Barak Obama Tries to Prove His Imperialist Creds

Poor Mr Obama, having been assailed by Madame Clinton recently and accused of being “soft” or something on terrorism or rogue states or whatever, wants the world to know he is just as ready and willing to carry out destructive military policies as anyone else running around Washington:

Obama warns over Pakistan strike

In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country.

If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said.

Silly Musharraf- why can’t he just press a button and kick all those nasty Al-Qaeda people out- I mean, look at how quickly the US expelled them from Iraq! But since he clearly doesn’t want to anything construtctive, a new war (a new war would be fun, and an opportunity for new choices and new leaders and just general newness, which Mr Obama knows a great deal about) is probably in order. Of course, an invasion of Pakistan would go far better than the invasion of Iraq, because there aren’t that many people in Pakistan, right? And they don’t have any of those Shia people there, surely? Well, at any rate, they DO have WMD’s, and we should probably do something about that. And those madrasas- we should close them and teach them to love and drive eco-friendly vehicles.


4 thoughts on “Barak Obama Tries to Prove His Imperialist Creds

  1. sahmadi

    I would like to know if you read his entire speech, or watched his speech. He never spoke of invasion of any country. I suspect you have not read his speech or watched his speech. Go to CSPAN, and watch it and then write your cute commentary. Thanks.

  2. Well, having read the entire speech at his website, I think pretty much the same about Mr Obama. Here are a couple more excerpts: “The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and *Pakistan*.”

    “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and *Pakistan*; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

    Now, it may well be a jolly idea to launch attacks on Al-Qaeda in the tribal territories of Pakistan- I don’t think it is, for any number of reasons having to do with the situation in Pakistan as a whole. But you can’t deny the Obama is pretty clear that he considers Pakistan to already be a battleground for the US- which involves invasion, since we don’t at present have troops operating inside of Pakistan (officially, anyway). Sending in F-16s to blow up madrasas and camps and whatnot would certainly constitute an invasion.

    But really more problematic than these policy measures Obama proposes is the general philosophy he espouses elsewhere in the speech. This set of paragraphs sums it up: “The America I know is the last, best hope for that child looking up at a helicopter. It’s the country that put a man on the moon; that defeated fascism and helped rebuild Europe. It’s a country whose strength abroad is measured not just by armies, but rather by the power of our ideals, and by our purpose to forge an ever more perfect union at home.

    “That’s the America I know. We just have to act like it again to write that next chapter in the American story. If we do, we can keep America safe while extending security and opportunity around the world. We can hold true to our values, and in doing so advance those values abroad. And we can be what that child looking up at a helicopter needs us to be: the relentless opponent of terror and tyranny, and the light of hope to the world.”

    Now, I ask, how terribly different is this from the sort of stuff the Bush regime has been peddling for the last few years? “Relentless opponent of terror and tyranny”- er, do you suppose we’ll just send peace-and-love brigades and sing folk songs and gather oral histories and thus defeat “terror and tyranny”? No- you have to drop bombs and crack heads to achieve that sort of a goal, as nearly eight years of the Bush administration should have made clear (and the Clinton administration before it…). And “light of hope to the world”- is classic American messiah-complex stuff. America is NOT the “last, best hope” of the world- Christ is, if I may be permitted a dangerous piece of reactionary thought.

    Yes, Obama wants more foreign aid, more peaceful bits, but he has not, and will not, swear off the same sorts of military adventures in the name of an all-mighty- and apparently all-benificient- America, Savior of the World.

  3. sahmadi


    You seem to be a reasonable person so I will not try to pick at parts of your reply that I disagree with. I will say this. If America steps back and relinquishes her role as a superpower…who would you approve of leading this world. Russia? China? India? The world and life is about power…nothing more.

    I am going to support Obama, because I believe he is the lesser of evils…and because I think he will break the Bush/Clinton partisanship that is breaking this country apart. I wish the candidate that you support best of luck.

  4. sahmadi


    Concerning Obama…I have become incredibly disappointed with him. He is no change. Your commentary has become more true as the days pass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s