Obama's Hawk

By Robert Dreyfuss

IN the spring of 1971, a young Marine captain named James L. Jones stood guard as part of a phalanx surrounding the Capitol, with shoot-to-kill orders should antiwar protesters try to storm the building. According to Boys of '67, a recently published biography written by his cousin, Jones, a decorated Vietnam combat officer, brooded about "the Jane Fondas and Jerry Rubins of the world" as he scanned the marchers for any sign of a long-haired Navy lieutenant, John Kerry, whose condemnation of atrocities by US troops rankled him. In Vietnam Jones had served as aide-de-camp to gung-ho Maj. Gen. Raymond Davis, whose plan for defeating North Vietnam included "invading Laos, Cambodia, and the DMZ," said Jones sympathetically.

Today Jones--a retired general and former Marine commandant who headed the US European Command and was commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--will be at Obama's elbow in the White House as national security adviser. It's hard to imagine a less likely choice to be Obama's go-to guy on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, Obama's nominee for secretary of state, and Robert Gates, his nominee for defense secretary, are already widely considered to be tough-minded hawks. But Jones is probably the most hawkish of all, and he seems least compatible with Obama.


Jones is a fierce advocate of NATO expansion. As commander of the alliance from 2003 to 2006, he pushed for it to take greater responsibility for securing oil supplies in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. "Our activities are definitely moving to the East and to the South," he declared, speaking to the National Press Club in 2006. He pushed NATO hard--encountering stiff resistance from European allies--to strengthen its commitment to Afghanistan, and he got NATO involved with training missions in Iraq too. No longer, he says, can NATO confine itself to the defense of Europe; it must increasingly engage in out-of-area operations. "The term 'out of area' doesn't really apply anymore, because that geographical restriction has faded into history," he told the Council on Foreign Relations in 2006. "NATO's also getting ready to certify a NATO response force, which is also a new operational concept that will give the alliance much more flexible capability to do things rapidly at very long distances."

In 2007 Jones became president of the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, meanwhile joining the boards of directors of Chevron and Boeing. Among the eighty-eight recommendations of the institute--including, naturally, Drill, baby, drill!--is this: "The U.S. government should engage the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on energy security challenges and encourage member countries to support the expansion of its mandate to address energy security."

Jones pays lip service to Obama's oft-stated campaign pledge to pull US combat forces out of Iraq over sixteen months. Not long ago, however, Jones was of a different mind. "I think deadlines can work against us," he said in 2007. "And I think a deadline of this magnitude would be against our national interest." His views on Iraq during the run-up to the war aren't known, though it's reasonable to assume that, like Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former Centcom commander, Jones was skeptical of the neoconservative-promoted war. According to Bob Woodward's State of Denial, in 2005 Jones warned the man who was soon to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, that he faced a "debacle" in Iraq. But when many retired generals began to denounce the Bush administration's Iraq policy in 2006, Jones pointedly demurred. "I do not associate myself with the so-called 'revolt of the generals,'" he said.

Regarding Afghanistan, where Jones is a proponent of a troop surge, he's shown himself to be credulous at best. Repeatedly over the past three years he's touted the view that a newly arriving brigade would turn the tide, Vietnam-like, and repel the Taliban. And time and again he's cast doubt upon the plain-as-day fact that the Taliban are resurgent. It is worrying--again echoing hawkish arguments about the Vietnam War--that he links failure in Iraq and Afghanistan to loss of face: "I personally don't believe that the United States can afford to be perceived as having not been successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and I think the consequences for such a perception or such a reality will be with us for years to come in terms of our ability to be a nation of great influence in the twenty-first century."


read more: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/dreyfuss?rel=hp_currently

I wasn't aware of most of this.

In a year, after Jones has proven he is an idiot, Obama can shit can the asswipe and tell the nation that the ideas of the past are, once again, a proven failure.

Set 'em up and knock 'em down politics. Love it!

it makes no fucking sense what so ever but keep spinning away, you are doing a heck of a job!

:eyes:

When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

The problem is we have a defense budget large enough to afford killing every man, woman and child about ten times over. Who heads the damn thing makes no difference.

That said, I really think Obama's gonna shrink the budget.... maybe down to enough to kill us all just twice.

And to do so, people like Jones have to bite the dust, eh?

I would laugh were it not so naive.

http://www.progressive.org/mp_ford011508

“I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines,” Obama told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April.

That’s precisely the number favored by President Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates over a five-year period at a cost of $108 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Sen. Hillary Clinton would add at least 80,000 troops, Rudy Giuliani wants 70,000 additional pairs of boots on the ground, somewhere on the planet, and Mitt Romney would add 100,000.

To what purpose? Both Republicans and front-running Democrats claim to be aiming for dramatically lower U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, over varying, vague spaces of time. Where will the new troops be deployed? A central lesson of human history is that armies are raised in order to be sent somewhere.

Obama, the Great Black Hope (and, apparently, a Great Hope for many whites who consider themselves anti-war), cannot plausibly claim the “peace candidate” mantle while simultaneously serving as a member in good standing of the club that lobbies for ever-increasing military budgets.

Obama has definitively chosen guns over bread, bullets over butter. The money is already earmarked for the generals and admirals and defense contractors, with his signature prominently affixed.

