Obama's Pledge to the Military Complex:
Obama has made the boldest pledge (shocking to many) to increase standing ground troops by 92,000. This feeds against the Eisenhower 'standing army' argument. This is a core-issue of true progressives. Core issues are generally non-negotiable. In the absence of large enemies with large standing armies, this is a very disconcerting military pledge. First, 92,000 additional ground troops is an enormous increase and expense (to what end). This is a clear pander and triangulation directed to the military complex (donors), and the foreign policy right, think neoconservative. This is an enormous anti-progressive position at the heart and soul of progressive policy. How could this happen?
Question Presented and Answered:
- Progressive voters become more neoconservative on their core-beliefs within the last two years or,
- Progressive are trading their core-beliefs for the Obama-hype and the Obama-bargain with the right.
ANSWER: Progressives are trading their core-issues.
At its core, this is an audacious pander which, all things being equal, would hurt any Democratic primary candidate with the progressive base of the party. All things are not equal. This is a Republican narrative delivered by a candidate who's supporters claim the 'progressive' flag. Obama avoids any scrutiny on this issue from his own supporters, the media, and the Democratic base.
Obama Supporters Choose Not to Know
How many Obama-supports know that Obama has the biggest military industry pander? Probably 1 in 8, if that. Those that know, ignore it. The other seven, when presented with the information will rationalize it or it simply will not register. This is fascinating issue-avoidance behavior. I've never witnessed this among progressives, who are traditionally the issue-bearers, personality and hype-rejectors in the party.
Core-Issue:
Progressives know the United States is not fighting or threatened by large standing armies. There is no Soviet Union rationalizing a larger standing army. Obama's 90,000 increase for no stated purpose is the reasons he gets applause from Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative nerve-center, the Project for the New American Century. Obama proves, again, that he is a consummate triagulator dragging youth and progressive vote to the right without even the slightest struggle. When you candidate is bringing in praise from neoconservatives on the core-issue of 'guns v. butter', shouldn't pregressives be alarmed? This is a core-issue that progressives are not willing to sacrifice, usualy. It's an issue that has driven progressives for decades (see the Documentary WHY WE FIGHT).
"Transformational" Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Obama by purporting 'transformational' politics, can oppose you on your core-issues, to your face, while avioding any accountability or questioning. This is an unhealthy relationship purported-progressives have with a candidate. Obama triangulates and opposes progressives on their issues without any accountability. The progressive voters in this party share the blame. If a politician can get your vote opposing your core-issue, while drawing applause and praise from the right, they will. The hype which creates the avoidance of core-issues incentives candidates against you interest in the long and short term. Therefore, this is not just about Obama, this is about how we respond to and incentivize candidates as a Party.
The military industrial complex, expenses of empire, bases throughout the world, guns v. butter and the basic stance of our nation and military has provided the inspiration (and money) for many grassroots candidates. These candidates usually appeal directly to our progressive and liberal base. Some, like Ron Paul, appeal to both the old conservative (not neoconservative) base and progressives. However, Obama, on this core-issue is demonstrably much further to the right than eithet Edwards or Ron Paul.
No Rationale for 90,000 New Troops
What makes Obama's position more alarming is it appears to be a position 'for the sake of' the position or worse, in anticipation of the use of the 92,000 new ground forces. It lacks a logical rationale or explanation. Ask Obama what his rationale is for 92,000 new ground troops if he's withdrawing 150,000 from Iraq? This question remains unanswered and unasked in any mainstream media debate. You have, however, learned if Dennis believes in UFOs. Edwards, on the contrary, has made no pledges to increase the standing army for an undefined purpose. This is significant. Edwards has indicated his firm agreement with progressives on this core-issue. Incredibly, this core-issue is ignored by so-called net roots progressives.
Most net roots progressives have focused on the military complex for years... until Obama. Some people, pre-Obama, would have chosen a candidate on this military issue alone. Where have these progressives gone? Many of these progressives have made this core-issue their life's work. Suddenly, they appear to have lost their vote or voice in the crowd.
Don't Trust Crowds, Don't Trust Hype
The last time I saw people this lathered-up, off the facts, we went to war. Therefore, as a general principal, I don't trust crowds or hype. We have a big 'crowd' and lots of hype inside our party base. The crowd is lathered-up and showing a peculiar desire to avoid a healthy discussion on the issues. Instead, words like 'transformational' are thrown around. This makes for bad campaigns and poorly preparred candidates. First, the Obama supporters, if progressive on this core-issue, have to disagree publicly with Obama. Campaigns are all about dialoge and disagreement, pressuring even your own candidate to take the better or more progressive position. A campaign should be a living organism. In Obama's case, I don't see this. It appears to accept little input. On issues and rhetoric, this campaign is very randed, top-down. The only bottom-up evidence I see is authentic vague emotion, but also hype and confusion on the core-issues.
PATTERN
Obama also co-sponsored a resolution over the July 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. Obama insisted that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire by the United States. Obama broke with all our European and NATO allies and even strong public opinion in the United States. He definitely broke with his party's progressives. Obama received much praise from PNAC members and the foreign policy neoconservatives. Therefore, Obama's 92,000 increase in ground forces and his resolution show a pattern by Obama to allign with neoconservatives and go against his base on core-issues.
If you favor these right-wing neoconservative foreign policy positions which have led us to so many intractable problems, Obama might be your candidate. He certainly is not a clean break from neoconservative policy, no matter how much Bush-bashing is engaged. Obama will be transformational. He will, by his own position papers, transform your progressive votes into core-issue policies you oppose. All while the red state endorsements and conservative newspaper endorsements roll in under progressive noses.
UPDATE: Source. There have been complaints that his 92,000 increase is not sourced and fake. It is on Obama's website, therefore, I didn't think this fact would be vigorously challenged.
"Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines"
http://www.barackobama.com/...
UPDATE TWO: Edwards' postion, like Obama's, in on his website. Edwards says something very different and he doesn PROMISE an automatic rearmnament.
"Build the military we need to meet the mission we have defined -- no more, no less -- basing future troop levels on a careful assessment of the post-Iraq threat environment."