Master of Jiu Jitsu
Published by Quin July 21st, 2008 in Imperialism for Dummies, War HUH! What is it good for?, ObamaramaWe’ve started a little conversation in the back room that I figured I’d take back to the main table.
Where we left things: I asserted that McCain and Obama are both warmongers, it’s just that McCain is honest about it.
QUIN: [Obama] can say he doesn’t want South Korea-style military bases, [that he’s for] autonomous Iraqi govt, all the rest, but it’s all empty rhetoric unless his actual plan calls for pulling all US presence out of Iraq. Currently, it’s nothing even resembling that.
THENE: No, but it’s markedly different from the McCain approach. You’re the first person I’ve ever seen even make the argument that there’s no difference between the two in that regard - even if we can’t know what either would really do until one of them takes office.
It’s true, we can’t know. But, when was the last time a politician on the national level turned out to be MORE liberal once s/he attained office than what they promised in their campaign?
I’m not actually arguing that there’s no differences between McCain’s and Obama’s plans for Iraq. The biggest thing that sets them apart is that McCain is a fairly transparent opponent, whereas Obama and the other savage mules are more like jiujitsu masters. McCain just goes for the direct attack and says “We’ll stay in Iraq, you’re just smelly hippies”. But Obama deftly steps to one side, saying “I’m on your side, don’t worry, I’m change you can believe in” and then just stays in anyway.
His “withdrawal” plan has a time frame of 16 months. In Vietnam, every president until Ford promised US withdrawal “soon”, often with a similar time frame. But his plan has so many ways to wriggle out of it, I just don’t believe it. It’s contingent on the situation “improving” in Iraq. It keeps 80,000 US troops in Iraq. It does nothing to limit the US’s continued commissioning of the unaccountable mercenaries that the US uses to do the dirty work. Whichever next prez we have, the only way I see him pulling the troops out of Iraq is if they get us tangled in a different ill-advised land war somewhere else in Asia (top candidate currently being nuclear-capable Pakistan).
Perhaps you disagree with my assessment, that’s fine.
But for now, just imagine for a moment that I’m correct, that Obama and McCain both intend to stay, but McCain is the one being honest about it. In this scenario, which of the two would actually be worse?
And just to clarify, I DON’T mean from a moral point of view. (Morally speaking, Obama would clearly be worse: they’d both be warmongers, but Obama would be a lying warmonger.) I’m asking from a pragmatist’s perspective. Which president would cause less harm?
In the short term, McCain would be horrifying. If McCain tries to kick ass and take names on the ground in Iraq, the cycle of violence escalates, more terrorists are created who fight the US occupiers, the US retaliates even more forcefully, prices (especially gas) escalate wildly, and suddenly a breaking point is reached where the US must pull out because they simply CAN’T pay for it anymore. So, maybe a light’s at the end of the tunnel, but that tunnel goes through Hell and back.
Now, one thing Obama definitely has is impressive managerial chops. I have no doubt that he will be a far more talented Imperial Overseer for Iraq. In the short term, I suspect Obama’s stewardship would result in a lower rate of anti-American retaliatory violence, which is good if that’s all you care about.
But Obama might very well be worse in the longer term. The Dems (of which Obama is just the latest runner to catch the baton in the relay) have figured out a winning strategy for how to keep this game going — the game, of course, being to please the military-corporate interests who are their most meaningful, powerful constituents. The Dems essentially continue to advance the Project for a New American Century while fooling people into thinking they oppose it the whole time. Though I doubt they think of it in those terms.
Anyway, this would mean they probably get to be oppressive for longer than a bloodthirsty McCain presidency. Which means that the American Empire gets its chance to grow far more under the Democrats than it would have under the Republicans. Its roots will sink in farther and deeper, and so when that unwieldy monolith inevitably cracks and falls several years down the road (sooner, if the economic doomsayers have it right), the debris could be devastating. The path Obama will set us on may eventually cause even more horrible death and destruction than any of us thought imaginable.
Not that McCain is all that and a bag of chips.
Frankly, I really, truly can’t decide who is more likely to be worse. So, at the moment, I’m not planning to vote at all.
There, I’ve given all of you plenty of things to object to in what I’m saying. So, who wants to get into it?
OK.
Read the very next article in this vary blog: “Men” and “mankind” apparently not being defined to include “ambulatory wombs.”
