INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

THE ARAB REVOLUTIONS: RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE FUTILITY OF 'REVOLUTIONARY CONSPIRACY':

Unlike the Chinese proverb says I don't think it is a curse to be "living in interesting times". I've seen two before, one the worldwide revolts of the late 60s/early 70s and the other the wave of revolutions that toppled communist dictatorships in the late 80s. In both these cases the waves of revolt that passed from country to country were, to all intents, totally unpredictable. Now the Arab world has risen in revolt, and none of the talking heads of any political persuasion predicted such a thing. This is because such things are by their very nature too complex for any ideological viewpoint to understand. No doubt I've "endured" more than 40 years of the pseudo-science of Marxism predicting the imminent end of capitalism, and in that they hold to an old and hoary tradition first started in the 1850s by their founders who laid their bets on an abstract schemata that was too far removed from reality to take account of actual facts.

It's simple actually. NO so-called revolutionary group has EVER predicted a revolution accurately in the last 200 years. That's fine and good, but there is a corollary to this. NO revolutionary group has actually produced a revolution either, if you exclude the armies disguised as parties of 60 (Cuba) to 80 (China) years ago. I suppose Vietnam deserves mention in this category. I'm not speaking here of the seemingly endless nationalist "revolutions" which are an ever present factor in human history and which the three aforementioned revolutions were very much a part of. I'm speaking of actual "social revolutions" that change the class system of a country, and I certainly don't mean only "libertarian" revolutions, merely ones that resulted in socioeconomic change.

Let's take some obvious objection to this view. Did Solidarnosc actually carry out the Polish revolution that overthrew communism ? Of course not. It certainly prepared the ground, but the actual revolution depended upon external events in the Soviet Union. Did the "conspiracy of mullahs" produce the Iranian revolution of 1979 ? Of course not. They merely were the most skillful in the resulting faction fights. Was there even a 'Bolshevik Revolution' or was the establishment of the first communist dictatorship merely the result, like Iran, of the seizure of power by a disciplined party during a revolutionary process that had been going on for 8 months before ? A process that the "scientific socialism" of the Bolsheviks led them to believe couldn't happen.

There are many other examples. Some of them are from the anarchist tradition where a continuing series of insurrectionary attempts by Italian anarchists always failed. This was magnified by perhaps a factor of magnitude in Spain where localized insurrections meant to inspire the masses of people always failed. The result was similar, if you descend closer to the level of comedy, in modern urban guerrilla actions that were either Maoist (mostly) or anarchist and were closer to comedy than anything else. They always failed, they fal now and they will always fail. Risings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria resulted in exactly the same result. It CAN'T BE DONE.

There is a reason for this, and leftists have expressed it at least vaguely in saying that revolutions occur with "a certain conjunction of objective and subjective factors". Marxists are particularity poor at taking subjective factors into account. Anarchists are particularly poor at taking objective factors into account. In any case even the "greatest theoretician" could never predict the occurrence of revolution simply because the factors are so complex. Don't depend on a computer program to do it either. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out".

The risings in the Arab world depended on a lot of things, of which demographic factors were quite high on the list of causes as were modern methods of communication. Still, all the countries involved have had long standing Islamist and Communist groups, none of whom had any part in initiating the risings. Not that either couldn't take advantage of them as the Bolsheviks did in Russia and the Islamists did in Iran. Whether they will succeed in this is a very open question, and personally I doubt it.

What does this mean to the people I identify with, the anarchists ? What it should mean is abandoning any hope of actually "creating a revolution" even if our own small groups were 1000 times more powerful than they are today. What it should mean is that we should make the maximum efforts to diffuse "libertarian ways of acting organizing" amongst the people who are not anarchists today so that these people will act accordingly in whatever unpredictable revolutionary situation that may occur.

