Barack Obama Ain’t Nothin’ But a War Ho’

Senator Barack Obama believes himself to be the reincarnation of President John F. Kennedy. For those of us who are schooled in history — real history — that’s not a good thing. Kennedy tried on many occasions to assassinate Fidel Castro, and set in motion events that led to military dictatorships assuming power throughout Latin America. Kennedy, early in the month of November, 1963, gave the order to murder South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. Kennedy met his own fate a few weeks later, in Dallas, but he had already set in motion a war that would claim 58 thousand American and three million Vietnamese lives.

Barack Obama is as stupid and dangerous as Kennedy. Obama wants to invade Pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world, where Osama bin Ladin is holed up. The Pakistani regime installed the Taliban in Afghanistan, which became the incubator of Al Quaeda. President Pervez Musharaff, a general who has never been freely elected, depends on the backing of rightwing Muslim fundamentalists and the military to stay in power. And, Oh yes, the United States, which provides many billions of dollars in “aid” per year to prop up the regime.

Barack Obama will carry us into a suicidal conflict.

Osama bin Ladin, it is universally agreed, lives in Waziristan, in western Pakistan. Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Sen. Obama launched what he considers a bold new foreign policy initiative: invade Waziristan. Obama was clearly attempting to place himself on the hawkish side of opponent Hillary Clinton, mouthing warmongering language designed to position him as a warrior-statesman. “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 to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Obama told the foreign policy establishment. The sovereignty of Pakistan will not be respected, under an Obama presidency. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

But Pakistan has The Bomb. And there is no telling what kind of regime will replace Musharraf once he is overthrown by his own military or fundamentalist Muslim supporters when the Americans invade Waziristan, Pakistani territory. Musharraf has told them over and over again that an invasion of Waziristan would destablilize his government. However, Obama is not listening. He is more intent on out-warmongering Hillary Clinton, than making sense of the world.

“We must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan,” said Obama, “it is a democratic ally.” That is a call for regime change. Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people, created in 1947 out of the wreckage of British India, to become a Muslim State, with a Muslim atomic bomb. Obama has no idea how to impose a new regime, that would be more friendly to the United States. Instead, he proposes that western Pakistan be invaded in the search for bin Ladin — a move that would unite both the Right and the secular Left in opposition to the fragile military government.

Obama is a confused man, driven by consultants and no common sense. The United States has coddled and put cash in the accounts of the Pakistani military for two generations, as a bulwark against socialist India, also a nuclear power. The Americans’ Saudi surrogates financially supported the religious schools in western Pakistan that gave birth to the Taliban, and took over Afghanistan. Obama now proposes that the U.S. fund an alternative school system in Pakistan — but under what regime? He has no idea, and not a clue about how to secure The Bomb.

Barack Obama reacts to the world’s response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his white counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called “war on terror,” to take “the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military.

So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party, planning an alternative War. He has told us so, and we should believe him. He is no peace candidate, and goes out of his way to prove it. The problem is, Osama bin Ladin does not have The Bomb, but the Pakistani military does. Senator Obama would destabilize a regime that is a nuclear power, and has nothing to say except that he would establish schools to replace tens of thousands of maddrassas. What a fool.

The Pakistani regime will not go down in any way that is to the Americans’ advantage. Barack Obama is talking trash that will get us incinerated. He is so intent on defining himself as War President, he defeats peace in its bed. Obama has no intention to get out of Iraq, either — how could he, if he wants to attack Waziristan, and shift troops to Afghanistan? Obama is a tricky speaker; who plays word games. Listen to him: He has “a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008.” Sounds like withdrawal from Iraq, right?” Wrong. There are 180,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of them not in “combat brigades,” and about 100,000 mercenaries in the country. It is thoroughly occupied. Obama would do a cosmetic withdrawal, and then move the “combat” troops to a far more dangerous war, in Waziristan, that would quickly spread to all of Pakistan and threaten the survival of our great cities.

“My plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq,” Obama told the fat cats at the Woodrow Wilson Center. In other words, he is not about to get out of Iraq. Barack Obama is a liar of the first order.

Obama masks himself as a peace candidate, but he is really a son of war. He carries the “White Man’s Burden,” proudly. He will carry us into a suicidal conflict, with relish.

We must reject him.

Glen Ford is Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, where this article first appeared. He can be contacted at: Read other articles by Glen, or visit Glen's website.

10 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. hp said on August 10th, 2007 at 8:14am #

    This ain’t rocket science, hell, it ain’t even high school level.
    All bullshit and peripheral maneuvering aside, the only contender for POTUS who has not and will not rush to Israel to fall on their knees and claim eternal allegiance to “our special friend” is Dr. Ron Paul, who, by the way, really is a doctor.
    Isn’t that special.
    JFK, RFK, JFK jr., Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, Ron Paul?
    But hell, Carnahan easily defeated the cretin Ashcroft even while dead.

  2. sk said on August 10th, 2007 at 8:34am #

    Glen Ford remains stuck on the fable of “socialist India” of the 50’s (which under Nehru’s image friendly administration was expert in giving lip service to “Gandhian values” that so dazzled the pilgrimage making MLK and other black leaders of the era).

    Obama is speaking as a mouthpiece of the funding friendly, politically powerful, and historically Democratic voting Indian immigrant lobby (whose most vocal part is so fascistic and anti-Muslim that a noted leader from back home cannot even get a visa to most Western countries) and which has over the last few years become “strange bedfellows” with forces pushing for a “Clash of Civilizations” against Muslims.

  3. ans said on August 10th, 2007 at 11:57am #

    Except that Ron Paul is a racist and believes there is a free-market solution to everything. He doesn’t believe that systematic and institutionalized racism or patriarchy even exist, either. (

    Glen Ford’s right about Obama. The guy is a sell-out.

  4. JE said on August 10th, 2007 at 1:24pm #

    The assumption in this article I would call into question pertains to Osama bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden has most likely been dead for four years now. His spectre is now invoked for propaganda purposes by both factions of the business party in the US.

  5. hp said on August 10th, 2007 at 6:35pm #

    Ron Paul a racist? Quite a statement. I’m sure Ron Paul, who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, has delivered one or two black and brown ones. And because someone differs on economics, that hardly makes him a racist. You sound like a bigot, sir.

  6. sk said on August 10th, 2007 at 7:08pm #

    btw, someone needs to inform Glen Ford before he sallies forth to another round of uninformed bombast that most Indians have “come to terms with the founder of Pakistan and his country”. The outdated propaganda script that he’s reading off (“Pakistan was the British and American answer to ascendant Indian socialism”) and his wild pronouncements (“Osama bin Ladin, it is universally agreed, lives in Waziristan, in western Pakistan”) only detract from his standing as a genuine voice of progressive black opinion.

  7. Deadbeat said on August 11th, 2007 at 9:13am #


    Thank for the link. According the the article and looking at Paul’s own word clearly identifies his bigotry and racism. Below are quotes of Paul

    Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

    Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

    If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

    Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

  8. hp said on August 11th, 2007 at 12:37pm #

    Is it Ron Paul who is racist or is it math, statistics and reality that is racist?

  9. Hue Longer said on August 11th, 2007 at 8:03pm #

    are you serious, hp?

  10. Tusker said on August 14th, 2007 at 11:46pm #

    Does anyone seriously think that a man of Kenyan origin with a name like Barrack Obama is EVER going to be president of the USA ? What is all this fuss about ?

    Obama is there to give cover to Hilary Clinton and deflect some of the flack, that ALL !