by Megan Tady
USA
If only “Find the Warhawk Dressed in Sheep’s Clothing,” were a children’s game. Unfortunately, it’s a real life scenario that US voters face as we weigh the options of the Democratic presidential candidates placed before us like limp split peas on a platter when we asked for carrots.
Most of the candidates are dressing for show, and when the party’s over, they slip into something more comfortable, which just happens to be a charging general’s uniform. After all, a politician is a politician is a politician.
The two main political parties in the US – the Democrats and the Republicans – are traditionally pitted against each other in the media with descriptors that evoke good cop versus bad cop scenarios or, in more poetic terms long in use, for some reason they are referred to with winged similes. The Republicans, who currently hold the US hostage with their White House presence, are most often characterized as “warhawks” for their zeal in pursuing war and violence, supposedly to both protect and further America’s “interests.” Democrats, on the other hand, are portrayed as “doves” for their commitment, at least theoretically, to non-aggressive, diplomatic strategies during confrontation.
These parodies of peacekeepers versus warmongers, most often acted out in mainstream media, are as true as a fairy tale. Republicans may be more prone to shout for invasion like a child screaming for a pacifier, but Democrats mumble for war like an ashamed schoolchild in the principle’s office.
• Hillary Clinton.
Photograph by Marc Nozell. •
Many U.S. voters are thrilled by the opportunity to replace President Bush’s warmongering Republican Party in the 2008 elections. But as voters consider the Democratic alternatives, it’s important that we remember that most of the candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are first and foremost supporters of war, aggression, and empire as key foreign policies.
Hard to think a dove could be carnivorous? Setting aside the Republican presidential candidates for now (all but one of whom are pro-war), let’s look at the record of the “Top Three” Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama – who have been beating the Iraq drum on the stump (American slang for “the campaign trail”) as only fearful politicians will do – apologizing, backpedaling, sidestepping – and then in Obama’s case, actually boasting about plans for military action.
You may be finding your heart softening as Edwards, during the first debate, seemed forlorn and genuine when he said, “I was wrong to vote for this war.” Or maybe Obama’s continued reminder that he didn’t vote for the invasion swells you with a sense of allegiance. Or perhaps your anger and doubt is assuaged when Clinton says, “If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I’m president, I will.” We must remain resolute, however, in holding these candidates accountable not just for their actions on Iraq, but for their past and current war rhetoric and expressed intentions.
In April, speaking at the National Jewish Democratic Council, Clinton showed her cards when she said the US might need to confront Iran militarily. “If we do have to take offensive military action against Iran (italics added by The WIP), it would be far better if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort, not first resort, because the effect and consequences will be global.”
And let’s not forget that while Clinton vows to extricate American troops from Iraq, she told CBS in 2005, “If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can’t afford to do that.”
• Barack Obama.
Photograph by Megan Walton. •
Not to be bested in military willingness, last month at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Obama told the salivating audience that as president, he would track down terrorists and even employed the same Bush tactic of flashing 9/11 as a justification for violence. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” Obama said. “They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qa’eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
While Edwards may be sorry now, he was an ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq, and an apologist for the Bush administration’s go-it-alone strategy. In a 2002 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, Edwards shouted for the war like an exuberant cheerleader, and insisted that, “We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action.”
• John Edwards.
Photograph by Roger H. Goun. •
Even if Edwards has “found religion” on Iraq, he’s certainly not gun-shy. During this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention, Edwards hinted at his own objectives regarding Israel and Iran. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”
Let’s be clear: in the past, these candidates have been enablers of war. There’s nothing in their backgrounds or current stances that suggests they will embrace an end to American imperialism and terror. Rather, they have adopted the mantra of a hawkish “national security Democrat,” which Ari Berman, in a 2005 article in The Nation described as a politician who “must enthusiastically support a militarized ‘war on terror,’ protracted occupation in Iraq, ‘muscular’ democratization and ever-larger defense budgets.”
It’s a boon to these candidates every time we ask about Iraq, because it means they can point in the other direction, away from US military involvement, while they load their weapons. Let’s not be taken by surprise: many of the Democratic presidential candidates are fueling American’s war machine, and they don’t plan to stop once they’re elected.
About the Author
Megan Tady is a National Political Reporter for In These Times and a freelance journalist based in Western Massachusetts.
Thank you to Megan Tady and the editors of the WIP for publishing this article. As a person who worked to prevent the invasion of Iraq and continues to work to end the occupation of that country and attacks on others, specifically Iran at the moment, I am so glad to see this bold and true statement of where these candidates really stand.
From what I understand of Clinton’s actual plan, her idea of disengagement would just be to leave US troops in the area, even in parts of Iraq. That is not at all what will satisfy me as a voter US citizen. And not one of these three has said that they plan to end the occupation and bring all troops home from the region. Not one of them has stated unequivocally that they would not use nuclear weapons against Iran!
We must be very careful to look at exactly what the candidates are saying or we will be surprised to find that we have voted for more of the same with a different president.
Well said Nancy – what you state is very important. And great article, Megan. I still hope that public pressure can make the candidates think twice about their foreign policies.
Yes, the real and substantive call of the 2008 election campaign should be, “It’s the empire, stupid”, since it is the corporatist empire hiding behind this facade of ‘Vichy America’ which is the seminal source of all our domestic and foreign problems.
I have long advocated that, “The very most important question that the American people should be asking of any candidate for president in ’08 is not, “Where do you stand on the war?”, but, “Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country — an Empire of which the war in Iraq and the economic oppression are home are only its biggest and most visible crime —- so far”