Now go read up each candidate’s political record on votes and legislation involving women.
Now try to tell me “it doesn’t matter” if you don’t vote b/c you’re in a hissy about one or the other not marching lock step with all of your views.
I can repeat this with several other topics, but this one was just too ironic for words.
Anon, you’re absolutely right, Lisa’s post WAS awesome.
Before you deride me for holding any one issue to be of the greatest importance, let me ask you this: Would you still vote for Obama if he were completely against abortion and a woman’s right to choose, but completely, wonderfully liberal on all other important issues? I don’t know, maybe you would– but it would sure be painful, wouldn’t it?
Either way you chose, I’m certain I would empathize with your plight. Why not try empathizing with mine a little too?
Oh look, an Anon with a red herring. A red herring which is ALSO a lie considering Obama’s attitude towards reproductive rights as recently expressed. Go die in a fire Anon.
Quin- great post. Don’t mind the Oborg.
Now, to look into it, I think I agree. Yes, McCain is a warmonger. So is Obama. However, I take issue to some of the misinformation so generously spread about the so called progressives regarding McCain, and I sure as hell ain’t no fan of him.
But “staying in Iraq for 100 years” is not the same as “being at war in Iraq for 100 years”. McCain has made that clear repeatedly, but seems that ahs failed to go through.
Obama on the other side , not counting the warhawk team he has assembled, has already said that he would encourage a military expedition in Pakistan if “intelligence” said Bin Laden was there. It takes a great degree of stupidity to say that. Pakistan is a highly unstable country, in an equally instanble area. With Nukes. NUKES NUKES NUKES. In a country where the balance of power is unstable, this idiot wants to go and throw a lit cracker in a gun powder barrell.
I trust McCain to not be stupid enough to do that, because he fucking knows what a war is.
There is also the issue of McCain’s age. There are few chances for McCain to run for a second term. Which means that even if he gets elected now, there will be another chance in 4 years. Add to that the economic recession, and your appraisal of the situation is more than accurate.
Obama however… if he gets in now, he will run again in 4 years as incumbent, and after that his veep (whoever that will be) will run. Now we can trust Obama to choose as veep someone of the same moral fiber or lack thereof, thus the chances to turn things around are dwindling in the distance.
We already KNOW that Obama is a corporate shill.
Seriously, why go for republican lite when you can have the actual think, and another chance in 4 years?
Hmm. Some interesting points you bring up, soopermouse. And I appreciate the encouragement! I was seriously afraid I would be a lone voice in the wilderness here when it comes to my doubts on Obama.
And let’s not forget that “intelligence” is ALWAYS “fixed” to match the policy of the leaders it serves.
Seriously– if I may don my tinfoil cap for a moment– I think that the same kinds of forces that want to spread the GWOT as far and wide as possible also would love to see nukes come into play. What better way to ensure a state of war continues for a long, long time? I also think Cheney is really depressed that he couldn’t get GWB to use the first combat nuke since Nagasaki. Though I suppose there’s still time there. But I digress.
I do NOT trust McCain in this regard. I think he’s desperate to prove that he knows what war is. Read this very interesting article and see if you don’t come away with at least a very strong suspicion that McCain still wants a chance to be a war hero because, on the inside, he knows that he never really was one.
On your argument to support McCain because it gives liberals a chance to field a better candidate in 4 years, I don’t quite see it that way. I think the problems with Obama are not really to do with Obama; I think it’s to do with Democrats. Really, in most ways, he’s the party line’s dream candidate. Anybody else they’ll actually push in front in four years will almost certainly be just as bad– though perhaps less charming, clever and (perhaps dangerously) competent as Obama clearly is.
Meanwhile, the damage McCain can do, even in four years, really would be formidable. I would not recommend that route unless it really was clear for some reason that Obama would, in fact, be more harmful to humanity in the long term. Same goes for supporting Obama over McCain. This is just not something that’s clear to me yet. I’m still wrestling with the issues. Perhaps we’ll all gain more understanding as election time approaches.
As for what other options I might have to propose… really, there are no simple solutions apparent to me right now. I am thinking that the kind of activism which would actually influence our two-headed hydra of a single-party system, or even lead to the rise of an actual successful third party (or tenth party) candidate, can only come as a result of anger that’s revolutionary in scope. I mean, like, armed revolutionary.