WEIRD STUFF:

ONE TENTH OF A MIND:

Molly has had her hands slapped before and done her proper mea culpas about her opinions about the state of the American mind. Now it is no doubt true that the majority of the American population is indeed part of the modern world with all that that implies. Still, I have yet to see anybody present any proof that the USA does not contain the majority of religious sects (yes I include every stump worshipping local cult in the far reaches of the Amazon in this estimate) existent in the world today.

In a field that I am much more familiar with I doubt that anyone could present proof that the USA doesn't contain the majority of the weird political sects that infest the modern world. In term of leftist bullshit it would be hard to find another country which could produce the Weathermen, one of whose "political" tenets was that one should sleep on the floor because "mattresses were white skin privilege". Similarly, and speaking of stump worshippers, it should be noted that the USA is the necrotic centre of the religious revival masquerading as politics known as "primitivism". For those unfamiliar with this cuteness it is a current of thought claiming the "anarchist" label (or claiming to be far superior to it) that says that "civilization" should be abolished and that this is actually some sort of realistic 'program". I'll leave the naive reader to their own devises in imagining what this means because it essentially means nothing except intestinal gas disguised as speech.

But then there is the other side which far outweighs leftist bullshit by several orders of magnitude. Outside of the Middle East and parts of Central Asia the USA is probably the only area of the world where obviously insane nonsense can easily become part of everyday "accepted" politics. Most of this nonsense could be styled "right wing bullshit" rather than the left wing variety of bovine feces. The examples are endless, but I've chosen to present one below. This is the political movement known as the "Tenthers".

Out here in the civilized world this probably has about as much resonance as a dispute about how many Imams there there have been in the Muslim world. Yet, it seems to mean a lot in the country where "Birthers" has a meaning. Believers in this way of politics think that the last 70 years of US politics are illegitimate because the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution says that "any powers not expressly designated to the federal government are the province of the states or the people". Sounds pretty "libertarian" ? Wrong ! The targets of those who believe in this legal fiction are pretty well exclusively those "powers" whereby a less prosperous segment of the population guards against the exploitation of the more prosperous people. NOTHING is said about the rights of communities (as opposed to states), and NOTHING is said about the legal protection (and how it shouldn't exist) for those who are higher in the class system as opposed to the efforts of those below them. Some "individuals" are more equal than others I guess, and States are more equal than communities.

Here is an item from the AFL-CIO Blog about the 'Tenthers'.

WSWSWSWSWS
‘Tenthers’ Would Abolish Wage and Child Labor Laws, Social Security, Medicare and More
by Mike Hall, Oct 21, 2010

Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them want to bring their cultish beliefs to the halls of Congress and are running for election this fall.

They’re called the “tenthers” and they say federal laws and rules like the minimum wage, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Department of Education, even child labor laws and a laundry list of other federal laws and programs are unconstitutional.

Their rationale—irrationale would be a better word—is that if a federal power is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, well the government doesn’t have it, according to their view of the 10th amendment.

It’s a view that has long been discredited, but reappears from time to time, such as during FDR’s New Deal era and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education.

Here’s Think Progress in today’s Progress Report:


…because the Constitution doesn’t actually use the word education—it instead gives Congress broad authority to spend money to advance the “common defense” and “general welfare”—Senate candidates like Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Sharron Angle (R-Nev.) claim that the federal Department of Education is unconstitutional. That means no federal student loan assistance or Pell Grants for middle class students struggling to pay for college, and no education funds providing opportunities to students desperately trying to break into the middle class.

And that’s hardly the worst news tenthers have in store for young Americans. Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller wants to declare child labor laws unconstitutional—returning America to the day when ten-year-olds labored in coal mines.

Miller told Dermot Cole of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that he didn’t believe the federal government had any right to establish child labor laws.

I asked him about whether he also believed that federal child labor laws should be done away with.

He said he is not against Social Security, unemployment benefits, the minimum wage or child labor laws.

But he doesn’t want the federal government mandating any of them.

Tenthers believe the states alone should–or more likely, should not–address these issues. Because states are in such financial straights these days, they can’t even pay for the programs, laws and policies already on their books. Hmmm? You don’t think tenthers are counting on that do you?

