 |
||||||
| ||||||
|
Sign up for the VotersForPeace discussion list |
Where do the candidates stand on war and militarism?
The candidates for the General Election are set. Iraq continues to be a major concern of voters, with
polls showing that 25% to 30% count it as a top concern, ranking second
only to the economy. A growing majority of Americans want to see the
U.S. out of Iraq.
Senator Obama won sufficient delegates for the Democratic nomination
in June. Senator McCain will be the Republican nominee. Ralph Nader
is moving forward with his independent campaign getting on ballots throughout
the country. The Libertarians have nominated former Congressman Bob
Barr as their standard bearer. And, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
has a majority of delegates for the Green Party.
Where does Iraq fit in with the General Election? The candidates will continue to make
Iraq an issue to
differentiate themselves and the public will continue to be focused on it.
On both Iraq and Iran, the voters are more progressive than either McCain
or Obama – they want the Iraq war ended and the military option removed
from dealing with Iran. Neither candidate goes that far on either issue.
Senator McCain is clearly the most aggressive in pursing “victory”
in Iraq. In an honest moment he said he would not mind if U.S. troops
stayed in Iraq for 100 years, comparing it to Korea where U.S.
forces have continued presence. Of course, Korea was, at best, a war
the U.S. fought to a draw – some would say a defeat – and the troops
in Korea have not prevented North Korea from becoming a nuclear power.
He has been trying to back away from that comment for months now giving
a speech where he declared, “I hate war”. In another speech, he promised to win the war during his first term. But McCain
has been consistently wrong about the Iraq war since before the
invasion when he was memorably a cheerleader for the war. Among McCain’s
wrong statements are: “Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct
a nuclear weapon,” "I believe… that the Iraqi people will greet
us as liberators,” “this conflict is… going to be relatively short,”
“only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war,”
“We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months,”
and six months later, "the next six months are going to be critical.”
He’s been an advocate of the use of military force against Iran without
negotiating with them, and he wants to expand the U.S. military –
which is already more costly than the rest of the world’s military
spending combined. McCain seems more likely to get the U.S. into a war
with Iran than out of the war with Iraq. In addition, he has not been
an advocate for adequate veteran’s benefits. For a review of McCain’s policies: click here.
Next to an aggressive militarist like McCain, Obama looks like a peacenik;
make no mistake – Obama has said two things that are
very important to the peace movement. First, he does not only want to
end the war but “end the mindset
that got us into the war.” Now,
he said that very early in the campaign during a January debate and
has not repeated it during the campaign, but that is the standard the
peace movement should hold him to -- end the cause of war. And second,
he said that change will only come if the people are organized and demand
it. This is an invitation to the peace movement to pressure him. He
responds to pressure as can be seen by many of his positions.
There are many things for peace advocates to be concerned about regarding
Obama. He has said he admires the foreign policy of Reagan, Bush I
and JFK – all
strong militarists. Obama also wants to expand the U.S.
military by 92,000
additional soldiers, and he pledged to the right-wing Israeli lobby
that he will always keep the
military option.
While Obama gets loud applause when he pledges to begin to end the war
in 2009, the details of his withdrawal plan show an ongoing war, not
an end to war. Obama has said he will remove “combat” troops, saying
that it may mean putting them somewhere else in the region like Kuwait
where they can serve as a strike force in Iraq. As to non-combat troops,
advisors have estimated between 35,000 to 80,000 remaining behind to protect U.S. interests,
fight al Qaeda and train the Iraqi military. And, when asked about the
private security forces like Blackwater, fairly labeled mercenaries
by some, he said he would leave all 140,000
of them in Iraq.
Thus, Obama’s withdrawal plan leaves 175,000 to 220,000 troops and
mercenaries in Iraq, threatens to expand the war to other nations by
putting combat forces in Kuwait and he keeps the bombing of Iran on
the table. Obama, unlike McCain, has said he would negotiate with Iran
before using military force but both have been exaggerating
its nuclear capability.
Obama’s campaign recently released a detailed position statement on
Iraq: click here.
