Obama's "Hope" for Iraq and Afghanistan: leftovers and deceptive advertising

A recent Rochester Indymedia article ("Stop the War? Yes We Can!" 11.28.08) on the upcoming 6th anniversary of the U.S. war in Iraq reported Obama's website for his transition into the White House (www.change.org) now saying the U.S. military, "…will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda …and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel."

Those following Obama's earlier presidential campaign rhetoric recognize this as a substantial shift from his stump speech promises. Author Jeremy Scahill's Dec. 5th Alternet article ("Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Occupation in Iraq") notes Obama as recently as July telling his progressive anti-war constituency (a key voting block in his election), "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."

Obama's transitional website is now pledging to send an additional 65,000 American military personnel to Afghanistan, and expand the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) worldwide. An important feature of the expanded war on terror, according to the Obama website, will be the U.S. government's extensive investment in surveillance technology. The website also states that U.S. military incursions into Pakistan will be part of his plan for the "war on terror."

Obama's Vision for Iraq: "rebranding" the occupation

Obama never intended for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq. His adviser Samantha Power tipped the campaign's hand in March, by describing Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. "combat" forces as a "best case scenario." Power said, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." As recommended by Obama's choice to replace his transitional secretary of defense Republican Gates, former Clinton Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, Obama will leave a "residual force" of 55,000 troops, with an additional and uncounted number of Blackwater-style contractors or mercenaries.

Ultimately, the coordinator of Obama's campaign Iraq Working Group, Colin Kahl, advocates that, "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable 'over-watch posture' (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)." (Scahill Alternet 12.5.08). 60 to 80 thousand "residual" U.S. troops remaining in Iraq to "watch" the country, coupled with an equal or greater number of military contractors, or privately hired mercenaries, means that the occupation force in Iraq will remain close to the current 150-thousand soldier level indefinitely.

The semantic shift of describing what the U.S. is doing in Iraq as "residual forces…over-watching" the country is what author Scahill refers to as the "re-branding" of the American occupation of Iraq (Scahill Alternet "Is This Change?" 12.1.08). "Rebranding" refers to when, "a product or service developed with one brand, company or product line affiliation is marketed or distributed with a different identity…These changes are typically aimed at the repositioning of the brand/company, usually in an attempt to distance itself from certain negative connotations of the previous branding (Roger Sinclair 1999).

It is not surprising that the Obama administration would adopt this type of marketing strategy. The main architect of Obama's successful campaign is Midwestern political PR consulting phenomenon David Axelrod. Axelrod, now a cabinet member, is reported to be a master of another dishonest marketing strategy known as "astroturfing" (BusinessWeek "The Secret Side of David Axelrod" 3.14.08). Astroturfing is an advertising campaign setup to fake the behavior of genuine grass-roots movements with the purpose of advancing the private agenda of a corporation or individual (Wikipedia).

Obama and Afghanistan: dealing with "leftovers"

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and now the South Asian Islamic revolutionary group Laskar-e-Taiba (responsible for the recent Mumbai attacks with a suspected assist from the Pakistani CIA, known as the Inter-services Intelligence directive or "ISI"), all got their start with the help of the US and our allies to run insurgencies in the Middle East. The Taliban, for example, were our proxy opposition to Russia in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and ISI was the supply line from Pakistan to that insurgency with funding courtesy of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (The Nation 12.22.08). These former allies, previous insurgent and now counter-insurgent "leftover" guerrilla fighters from an earlier iteration of the Afghan conflict, have become The U.S.'s enemies in the region.

Incoming "leftover" politicians from the Bush and Clinton administrations at the U.S. State and Defense departments, like Cabinet Secretaries-to-be Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, are no doubt warning Obama that the deteriorating situation inside Afghanistan (everything except the capitol is now under Taliban control) coupled with Pakistan's ISI spreading conflict into India via Laskar-e-Taiba, warrants sending more US. military into Afghanistan, regardless if history proves that it is a no-win for any occupying force.

Louise Wu