Click here to read The Progress Report’s in-depth look at the “tenthers” movement and here for more from Ian Millhiser at The American Prospect.

FEMINIST THEORY:

GOING DOWN THE WRONG ROAD:

The following article seems to be a "bouncer". According to what appears below it started off in The Guardian, went to Z Communications and finally ended up at Mostly Water here in Canada. The following text is from that site. To say the least this is a subject on which there is more heat than light. While being agnostic (but slightly "pro") what follows below, I think it is important to present such "dissenting" texts (in the sense of dissenting from 'received leftist "wisdom"). God knows there are other things where a critical light has to be shone, but this is one such dark corner. Here's the story.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Enough Middle-Class Feminism
(Molly Note- while this may be a bad start to an article that I basically agree with I really don't like the use of the insult term "middle class". This term is more popular in Britain- where this article originated, but even in translation it is almost meaningless- except as a term of abuse. The anti-sex section of feminism has enough real quirks that could be better used as titles of insult than this one. I know that there is an attempt to inject class politics into the debate, but I think it could be done better than this. For those unaware of "Britishisms" the term "Middle Class' would translate over here as "bourgeois" with all the meaning or lack thereof that that implies. )
Metropolitan feminists, obsessed with the politics of strip clubs and lads' mags, are failing to see the wider picture

By Carrie Hamilton; March 26, 2010 - Znet
http://www.zcommunications.org/enough-middle-class-feminism-...

Source: The Guardian

BBC Four's recent three-part documentary Women was enough to make any seasoned feminist weep with despair. After sitting through the obligatory first installment on celebrity second-wavers, and cringing through the second week on post-feminist consumerist mothers, I looked forward to the finale. "Activists" promised to celebrate the resurgence of feminist activism in the contemporary UK. How disappointing, then, that this new feminism turned out to be nothing more than a small group of London-based women who have attracted media attention over the past couple of years with their single-issue campaigns on violence against women.

There is not a feminist on the planet who isn't outraged at sexual and domestic violence, as well as the overwhelming evidence of the complicity of governments, police forces and justice systems in perpetuating this violence and protecting its perpetrators. Violence against women is rightly a major focus of any feminist movement. But this serious problem cannot be understood, or challenged, in isolation from other forms of violence and oppression, such as racism, restrictive labor and migration laws, and poverty. Yet the groups featured in "Activists" – Object and the London Feminist Network – treat violence against women largely in isolation. They have lots to say about the media objectification of women but, bizarrely, little to say about consumerism or capitalism.

The favorite topics of these organizations seem to be lap-dance clubs, pornography, lads' ["men's"] magazines and the sex industry in general. This is part of a growing trend in middle-class feminism. Feminist writers and bloggers can't seem to get enough of prostitution and pornography these days. But these are not the most important issues for the majority of women. Why should a sex worker be a symbol of sexism any more than a competent professional woman denied promotion in favor of a younger male colleague? Or a teenage girl who doesn't get the education she deserves because her family are too poor to play the postcode lottery or pay tuition fees? Or a migrant woman whose children are locked in a detention centre?

The serious issues of violence against women, and sexist oppression generally, are grossly simplified when they are constantly associated with the sex industry. Feminist campaigns to eliminate sex work by claiming that it is the same as violence against women are not only bad for the sex workers they aim to protect. They're also bad for feminism.

The contemporary feminist focus on male violence against women is bad for feminism because it positions women primarily as victims, while giving power to male police and politicians to "protect" us from "bad men". It returns us to the tired old model of two opposing genders: man=masculine=aggressive v woman=feminine=passive. It offers no analysis of, and therefore no effective political opposition to, the ways violence against women relates to other forms of violence that women (and men) experience. But most of all, it's bad for feminism because it defines women's experiences of sex and sexuality exclusively in terms of fear and danger, and reserves for men the privileged terrains of desire and pleasure.

