• Listen to this segment

GUEST: Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco

Senator Barack Obama, one of the top two leading 2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls, has shown his true colors. In a recent speech he called on the US to pull out of Iraq and focus on what he calls “the real sources of terrorism”: Afghanistan and Pakistan, including unilateral military action in Pakistan if necessary. The speech comes amid an ongoing squabble between Obama and Senator Hilary Clinton, the other leading Democratic candidate. The latest tiff happened during a YouTube sponsored debate over the advisability of meeting with so-called “hostile” leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, without preconditions. But they seem to agree on Afghanistan with Clinton saying in a recent speech, “Distracted by Iraq, we have squandered much of what our military accomplished in Afghanistan.” Are the two candidates really that different? Would a Clinton or Obama presidency simply mean getting mostly out of Iraq and getting deeper into Afghanistan? If so, is that good enough for most Americans?

Rough Transcript:

Sonali Kolhatkar: First, let’s talk about these two candidates on Iraq. They have held many, many speeches. They are on the campaign trail, practically, they are raising a lot of money, and the main issue seems to be Iraq, because that’s of course what the majority of Americans are probably going to test them on. How different are both of these candidates on Iraq?

Stephen Zunes: There is not a whole lot of difference in terms of what they say they would do as president. Barack Obama has emphasized, of course, that he opposed the war from the beginning, unlike Hillary Clinton. In fact, Senator Clinton defended her vote in support of the war as late as early last year. She has been relatively late to the so-called anti-war camp, but both of them, last year, voted to support unconditional funding for the war and this year, for the first time, voted against unconditional funding. They talk about redeployment, not total withdrawal. Both of them, Clinton in particular, seem committed to keeping a residual force in the country that would engage in a variety of activities. Of course protection and counterterrorism really matter, which some estimates believe mean keeping as many as 50,000 troops in the country. Obama would presumably be somewhat less than that, but he, too, has not called for a total withdrawal, as has Kucinich and some other democratic dissidents.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, let’s take a listen, actually, to what Barack Obama himself had to say, not specifically about Iraq, but also about Afghanistan. This is the speech that he gave very recently that has been getting a lot of attention and certainly some democrats seem impressed, but others don’t. I’m picking a series of excerpts where he focuses on what he would do if he were president, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clip:
Barack Obama: 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 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. Let me talk about each of these in turn. The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As president, I will deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same; and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. So the second step in my strategy would be to build our capacity and our partnership to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world and to deny them the world’s most dangerous weapons. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broad set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I’ll ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists and to help foreign militaries to do the same.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And that is Senator Barack Obama speaking very recently about what he would do if he were president. Stephen Zunes, what are your thoughts on this? I don’t think too many folks expected his comments, particularly on Pakistan.

Stephen Zunes: Obama seems to be aligning himself pretty squarely with the foreign policy establishment, which, actually, compared to the Bush administration and many of the positions that Senator Clinton has taken, is actually a more moderate position. Recognizing that Iraq is not the center of the war on terrorism, that Al-Quaeda in Iraq is not the same Al-Quaeda that attacked the United States, that the mega-terrorists of Al-Quaeda that attacked the United States and could threaten to attack again are indeed based in the hinterlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan and that’s really where the focus of US counterterrorism strategy should be. And that, as far as he goes, is quite reasonable. But problematic, of course, is his idea that the way to deal with this is through the way we have been dealing with it, mainly high altitude bombing and other military actions, which have proven to be counterproductive in Afghanistan and if we extended that into Pakistan as well, could even have worse results in terms of actually strengthening them by the popular resentment among the tribal peoples there that would be subjected to the bombing and potentially destabilizing Pakistan itself. So, while he is correct in terms of the focus of were the energy should be, his solutions, I think, are frankly quite dangerous.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And Hillary Clinton doesn’t seem to be as specific, or at least not yet, as Obama, in her thinking on Afghanistan. In one of her latest speeches, as I quoted earlier, she basically said that we have been distracted by Iraq and limited the potential of Karzai’s government, failed to stem the renewed aggression by the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. She accuses the Bush administration of neglecting Afghanistan, the terrorists and drug traffickers in particular, and talks about how the opium production has increased hugely. But that’s as far as she goes. What do you expect that Hillary Clinton would do, or at least what position she would take, on Afghanistan?

Stephen Zunes: It is interesting that, despite claiming that Barack Obama is somehow naïve or inexperienced or whatever, he actually has put together more detailed policy positions on foreign policy and a number of other issues than has Hillary Clinton. But the problem of course with Afghanistan is not just neglect, and the fact that so much of our resources have gone to the disaster in Iraq and not Afghanistan, but they have frankly been wrong that we have allied with some of the most notorious war lords whose human rights abuses are comparable to that of the Taliban. We have failed to recognize that the conflict is at least as much a tribal one as it is an ideological one, thereby opening up the possibility for a negotiated settlement, which seems that the major candidates have completely ruled out, and the underlying issue that it’s a classic case of using military solutions to complex social, political and economic problems. And while Obama, I think, takes the point that we do need to look at these other issues in greater detail and more seriously than Hillary Clinton or the Bush administration, I think as long as there is this emphasis on the military side, it not only raises serious legal and moral concerns, but even by measures of what is best for US national security, they continue to prove to be counterproductive.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So it seems as though neither of the two candidates is actually identifying the problems with our Afghanistan strategy and would simply continue Bush’s current policies there, but with more troops there and fewer troops in Iraq?