Americans got to see the similarities
between senators Obama and McCain when
they both spoke to the right-wing Israeli lobby last week. (Obama speech here, McCain speech here.) Indeed both the Washington Post and LA Times editorialized about the similarities
between McCain and Obama. While there are some differences they both pledge not only complete
fealty to Israel, but also a continued effort to build the Israeli military
while maintaining U.S. military policy in support of Israel. Furthermore,
Obama gave virtually no criticism of the illegal occupation of Palestinian
lands. Ralph Nader put out a
critique of Obama
and McCain, McKinney has also been critical of the Israeli lobby and
the U.S.’s blind support for Israel.
The only spark of debate has been over whether the U.S. should talk to its adversaries. But even on this issue, Obama has changed
his position and
McCain, according to senate colleagues, is also likely to
talk to adversarial
nations. When it comes to Iran, both candidates are threatening a military
attack as an option.
The three non-duopoly candidates, Barr, McKinney and Nader, are all calling for a rapid end to
the Iraq occupation—a position more aligned with the views of a majority
of Americans. If any of them gain steam, it could pull the two establishment
party candidates toward the view of the American people. Nader and McKinney
have been opposed to the military attack on Iraq since before the war
began. Both have also spoken at anti-war rallies and worked to end the
occupation for the last five years. Barr takes a non-interventionist
view of foreign policy, but favors a strong military. He is not as clear
about how quickly he would get out of Iraq. Nader and McKinney both
described the military budget as bloated and are calling for less military
spending.
Where does U.S. militarism fit into the General Election? The military
has become much larger and more deeply embedded throughout the federal
government. Neither of the establishment party candidates is calling
for shrinking the U.S. military; indeed, both are calling for expanding
the military with tens of thousands of more troops. Obama is calling
for 92,000 additional troops, while McCain wants even more. The three
insurgent candidates are calling for reductions. All three oppose the
U.S. having 700 military bases around the world. Nader and McKinney
are calling for dramatic reductions of the military budget. Once again,
they will be able to pressure Obama and McCain if they start to get
some traction.
What can peace advocates do? Your vote may not be the most important
action. Indeed, it is predictable where the Electoral College votes
for approximately 39 states are going now. So, no matter whom you are
planning to vote for take action today. Write to all the
candidates at http://votersforpeace.us/pvpletters.html. Urge them to end the occupation
of Iraq, stop threatening Iran with military attack and prevent future
wars of aggression. Tell them it is time to invest in the civilian economy
by rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, responding to climate change, providing
for the basic necessities of the American people and to reduce the investment
in the military economy.
VotersForPeace is joining with other organizations participating in
the Grassroots
Netroots Alliance
(GNA). The GNA is a new nationwide effort to build up a radical netroots
and grassroots army of millions of voters and activists. GNA believes
that America's life or death, multi-faceted Crisis demands that we move
beyond watered down, single-issue campaigns and limited focus campaigning
to a comprehensive multi-issue platform that stimulates local alliance
building and grassroots action, focused on pressuring the politicians,
and supporting candidates and legislation that can move us out of the
Crisis.
Below are links to each of
the candidates websites and links to articles written about their views
on Iraq and militarism so you can be well informed about their views
on the issues.
Voters for Peace is a non-profit educational organization and does not endorse candidates for office. Below are links to each of the candidates websites and links to articles written about their views on Iraq and militarism.
click on candidates name to discuss
DISCUSS: SENATE CANDIDATES | HOUSE CANDIDATES | PEACE VOTER STRATEGY
CLICK ON PARTY NAME TO VIEW ITS CANDIDATES |
| Chuck Baldwin baldwin08.com subscribe to article feed  Open Borders Prove "War On Terror" Is Superficial Chuck Baldwin on the Issues If I Were President |
Cynthia McKinney
runcynthiarun.org
subscribe to article feed
McKinney Interview: 'Returning power to the people'
First All-Women-of-Color Presidential Ticket in US History
McKinney and Clemente: Black, Brown, Green and True
Newsweek Interview: McKinney Goes Green
Cynthia McKinney Nominated by the Green Party
McKinney Urges Mass Mobilization Supporting Impeachment
Black Agenda Report endorses Cynthia McKinney for President
Black Commentator Editorial Board Member Endorses McKinney
Outspoken War Critic Poised for Green Party Run
Speech to the House of the Lord Church Brooklyn, NY August 19, 2003
Cynthia McKinney on Democracy Now!
DISCLAIMER: Voters for Peace does not endorse candidates and is providing these web pages as a forum for voters to express their views. The views expressed do not represent the position of Voters for Peace.