Anyone who's been around for the past 25 years will hear echoes in these debates of the feminist "sex wars" of the 1980s. What's most depressing about this sense of history repeating itself is that groups such as Object and LFN ignore the wealth of feminist theory on representation, desire and sexuality, as well as the scholarship on the intersections between sexism, racism and class produced over the past few decades. But the blame for this lack of theoretical reflection cannot be placed on activists alone. It must be shared by feminist academics, many of who have abandoned the wider public sphere of political debate and activism in recent years. That too is bad for feminism.

A return to feminist academic dialogue with activism might help us to understand why so many young women today are attracted to forms of feminism that emphasize male violence against women above other forms of sexism. ( Actually I don't think they are. I think that most feminism today has moved beyond the strident. Feminism now is a very broad thing and it is unwise to see it only as the public presentations of ideological groups which are often silly beyond belief.- Molly )Other people have noted that young feminist groups in the UK today are "predominantly white, middle-class and university-educated". Why are these privileged women so drawn to a movement that positions them first and foremost as victims of patriarchy?

Luckily there are lots of other feminists out there, from different generations and backgrounds, making links between violence against women and other oppressions. One group recently posted a Manifesto for 21st-Century Feminism that emphasizes women's exploitation in all areas of the labor market, not just the sex industry, and recognizes the sexualization of society as part of contemporary consumer capitalism. That's the kind of feminist resurgence we need.

BLOGGING:

HERE AT MOLLY'S BLOG:

It's been a good year and a bad year. Personally, Molly has had a "little touch of colon cancer" which involved surgery and a recovery period at exactly the right time of the year ie that time when there is little money to be made but lots of unreasonable demands being made. ( Not now, not "right now", but "right fucking now"- for free) .I'll be back at work in early January, and I'm already able to do the various ballet contortions that say I can do what I have to do in my regular work, but I will go with my general "age restriction" and refuse to lift 100 lb weights and carry them "with dignity" like those who would never even conceive of doing such a thing imagine that I should do.) There are, after all, people from the local crematorium who will send out two young strong guys to do such labour. How fast I can throw my body out of harm's way to avoid death or permanent disability is still in doubt. That can't be judged by exercises. Enough bitching. I've done this job enough years to learn to defend myself from the idiocy of the public and their demands. You have never "hated" until you get a phone call at 7:00 am from an idiot (whom you don't answer) who has an appointment with another veterinarian at 10:00 am who thinks he can get you out at 7:30 am ( at, of course, less of a charge than the guy who will see his animal at 10:00 am). In such a situation one is tempted to phone the other vet and ask him or her to raise the price by 20% for the "asshole charge".

Ah well, enough of "the job". I hope to impress the surgeon on January 6 when I go back for the recheck.

The guy was Dr Momah, here in Winnipeg who did a very fine job, though I have to admit that my own determination had a lot to do with my rapid recovery. I was up and booting it less than 24 hours after having some of my guts cut out. I refused all pain killers because I wanted "my mind" during recovery, and I was right, as was evidenced by the the final visit of the "pain nurse" to my bedside shortly before my recovery.

Her point- "she had never said that "veterinarians knew more about pain than people in human medicine", even though, of course, she had never said such on our first meeting shortly after the surgery. My point- "I really don't know about that statement. But I offered her an article that I was reading about pain from Nature Magazine, and I tried to figure out why what she said "might" be true. What was left unsaid , to my great disgrace, was that my refusal of pain relief was not because I was a veterinarian and "knew more" (which she thought and I doubted even though I am a member of the IVAPM) but because I am who I am, and I have an unique sensitivity to certain drugs. It was very personal, and it influences the way that my anaesthesia was handled as well.

Quite frankly, should the US Empire ever get so deluded that they would put me into prison and torture me there is literally no pain that I could not endure. Most of it I would be capable of laughing at. All this to gain the fact that I know nothing. Pain might be frightening to those who have never experienced it before, and it also might be frightening for those whose emotions determined that they should "run from it". Neither case is applicable to me. Pain is my ete3rnal companion in every second of mty life.

