endorsed
the so-called
Merida
Initiative,
which Amnesty
International
and others have
condemned as the
US bringing the
"Colombian
solution" to
Mexico. He did
not stop there.
"We must press
further south as
well," he said.
Not even Bush
has said that.
It is time the
wishful-thinkers
grew up
politically and
debated the
world of great
power as it is,
not as they hope
it will be. Like
all serious
presidential
candidates, past
and present,
Obama is a hawk
and an
expansionist. He
comes from an
unbroken
Democratic
tradition, as
the war-making
of presidents
Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Carter
and Clinton
demonstrates.
Obama's
difference may
be that he feels
an even greater
need to show how
tough he is.
However much the
colour of his
skin draws out
both racists and
supporters, it
is otherwise
irrelevant to
the great power
game. The "truly
exciting and
historic moment
in US history"
will only occur
when the game
itself is
challenged.
www.johnpilger.com
