Obama & Occupation

Perhaps you will forgive me if I don’t necessarily tow the line when it comes the Obama-Mania that is currently sweeping my neighborhood.  I’m not saying that Obama wouldn’t be a vast improvement over Bush in significant ways, but just that I’ve yet to see how he is distinguished from main-stream, corporate Democratic line, especially as related to foreign policy. 

And, when it comes to foreign policy, I'm still looking for the difference between that line and the Republican line.  Even, Fred Hiatt, the Washington Post’s conservative editorial page editor points out some of the parallels between Obama and Mitt Romney:

FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST - [Barack Obama and Mitt Romney] have laid out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released prior to publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:

(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.

(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.

(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is an operative word for both of them.

You can read more about how the “similarities dwarf the differences” here.

There’s a good interview with Anthony Arnove up on ZNet, “Why Bush Won’t Admit Failure in Iraq,” where, among other things, Arnove speaks to what it will take to end the occupation (no, not electing Barack Obama):

I THINK it will take much more pressure at home and also within the rank and file of the U.S. military in Iraq.

We have to take advantage of the cracks that are opening within the establishment to campaign vocally and publicly against the war, involving greater numbers of the people and communities affected by the war at home--which has gone hand in hand with the war against the Iraqi people.

We need to put pressure on both the Democrats and Republicans, and not simply collapse into a lobbying wing for the Democratic Party.

There will be immense pressure on the antiwar movement to give up its independence and get behind whatever candidate the Democrats put forward in 2008, no matter what their limitations. People will tell us this is how we can be relevant.

I think the antiwar movement would be irrelevant, though, if we did this. We’ll be much more effective if we articulate our own principles and demands--including immediate withdrawal--and fight for them.

And we also need to defend and support those soldiers who in greater numbers are speaking out, refusing service, declaring conscientious objection and, at great personal risk, organizing against the war.

In particular, I think we all need to help build Iraq Veterans Against the War, which is playing a vital role in building a movement of Iraq vets and also active-duty troops who can bring an end to this occupation.

Arnove ends the interview with this thought -- "So there are grounds for optimism, but it will take a lot more than hoping for the best to end the occupation--and also to avert other disasters in Iran and elsewhere."  So, forgive me dear neighborhood, but it's not likely there will be an Obama bumper-sticker on my car in 2008.  When he demonstrates that the differences dwarf the similarities I'll consider it.