OK, enough of my personal situation. As to this blog, over the last year it has essentially doubled its readership. This has been at the cost of time spent in "blog promotion", which means time away from posting new items. This is obviously necessary, but it is still annoying because of the "objections" that others have to this blog. I've tried to search down such objections, and at least one has been resolved. Molly's Blog, of course, isn't a money-making business. Any fool who thinks he can make money off "a Blog" is usually quite deluded.

Yet, there is other opposition that is pretty consistent. All of these sources eventually come together despite their different reasons. One source for labour blogs is that only social democratic posts will be allowed (or less than social democratic in the USA). Another for "Canada blogs" is that the interests of right wing readers and those who think that the actions reported are not "anarchist enough" coincide. This transfers over to those posts listed as "anarchist" where that tiny little part of international anarchism that is the deviation known as "anarcho-capitalism" in the USA objects to anything reported by Molly that might be "socialist". I will leave the ignorance of the Americans as to the term "libertarian socialist" to others.

All that I can say here is...that I will continue. Someone who can get up from gut surgery and walk the same day is hardly likely to be intimidated. Quite frankly, I am "on the side of the angels", in a general sense. Not every thing I say is right, but the objections have less validity than what I post here. I will walk on because am the toughest son-of-a-bitch that has walked this Earth since Roman times.

AMERICAN POLITICS:

WHAT WILL OBAMA DO ON FOREIGN POLICY ?:

The following article from the COAT site tries to extrapolate what the foreign policy of an Obama Administration will be like, given the past pronouncements of the President-Elect. The answer...not that much different from what has gone before. No doubt the "tone" will be different, but the substance will remain the same- the preservation of empire. One has to, of course, take Obama's past positions with the usual wheelbarrow full of salt reserved for the promises of any politician, but there is no reason to doubt that the next US Preident is any more dishonest than others. Thus, what he has said before is likely to be, in general terms, the way he will conduct himself in office. What will this be like ? Read on.

The cartoon above, by the way, is from the Tales of the Iraq War blog by the Brazilian cartoonist Latuff. Also needless to say Molly doesn't agree with the following author's hope that the inevitable disappointment with Obama in power will lead to a "Third Party" in the USA. However realistic or unrealistic this hope may be it is something quite different from what Molly hopes for. It also leads to the inevitable question..."Would a 'Third Party' be any different in power ?". The experience of us colonials who have multiparty systems suggests otherwise.

...........................

A Rough Guide to Obama, on $2.3 billion a day*:
By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)

Did you know that President-elect Obama:
**voted for every one of President Bush's Iraq-War funding increases?
**believes Bush's "surge" in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" and has proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror"?
**criticized the Iraq War because it is "unwinnable," not because it is illegal, immoral and has killed one million Iraqis?
**will probably leave 140,000 private contractors (mercenaries) and as many as 60,000 to 80,000 regular US troops in Iraq?
**praised President Bush, Sr., and the 1991 Gulf War saying: "I think that when you look back at his foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy. In how we executed the Gulf War.... I think George H.W. Bush doesn't get enough credit for...his foreign policy team and the way that he...prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful."
**is willing to bomb Iran and that he won't rule out a first strike nuclear attack?
**wants to send an additional 10,000 US troops to fight the war in Afghanistan?
**wants to expand the Afghan war with unilateral air strikes to bomb Pakistan?
**supported Israel's war against Lebanon?
**supports Ballistic Missile Defense?
**favours military expenditures on warplanes that he says "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power."
**voted for the Patriot Act II, the Wall Street bailout, building a border wall with Mexico and immunity for corporations that conducted electronic eavesdropping on Americans?
**wants continued sanctions against Cuba?
**called President Chavez an "enemy of the US" and wants sanctions against Venezuela?

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other examples from Obama's statements, his voting records, his financial backers and his selection of advisors and staff that expose very regressive positions on foreign policy and domestic issues. (Check out the links to an initial list of articles below.)