The powerful just keep on taking, if they can (and they can right now); the underclass keeps on growing. The way I see it, if we can manage to lose a whole city as large and culturally important as New Orleans, and still take it lying down, it means some REALLY dark times are ahead for our country. The elites will find out just how far they can push things before the peasants snap and start building guillotines.
P.S. Anon, despite my pleasant treatment of someone who just told you to die in a fire, please feel free to keep on arguing here. I suppose if I had to deal with a swarm of you, it might feel a little overwhelming. But it’s still a small blog, here, so why not be cordial to people who don’t like me, too? Talking to people who disagree with me can only make my arguments stronger; or else destroy them, if they deserve to be destroyed.
So, I’ve got the fire extinguisher ready, for if you return.
My argument is that an Obama loss could be the catalyst for the much needed reform of the democratic party. Yes, the guy is the wet dream of the stevensonian wing, but even they aren’t stupid enough to field a losing candidate again in 4 years, and I see no other Democrat with that level of corporate shillness available( Liebermann not counted tho).
Much as his bleating about “change” goes, Obama is the candidate of the status quo even moreso than McCain.
Now as far as McCain goes, we need to account for his recent positions, considering the fact that he didn’t acquire the repug hatred by being too far right for their taste. On the contrary. While his positions have moved signigicantly to the right in the past 8 years, we should probably have a look at how much the wingnut side of the party has worked on exerting pressure on all its representatives.Prior to the rather exceptional last 8 years, McCain was quite to the left as far as the Repugs go. Of course how much of that was honest will have to be seen, but here is the zinger: He is not and never has been a corporate shill.
Why this is important? Because only a corporate shill would take America to war right now, in its weakened state. Nobody else would do it ( regardless of the swaggering and boasting that come with any campaigning).
It is my personal opinion that corporate ownership is one of the two most severe threat the USA is facing. In that, Obama is the biggest and more severe threat.
McCain is ONLY a threat if he decides to go to war with Iran. However, even if he does, the damage done would be short term, and economic recession nothwithstanding, it would probably be a lot less than what giving the country on a tray to the Haliburtons behind Obama might reap.
Short term danger is better than long term danger.
But sure-thing short term danger is not necessarily better than potential long-term danger.
That would depend on the degree of the danger. Potential short term danger is better than potential long term danger. If we decide that one danger is a certainty, then we are logically obliged to treat the other danger with that same measure.
As far as Obama goes, I believe that he has already dome almost irremediable damage to the DNC, to the point where the DNV no longer has any viable credibility to contest any of the dirty manoeuvres the Republicans would try to pull this election cycle. The shameful and undemocratic way in which the Michigan votes were redistributed gives a free hand to the republicans to steal vote in the GE- and the Democrats will have no leg to stand on and complain about it. Because they did the same thing. Only worse. If the DNC and the Republicans have virtually identical ethics or lackthereof, then the Democrats have lost. Completely.
Becoming the opposite of what you have always described yourself to be is the ultimate defeat, defeat by utter annihilation.
I think I’m not quite following you to the ends of all of your paths of reason. I don’t agree that the things you cite as short-term dangers really can be believed to be short-term.
It’s far from a sure thing that McCain would only last for 4 years; he’s 72 old, but it’s not like he’s on his last legs or anything. Especially considering that he would quite literally be getting the best medical care our planet has to offer.
I don’t see an Obama loss being a catalyst for change in the Democratic party, any more than the losses for Gore and Kerry were. When things go pear-shaped for them, they don’t look inward; they blame Ralph Nader and keep on doing what they’re doing. I do hope there is a sea change in what the Dems stand for someday, but I don’t see yet another presidential loss being what does it. They’re pretty used to it, you know.
McCain is pledging to be a war candidate, and considering these presidents have figured out by now that it’s the best way to make the history books, I think that if he’s banging the war drum on the campaign trail, he’d certainly make good on it once he got elected. And while a war waged on Iran may quickly get too expensive to manage, I think it’s ludicrous to expect its effects would necessarily be short term. It could be world shaking (here’s one scenario).
There’s too many variables. When I said that an Obama presidency could be more harmful, long-term, than a McCain presidency, I did mean that it could be. Stress on the “could”. I really don’t know. It could also be less harmful. I feel like I don’t have enough information to know, so it’s a game I’d rather not play right now.