In a sense, the election is over, since all the “viable” candidates are members of the Military Spending Club. None of Clinton’s or Obama’s promises for urban revitalization, infrastructure repair, real health care reform, vastly increased federal aid to schools or affordable housing can be taken seriously so long as they support a
bloated Pentagon.

...are meant to be broken. Obama was up against the idea that he was a Muslim, remember, he had to say he was gonna fight and fight hard. He played it well. When he gets in office and sees the $$ numbers, he's gonna cut defense. He has to. Your article lays out the case of why he has to.

""None of Clinton’s or Obama’s promises for urban revitalization, infrastructure repair, real health care reform, vastly increased federal aid to schools or affordable housing can be taken seriously so long as they support a
bloated Pentagon.

to the totally fucking bogus 'war on terra'. Bye pollyanna. :eyes:

If he continues to bloat the budget he'll be doomed. Maybe. There are a lot of people who do want to kill others, eh?

Bye Ms. negative.

and a critical thinker who is fucking sick and tired of being played. No more.

Obama says he's gonna pull out of Iraq.

So, you think Obama is playing you? You don't trust him?

when hes trying to make decisions on policy. I like the fact he seems to be putting people in his cabinet who do not agree with what hes told us these last two years what he is. Bad decisions get made when one is surrounded by like minded individuals. ACTUALLY

look at raygun, bush1 and juniors track records, see what a blunder they were. Then tell me that Obama surrounding himself with like minded people would not be the same.

I can't understand hiring someone for that role that doesn't share your philosophy and intentions for our national defense. It's just a foolish waste of time, really. There are plenty of places he can look to find opinions guided by reflexive militarism, jingoistic nationalism, and hegemonic democratization schemes.

Its pretty much what he's said he was going to do all along. Theres going to be some things that will be different from what he said a while back due to the knowledge he's gained in the meantime. I like that in a person too when they are not so insecure as to not be able to change with the times. The message I've been getting from Obama and the actions hes taking now are right on the mark.

For the sake of my trying to better understand you may I ask about how old you are? I'm soon to be 61 myself.

I'm 48.

I've seen this strategy at work before. The folks on the other side need to come to the table with a sincere and valid position for their counsel to be of any reasonable use in any sort of productive, meaningful relationship which expects results which comport to our own (demonstrated correct) Democratic values and principles.

I guess maybe thats why I see it differently. Hopefully we'll both be here a few years from now so we can compare notes on what kind of a Presidency Obama's will be. No one of us has a lock on what is to come, all we can do is make a guess. Come to think of it I don't even see that liking one another is all that important at the level Obama and his staff/cabinet are at. If I was in his shoes I would want pragmatic well educated people with strong personalities who were tolerant of one another around me for the most part. Very few if any buddy buddy relationships

It matters what position is advocated, accepted, and put into practice. If choosing to heed the counsel of someone with a correct understanding of the challenges and the opportunities we face and rejecting those advocating failed approaches and discredited strategies is 'choosing sides' than I think it's proper.

From what I've seen so far I like PE Obamas approach to solving problems. Up to this point in time he has a pretty good track record and thats where the bulk of my comfort comes from/lies. He is in the process of build one hell of a cabinet if you ask me. They'll be some good decisions come from them too. Decisions that will affect me that I can live with.

no doubt on that, madokie. no doubt.

...supported the Invasion/Occupation of Iraq.
Every single one of them demonstrated poor judgment....
but NOW we can expect them to Get it Right?

Obama promised to listen to all voices, but...


Change? :shrug:

There is arguable potential there for a 'clear change', if not necessarily in Defense.

Neither did our allies as they rejected Ukraine and Georgia for membership recently.

I tend to accept that the Europeans and others should be free to develop their own sources of energy, independent from our own alliances. It's been the bane of this administration and the corporate executives who have infected these diplomatic and foreign policy posts that other countries would form dependent relationships with oil-rich nations like Iran, or nuclear fuel and nuclear plant cooperation like Russia offers Iran in exchange for billions of dollars in oil contracts. China too.

I don't think there's a more pernicious 'bully' in the way of those relationships than the U.S. under Boosh.

It no longer has a purpose and should be dissolved.

At least one of the few people in gov't/the military.

In government I think its good to be non pro anything. Except for the constitution and the rule of law tat is.

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."

"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."

"I think Jim Jones will be very, very effective as the national security adviser.”

http://www.wsws.org/tools/index.php?page=print&...

But, the fact is that neither Obama or HRC moved to their Iraq exit plans, which were functionally similar to Kerry/Feingold which they both had condemned 7 or 8 months before, only when it was a majority opinion.

I am not impressed that Jones could not understand why John Kerry spoke out about things that genuinely happened, in addition to calling for an end to the war, for the government to take care of vets who needed it and a call to change the foreign policy that got us into Vietnam. It is ironic that if they do not move to do what Obama ran on, John Kerry will again have the SFRC as a platform - this time as Chair. I prefer though that they will more away from these hawkish positions.

Hillary didnot want any body dividing her power e.g. Powell/Rice/Rumsfeld
So Susan Rice got exiled to New York and this dork got to be whatever he is.