Stephen Zunes: Exactly, and while Obama is correct in challenging the cobbling of the Pakistani dictatorship, he seems to recognize that supporting Musharraf has not been a very smart idea. You know, the idea of taking unilateral military action, it just avoids the obvious point that that would just makes things worse. He could be talking about a particular surgical strike, a one time thing if they have intelligence on a particular person, which has actually been attempted once or twice already. He may not be talking about a full-scale invasion or major bombing campaign or anything like that. In fact, I would guess that he is smart enough not to go that far, but even raising this kind of thing at all, I think, complicates the situation and I think it moves the debate in the wrong direction.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Does it seem to you, Stephen, as though Hillary Clinton may in fact be Bush-Cheney light, as some have accused her recently of being, while Obama is sort of a slightly nicer imperialist?

Stephen Zunes: I think that’s a very good way of putting it. I think Obama is pretty much squarely within the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment, including even some of the more enlightened segments of that, not particularly progressive by any measure, you know, but certainly a little smarter, whereas Hillary has, in remarkable ways, allied with the neoconservatives in terms of not just voting for the Iraq invasion, but justifying it on grounds that seemed to basically reject the whole post-World War II international legal consensus about the so-called preventative war in terms of supporting these kinds of acts of aggression. Certainly she has allied with the most hard-line elements in Israel in terms of Israeli policy towards Lebanon and the Palestinians, even criticizing the Bush administration from the right, and similar in terms of Syria, Lebanon, and other countries. She has taken consistently hard-line positions on Iran. She has criticized the Bush administration for allowing the Europeans to take the lead in diplomatic efforts. And not only has she threatened the use of military force against Iran, but she has refused to rule out the use of first-strike tactical nuclear weapons against that country.

Sonali Kolhatkar: That’s right. While Obama has actually said that he would not use nuclear weapons.

Stephen Zunes: That’s right, and she has attacked him for being naïve and weak for doing that. But, of course, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which we are supposedly trying to enforce vis-à-vis Iran, specifically prohibits any nuclear power from using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Now, Stephen, what does this interesting tiff over meeting with Hugo Chavez and leaders like Ahmadinejad, what does that tell us about the two candidates? In a recent You Tube-sponsored debate, Senator Barack Obama said he would meet with leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and Hillary Clinton has basically called that naïve and irresponsible, saying that Obama isn’t ready for the diplomatic stage. What does this tell us about these two candidates?

Stephen Zunes: Again, that shows that Obama is pretty much in the foreign policy establishment. And remember that even Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan met the leaders of the Soviet Union and China during the height of the Cold War. And Nixon’s trip to China, of course. At that time, we had no diplomatic relations with that country, and they were the ultimate pariah state. President Reagan, not only met with Soviet and Chinese leaders, but with Ceau?escu of Romania and other really hard-line communists and others, and it wasn’t considered that big a deal.

Sonali Kolhatkar: But it’s presidents like Bush who refuse to meet with people that he, basically, has deemed hostile.

Stephen Zunes: Yes, and again, Hillary Clinton seems to ally with the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration in saying that, if you dare even talk to a government that we don’t like, you are by definition some kind of appeaser. That’s really a dangerous kind of approach. I mean, Obama is no appeaser. He made this very clear in a whole series of foreign policy statements, but he believes the dialog should remain open and hear, at least, where these leaders are coming from. And so it’s pretty clear, I think, your characterization of Hillary Clinton as Bush-Cheney light is a very accurate one.

Sonali Kolhatkar: But it seems very sad that the American voters are left with a choice between Bush-Cheney light and smart imperialist. Is it not? And given that set of circumstances, what are the options, you think?

Stephen Zunes: There are a number of things. Well, there are opportunities, candidate forums or through You Tube, or whatever, to raise these kinds of issues, to keep pressing them, you know, particularly Obama, who is trying to portray himself as the more progressive of the major candidates. Certainly, write letters to the editor and call in to talk shows. Keep these issues alive, I think, if you are a registered democrat, supporting Dennis Kucinich or candidates that do take the more genuinely progressive position, and at least holding up the threat of a third party alternative, if the democrats fail to offer a real choice for the voters in November. So I think we should definitely put the pressure on, because I found time and time again, that it is less important who we elect, it’s the choices we give them. And, the very fact that Hillary Clinton is at least [inaudible] an anti-war position, something that she totally rejected as recently as a year ago, is indicative that the anti-war movement and the more progressive voices are getting through. That has made it very clear that there is no way you will get a democratic nomination unless you at least take an anti-Iraq War position.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Very, very briefly, though, Stephen; is it a mistake for the anti-war movement to take the position out of Iraq but really not make any comments on Afghanistan because it seems as though Afghanistan is providing an out, if you will, for these democratic candidates?

Stephen Zunes: I think we really need to stress the bigger question, which is the fact that the more the United States has militarized the Middle East, the less secure we have become. And I think this sixty-one billion dollar arms deal for the Middle East that Bush is pushing, I would be very interested to see what the democratic candidates have to say about that.

Sonali Kolhatkar: That’s right. We did cover that on our program earlier in this week. Stephen Zunes, I want to thank you very much for joining us today.

Stephen Zunes: My pleasure.

Special Thanks to Claudia Greyeyes for transcribing this interview.