Some rationalize their support for Obama by saying he is less pro-war than McCain or Bush. Others may argue with contention that Obama even is pro-war. At different times, and with different audiences, Obama has taken completely contradictory stands on many important issues. How do we interpret this behaviour? Are we believe all of his progressive-sounding rhetoric on "hope" and change," and simply ignore as inconvenient his many "right-wing," pro-war positions?

As Obama himself has said in his latest book The Audacity of Hope: "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." As James Krichick said in the New Republic, "Obama is, in his own words, something of a Rorschach test."

Sam Smith puts it this way in an article called "Can we talk about the Real Obama now?":
"Obama has left the same kind of vacuum. His magic, or con, was that voters could imagine whatever they wanted and he would do nothing to spoil their reverie. He was a handsome actor playing the part of the first black president-to-be and, as in films, he was careful not to muck up the role with real facts or issues that might harm the fantasy. Hence the enormous emphasis on meaningless phrases like hope and change."
(Undernews (online report of the Progressive Review), November 5, 2008.)

Obama's rhetoric on the Iraq War is a case in point. Many mistakenly see him as as anti-war "peace candidate" who will pull the US military out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the truth about his position on this subject is far more complicated.

"In an interview with Amy Goodman, Sen. Obama stated his intention of leaving 140,000 private contractors in Iraq because “we don’t have the troops to replace them.” He also stated the need to keep an additional “strike force in the region … in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity."
Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008.

Colin Kahl, the coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq policy wrote a paper for Center for a New American Security, saying that between 60,000 and 80,000 US troops should stay in Iraq until the end of 2010.(James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008.)

Another insight into Obama's position on the Iraq war is revealed in his appointment of Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. Stephen Zunes, in "Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal," (Foreign Policy In Focus, August 24, 2008) says that

"Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. "The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.

"Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administrations decision to invade that oil-rich country." (Emphasis added)

Leaving aside the Iraq War there is plenty for peace activists to be concerned about in Obama's overall agenda for the US military. For example, as Obama wrote in an article called "Renewing American Leadership":

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . . We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability..."
(Foreign Affairs, May 31, 2007.)

And, here's what the official website of the Obama-Biden campaign says about what they'll do to when elected to "rebuild the military for 21st century tasks":
***Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.
**Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.
**Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.
**Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.
**National Missile Defense: An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.
A 21st Century Military for America

Particularly revealing is the section above called "Preserve Global Reach in the Air" which concludes with the assertion that the US needs to invest in multi-billion dollar warplane programs because they "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power."

The idea that Obama is anti-war is a powerful myth that will impede the peace movement's ability to mobilize opposition to the inevitable continuation of US militarism and imperialism. President Obama may then prove to be more of an obstacle to peace than a true agent of change moving the US economy away from a world in which corporations seek profit through predatory wars. Obama's deceitful image as peacemonger will allow him to get away with policies and actions that would not be countenanced for an instant if they had come from the likes of McCain or Bush. This blindspot for Obama's pro-war agenda will not only hamper the ability of US peace activists to speak out, organize and protest, it will also help to dampen the efforts of many others around the world.

There is a potential silver lining to this situation. As President Obama and his government begin to carry forward their efforts to "extend global power," liberal activists will hopefully begin to concede that Obama is not the peace president they had expected him to be. As the campaign hype and honeymoon fade away, disappointment in Obama's rhetoric and hypocrisy may transform into a realization that the US is in dire need of a strong "third party" to give voice to the aspirations for peace held by so many millions of Americans. Perhaps this disillusionment in the Democratic Party will begin to open up new possibilities for the election of some future US president who really does stand for peace. But don't hold your breath!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