The strategy you’re recommending, of supporting McCain now to defeat Republicans later with some mysterious “good” Democrat, sounds too full of risk. Like taking a truck with bad suspension, loading it with dynamite, and driving it over the Andes. With all of your loved ones in the back. You might make it across in one piece…
I know at least three “good” Democrats that could make a better choice in 4 years: Hillary, Edwards, Kucinich. It’s not like the choice is lacking.
“McCain is pledging to be a war candidate, and considering these presidents have figured out by now that it’s the best way to make the history books, I think that if he’s banging the war drum on the campaign trail, he’d certainly make good on it once he got elected. And while a war waged on Iran may quickly get too expensive to manage, I think it’s ludicrous to expect its effects would necessarily be short term. It could be world shaking”
From what we have seen so far, so does Obama. Not only on Iran but also on Pakistan, taking the “global war” concept to a whole new level. If you seriously want to discuss the choice between the two, as stated before, we need to measure both candidates on the same scale.
Both candidates are banging the drums of war. One is a corporate shill. Regardless of how much we would like to see a Democrat in teh White House, it is maybe the time to acknowledge that we don’t have one to vote for this year.
Your argument would only be correct if Obama was openly anti war. He isn’t. On the contrary. So, don’t you think that you need to acknowledge that?
Sorry, what do you want me to acknowledge? What’s the argument I’m making that’s only valid to me if Obama’s anti-war? It’s not quite clear to me. (I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just really didn’t understand.)
But, I’m saying they’re both horrifying, and there’s not even a clear lesser-of-two-evils to me right now. So I don’t want to lift a finger to support either.
So far your reasoning for why McCain is a lesser evil doesn’t compel me. I’m not sure why you’re saying he’s not a corporate shill– true, Obama’s in with the Chicago School crowd and gets heaps of Wall Street lobby donations, but that’s just because he’s their preferred candidate.* McCain, on the other hand, is a second-rate mind who doesn’t know bupkis about economics, but he’ll still do what he’s told there. He’s like a desperate puppy, eager to please every ruling class contingency with any trick they ask of him. As long as they pat him on the head and let him be president.
Two of your choices of “good” democrats are not very good when it comes to anti-war issues– Hillary gave every sign of being worse than Obama on the martial front, and though Edwards was relatively liberal compared to the other two on some domestic fronts, he knew he had to make up for it by shouting just as loud about Iran. I’ll dig up some of their more bellicose links if you aren’t aware of what I’m talking about. Now, if you want to argue that they had to say those things to have a chance for the throne, fine, but then you have to make the same allowance for Obama.
Kucinich is indeed something much closer akin to a “good” democrat, but he is marginalized and made a laughingstock by the MSM, and thus the public, as a result. This image isn’t going to change in four years, especially as he isn’t the kind of Alpha personality that the public only ever goes for in their Commander in Chief. He knows it, too– it’s not like he seriously thought he had a chance. I and many others appreciate what he does– I think it’s heroic, even– but I just can’t envision the Dems changing so much in four years that they would ever seriously consider putting him at the front of the pack.
*(Why? I’m guessing because when it comes to the money issues, Obama actually understands them. He can be the smooth talker they need who can be truly convincing– probably because he really believes what he says– when he tells the public that things which support the rich are really best for them after all.)
Collective guilt is borne by what is conventionally called the scapegoat. Now the scapegoat for white society - which is based on myths of progress, civilization, liberalism, education, enlightenment, refinement - will be precisely the force that opposes the expansion and the triumph of these myths. This brutal opposing force is supplied by the Negro.FrantzFanonFrantz Fanon
Art is merciless observation, sympathy, imagination, and a sense of detachment that is almost cruelty.MichaelPowellMichael Powell, British filmmaker
[Smoking is] hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs.KingJamesIKing James I
In every gathering of thirteen, expect one guest will turn out to be a Judas.AleisterCrowleyAleister Crowley
I’m finding this spam fascinating, but I suppose I’ll make it stop soon. At least it got me to look up who Frantz Fanon was. Interesting stuff.
It isn’t possible to love and part … You can transmutate love, ignore it, muddle it, but you can never pull it out of you. I know from experience that the poets are right: love is eternal.E.M.ForesterE. M. Forester
I know! You hate me and somehow figured out this would be the best way to drive me crazy.
Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.RichardHuelsenbeckRichard Huelsenbeck
I don’t say that we ought to all misbehave, but we ought to look as if we could.GeorgeOrsonWellesGeorge Orson Welles