Juan Cole gives Obama As and Bs on foriegn policy

Obama's foreign policy report card

I don't have time to respond point by point, but here's Cole's breakdown, and general response:

On Iraq Obama gets a B, largely because "the U.S. troop withdrawal is ahead of schedule and seems unlikely to be halted.... troop levels are down to about 120,000 from 142,000 early this year, and spending on the war has fallen, from $180 billion in 2008 to $150 billion this year."

Cole doesn't indicate which schedule Obama is ahead of. During the campaign he promised to withdraw 2 brigades a month. My understanding is that a brigade is typically composed of 3,000-5,000 troops . Also, Cole doesn't mention that the Obama admin leaned on the Iraqi govt. to postpone the planned July referendum on the status of forces agreement.

On Iran Cole gives an A for relaxing the state of tensions between the 2 govts. I think that's true but at the same time Obama is still framing the issue in terms of confronting Iran over its nuclear weapons program- which according to the recent NIE is non-existent. Iran is surrounded by hostile nuclear armed states. Why is Iran's nuclear program an issue, but Israel's nuclear arsenal is not?

On Pakistan Cole gives Obama an A for 'taking the fight to the Pakistani Taliban,' he is particularly impressed by the US supported offensives in Swat and S. Waziristan. He notes that Obama's use of drones is "unpopular in some quarters," but he raises no objections. This is however, as Jane Mayer points out, illegal. How does one get on and off the CIA's assassination list.

On Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine Obama gets "incompletes." Far too generous. These have been Obama's major initiative and they have been total failures. That's like saying a business major who did great in PE, but failed to complete Econ 101, is making satisfactory progress.

Obama's message to Wall Street: “If there are members of the financial industry in the audience today, I would ask that you join us in passing necessary reforms."

All the Populism Money Can Buy

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

"The truth of the matter is that the Obama team has managed the tricky shot of giving more bailout money to the banks than the cumulative dispensations of all previous U.S. governments, while at the same time NOT giving any significant debt relief to ruined homeowners, a huge slice of whom is poor, black and Hispanic. Obama is not seeking to reform the financial system, and it would be beyond miraculous if he did, since the contrivers of the present mess – Lawrence Summers, et al – were given a welcoming clap on the back by the new president, as he stepped into the White House and told them to get on with the job. This amazing bailout for the existing corrupt system – as if Lenin had used the October revolution to restore the Romanovs – has been engineered without significant opposition from organized labor or the left-ßliberal end of Obama’s own party."

Frank Doran, Shihan

For an atheist and an anarchist, I certainly posses the capacity to "imprint":

Interview with Frank Doran

Available Languages:

Aiki News #10 (February 1975)

Galbraith's "interest" in the "End of Iraq"

Iraq: US Diplomatic Adviser's Troubling Role in Oil Politics Helena Cobban

"In 2003, U.S. diplomatist Peter Galbraith resigned at the end of a distinguished, 24-year government career. Over the years that followed, he worked as a contract-based adviser to leaders in Iraq's Kurdish community, while also arguing passionately in public media that Iraq's Kurds should be given maximum independence from Baghdad - including full control over any new sources of oil.

But in June 2004, more quietly, Galbraith also established a small, U.S.-registered company, Porcupine, that held a five percent stake in a newly exploited oilfield in Iraqi Kurdistan, a Norwegian daily revealed last Saturday."

Obama’s Delusion

David Bromwich

If Obama declined at last to oppose Netanyahu on the settlement freeze, he will be far more wary of opposing General Petraeus, the commander of Centcom. Obama is sufficiently humane and sufficiently undeceived to take no pleasure in sending soldiers to their deaths for a futile cause. He will have to convince himself that, in some way still to be defined, the mission is urgent after all. Afghanistan will become a necessary war even if we do not know what marks the necessity. Robert Dole, an elder of the Republican Party, has said he would like to see Petraeus as the Republican candidate in 2012. Better to keep him in the field (this must be at least one of Obama’s thoughts) than to have him to run against.

Power, Illusion, and America’s Last Taboo

by John Pilger / September 2nd, 2009

The clever young man who recently made it to the White House is a very fine hypnotist, partly because it is so extraordinary to see an African-American at the pinnacle of power in the land of slavery. However, this is the 21st century, and race — together with gender and even class — can be very seductive tools of propaganda. For what matters, above race and gender, is the class one serves.

George Bush’s inner circle — from the State Department to the Supreme Court — was perhaps the most multi racial in presidential history. It was PC par excellence. Think Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. It was also the most reactionary.

To many, Obama’s very presence in the White House reaffirms the moral nation. He is a marketing dream. Like Calvin Klein or Benetton, he is a brand that promises something special — something exciting, almost risqué, as if he might be a radical, as if he might enact change. He makes people feel good.

...

Chris Hedges, author of Empire of Illusion puts it well. “President Obama,” he wrote, “does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.” And so you are kept in “a perpetual state of childishness.” He calls this “junk politics.”

The tragedy is that Brand Obama appears to have crippled or absorbed the antiwar movement, the peace movement. Out of 256 Democrats in Congress, thirty are willing to stand against Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s war party. On June 16, they voted for $106 billion for more war.