* Under President Obama, the US military budget may well be spending about $2.3 billion a day. The 2008 US military budget is $696 billion. Obama says he will increase military spending and will add 65,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Every increase of 1,000 army troops adds about $2 billion per year, while every addition of 1,000 Marines adds $1 billion/year. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327888,00.html That means Obama's proposal could add $157 billion, bringing the total to $857 billion per year, which means about $2.3 billion per day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Resources:
^African People's Solidarity Committee, "Obama Exposed" and "Obama Fact Sheet"
^"Quentin Young, Early Supporter of Obama, Now Disappointed and Saddened," Corporate Crime Reporter, January 28, 2008.
^Shaun Booth, "Barack Obama: A Hawk in Dove’s Clothing," Political Lore, January 18th, 2008.
^Michel Chossudovsky, "The Democrats endorse the 'Global War on Terrorism': Obama 'goes after' Osama," Global Research, August 29, 2008.
^August Cole, "Obama Adviser Doesn't Expect Defense Cuts," Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008.
^Robert Dreyfuss, "Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy," The Nation, July 1, 2008
^Tom Eley, "Barack Obama and the War In Iraq," World Socialist Web, February 14, 2007.
^Glen Ford, "Obama surrenders on military spending," The Progressive, January 15, 2008.
^Chris Floyd, "The Bagman Cometh: Obama Embraces War Criminal's Endorsement," Empire Burlesque, October 19, 2008.
^Chris Floyd, "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq," Baltimore Chronicle, September 5, 2008.
^Joshua Frank, "It Could be a Long, Hard Struggle: A Look Under the Hood of an Obama Administration," November 6, 2008.
^Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008.
^Glenn Greenwald, "The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending," Jan. 2, 2008.
^William D. Hartung, "Dems: What about the Military Budget?" Foreign Policy In Focus, February 21, 2008
^Joseph Gerson, "Obama's Foreign & Military Policies: Old Wine in a New Bottle?" Common Dreams, April 23, 2007.
^Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider - Obama's Iraq Fairy Tale," Black Agenda Report, July 9, 2008.
^James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008.
^Tom Mackaman, "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran," World Socialist Web, October 1, 2004.
^Pam Martens, "Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street," CounterPunch, May 5, 2008.
^"Sen. Barack Obama Speaks Out on the Iraq War, Race, Hillary Clinton and Pastor Jeremiah Wright," CNN Larry King Live, March 20, 2008.
^The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever The Politics Demand, John McCain's team. (This contains dozens of contradictory statements made by Obama regarding various aspects of the Iraq war.)
^Ralph Nader, "Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama," November 3, 2008.
^Johnny Peepers, "Obama’s Pro-War Chief of Staff: Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel," Dillsnap cogitations, November 2008.
^St. Pete for Peace, "If you voted for Obama, this is what you voted for," November 2008.
^News release, Greens Warn Antiwar Americans Against Wasting Votes on Pro-War Democrats, US Green Party, July 28, 2008.
^Kevin Zeese, "Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?," Voters for Peace, April 2008.

#######
Over the past year, John Pilger has written numerous columns critiquing Obama hawkish policies, including:
1)Bringing down the new Berlin Walls
13 Feb 2008 ... One of Barack Obamas chief whisperers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan, which spawned jihadism, ...
2)The danse macabre of US-style democracy
23 Jan 2008 ... Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. ...
3)In the great tradition, Obama is a hawk
12 Jun 2008 ... The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US...
4)The invisible government
16 Jun 2007 ... Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, We must not rule out military ...
5)Obama, the prince of bait-and-switch
24 Jul 2008 ... Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan ...
6)A murderous theatre of the absurd
11 Sep 2008 ... At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease Americas grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. ...
7)The new world war - the silence is a lie
24 Sep 2008 ... The change candidate for president, Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft and bombs. The ironies are searing. ...
8)The diplomacy of lying
23 Oct 2008 ... The beatification of President Barack Obama is already under way; for it is he who challenges America to rise up [and] summon the better ...

#######
Free sample copy: If you live in Canada and haven't previously received a free sample copy of COAT's magazine, Press for Conversion!, then just send your name, street address and postal code to overcoat@rogers.com and we'll mail you a complimentary copy.