Embracing Obama's Agenda Abroad

[bigtree]

"Just as last year we moved from combat to 'overwatch', we would expect a further fundamental change of mission in the first months of 2009." -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, July 22


Britain's Brown is the latest foreign leader to re-arrange his Iraq portfolio to accommodate views of the next U.S. president, Barack Obama who will visit London later this week. A political chameleon who has adapted the facade of his politics toward Iraq to Bush's every plea for cover, Prime Minister Brown is prepared to follow Iraq's PM in endorsing the level of withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq that Sen. Obama has promised, by signaling the pullout of most of Britain's 40,000 or so troops by early 2009.

Following an earlier cave-in to Bush by Brown, squashing a plan to reduce the British force in Iraq to 2,500 troops, this move will signal a rejection of support from London for any of the plans by Obama's republican presidential rival, McCain to perpetuate the Bush quagmire.

In line with the goals of Sen. Obama to reduce the pressure on the U.S. military by shelving the commitment in Iraq to provide more support for the effort in Afghanistan against the al-Qaeda resistance, PM Brown is responding to his own military advisers who have been complaining about the strain on British forces.

It's no coincidence that the world leaders are responding with such unanimity to the reason and rationale of the U.S. Democratic presidential aspirant. These reluctant allies of the dominating and vindictive Bush administration have a clear choice between his would-be successors. One candidate, John McCain, would continue and deepen the U.S. military interference in Iraq which has strained economies here and abroad and threatened the readiness of military forces for contingencies and initiatives beyond the opportunistic nation-building the Bush administration and their republican lackeys are so enamored with.

The other candidate, Democrat Barack Obama, would bring back the traditional balance of cooperation with those whose lives are directly affected by the inflated political and military whims of the American political class. It will be in Britain's interest to engage in a more diplomatic approach to countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as the economic interests of Britain and most of Europe favor a decidedly less confrontational approach to foreign affairs than the Bush administration has insisted on in their self-serving intimidation, manipulation and undermining of governments who won't bend to their bullying across sovereign borders.

The impetus to withdraw from Iraq by both Obama and Brown also reflects their need to free some of the resources which are pouring into Iraq's black hole for their respective domestic initiatives they've designed to address their faltering economies. Today, Sen. Obama asserted the primacy of his future administration over those military considerations as he put the reluctance of commanding U.S. general Petraeus to endorse a timetable for withdrawal in perspective.

"Not surprisingly he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said in Jordan. "I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq . . . But keep in mind, for example, one of Gen. Petraeus' responsibilities is not to think about how could we be using some of that $10 billion a month to shore up a U.S. economy that is really hurting right now . . . If I'm president of the United States, that is part of my responsibility."

That comprehensive focus from the Democratic presidential aspirant is the measure of realism and pragmatism that world leaders are responding favorably to on this Mideast tour. It is, in fact welcome cover for their own desire to pressure the lame-duck Bush administration into conceding ground on their legacy commitments abroad.

As they continue to balance their cautious patronage of Bush's reflexive need for face-saving pronouncements with their endorsement of Obama's progressive plans for re-ordering the administration's blundering imperialism, it will fall to McCain to try and separate himself from his lip-locked embrace of the lame-duck obstinacy he's been promoting on behalf of his republican president, so far.

[sui generis]

1. apparently Israel is no longer in the middle east?

I admit I was angry at Obama qualifying the guy in Israel in the back hoe as a "terrorist".

At some point when you put someone in a ghetto, throw up a wall and keep an entire culture from access to jobs, medicine, water, and then roll tanks over their homes, it's not terrorism when someone goes nuts in a construction vehicle. It's a crime,yes, and it's a shame, but that effect did not happen in the absence of a cause.

If Obama wants credibility he needs to start speaking plainly instead of pandering to AIPAC.

Isn't it funny we used to call terrorism "guerilla warfare", mostly. Real terrorism is just the desire to instill irrational fear into a population through whatever means necessary.

That makes our government a terrorist organization, loosely speaking.

[bigtree]

4. he has made appeals and outreach to the Palestinians

in addition to addressing the security concerns of our Democratic ally . . .

"He said he would continue to regard Israel as a valued ally. "That policy is not going to change,'' he said."What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged with the peace process and to be concerned and recognise the difficulties that the Palestinian people are experiencing."
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/obama-in-pledge--to-break-palestine-deadlock-1438656.html

[bertman]

6. Your point about the guy on the backhoe not being a terrorist is an excellent one.

However, guerilla warfare and terrorism are, IMO, two distinctly different animals. Terrorism targets civilians and military targets alike and often focuses mostly on civilian targets because of the fear and instability it inspires in the population at large; whereas, guerilla warfare is most often targeted at military and strategic targets rather than focusing primarily on civilian targets.

The Algerians used terrorism to drive the French out. The Vietnamese used guerilla warfare mostly in South Vietnam until late in the war when the NVA got involved. Granted, the VC did conduct guerilla warfare with occassional terrorism thrown in to coerce locals when they weren't supportive of their cause.

I'm sure there are other distinctions but I can't think of them right at the moment. And it's time to go back to work.

[Cant trust em]

2. What publication is this from; or is this your take?

Do you have a link?

Thanks.

[bigtree]

3. my take

link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Embracing-Obama-s-Agenda-A-by-Ron-Fullwood-080723-289.html

[Kaleko]

5. Good article. Recommended.

[bigtree]

7. thanks, Kaleko

:kick:

[penndragon69]

8. baROCKIN the USA!