One Iraq, One Vote

Obama’s magical mystery tour of world hotspots may not gain him a critical number of votes stateside, but it’s certainly making him look a bit more “presidential” – i.e. a bit more reassuring as far as our “allies” are concerned. They seem slightly relieved that he’s not about to turn the entire country into Oakland, California under the Black Panthers – or New York under David Dinkins – or Washington, DC under just about anybody. Yeah, so the radical edge is off. He’s even rumored, by Robert Novak, to be huddling with corporate CEOs in late-night confabs, and not just in order to extort funds in the Jesse Jackson mode… more likely to reassure them that nationalization of their respective businesses is low – way low and getting lower – on his “to do” list once he is inaugurated. I’ll say it again – by the time he takes office, he’s going to be so pathetically co-opted out that dictionaries will start substituting the term “Obama’d” for “sold out”. The main point of contention may in fact be the issue of getting our troops out of Iraq, with the military-industrial complex, American politicians, the Evangelicals, and the Israeli lobby on one side and the Iraqis themselves on the other. And, you might ask, what are a few Iraqis against the might of America? Well, people asked the same question about the Viet Cong, and we all know what happened in that case. So now we have al-Maliki agreeing with Obama that 16 months to withdrawal is “the right timeframe”. He’s certainly not going to get an agreement of that sort with the Busheviks or with McCain – so yes, he’s pinning his hopes on Obama (1) winning the election; and (2) actually meaning it when he talks about a 16-month timeframe. Needless to say, this is quite a chance for the “prime minister” of a country we occupy to take. He’s saying, in effect, the candidate from the party currently running the country – and hence the war – is not the one we want to win. The one we want to win is the one who sees things our way. Now, this is the very kind of thing that has caused foreign leaders to meet an untimely demise in the past, at the hands of “person or persons unknown” – AKA the CIA. So the question is, are we still in the “tough love” business when it comes to dealing with foreign governments? Or are Bush & Co. going to sit back and relax, and let al-Maliki rave on, knowing damn well that Obama doesn’t have a chance because “we” won’t let him have one… or knowing that Obama will, by that point, be as sold out on the war issue as on everything else? An interesting, and telling, remark was made by The McCain on his campaign bus the other day, to the effect that al-Maliki “has exceeded a lot of the expectations”. Well, that’s crystal clear, I must say. Whose expectations? McCain’s? Clearly he expects that al-Maliki – like all Iraqis if they know what’s good for them – should remain in a perpetual bowing, scraping, and kowtowing mode in the face of overwhelming American power and ability, and willingness, to do harm. And who are these pipsqueaks, anyway? Their country didn’t even exist until after World War I. But here they are telling us where to get off… and when. Self-determination is a fine thing, but only when the “self” that is determined is totally subservient to American empire-building – otherwise it’s a mistake that needs to be corrected through means such as name-calling, boycotts, sanctions, blockades, and armed invasions. Funny thing is, it takes the Arabs – quite recently the most despised and rejected people on the world stage – to finally stand up and say, “Hell no!” So does Obama come to respect their rights in this matter… or is he going to don the same Yankee Doodle hat that Bush has been wearing all this time and continue the crusade? Time will tell…