Scahill Tries to be Heard Through Din of “Change”

Change change change change change hope hope hope hope hope change change cha -

I’m sorry – did you say something, Jeremy Scahill?

Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric of “change” and bringing an “end” to the Iraq war realized early on that the now-president-elect had a plan that boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. “combat forces” from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep “residual forces” in place for the foreseeable future.

It’s an interesting choice of terms. “Residual” is defined as “the quantity left over at the end of a process.” This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his “withdrawal” plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.

Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. “I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq.” While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation.

Bu-bu-bu-but – change! Changey change. Hopey change hopey?

Answering anti-war liberal critics who seem surprised that Obama isn’t Dennis Kucinich, Scahill parses Obama’s voting record, his public statements, and the comments of his foreign policy campaign advisers. Worth a full read.

Blogged with the Flock Browser
About these ads

One response to “Scahill Tries to be Heard Through Din of “Change”

  1. So, what would you propose as an alternative to Mr. Obama’s plan?