Further discussion on Obama as a hawk

Some respondents to the previous post share Red Eye's view that an Obama
administration, despite the dovish impression he gives to doves, will continue
the long trajectory of increased U.S. government militarism, especially in the
Middle East, including an alignment with the Likud in Israel. Others believe
-- mostly on their hopes rather than on any hard evidence -- that Obama is
really a sheep in wolf's clothing. Once elected, he will unveil his hidden,
dovish self and ramp down U.S. militarism.

While I understand this hope, I think it is based on wishful thinking. This
should be clear to those who take a careful look at Obama's actual
positions, his foreign policy advisers, his big givers, and the job he will
inherit. After all, Obama would be the Chief Executive and
Commander-in-Chief of an enormous, but rapidly declining empire. It is
armed to the teeth and intent or remaining the planet's hegemonic power,
especially when it comes to oil.

Furthermore, Obama, like the other candidates, proposes an expansion of the
military in terms of troops and budget. He also will be the leader of a party
which has a long history of foreign wars (WWI, Korea, Cold, Vietnam, Kosovo)
and domestic repression (WWI Sabotage act, WWII concentration camps for
Japanese, post-war witch hunts, Cointelpro, Patriot Act, Homeland Security).
Finally, he will inherent the Carter Doctrine (Persian Gulf oil is a vital US interest,
and the US government will use military force to secure it), as well as most of
Carter's and Clinton's foreign policy teams.

Face it, the Democratic Party' establishment (funders, think tanks,
officials, pundits) are extremely hawkish, and they have catapulted Obama
to be their nominee in just a few years. The doves, like Kucinich, are a
tiny fringe. They may have widespread support from the party's base, but no
influence when it comes to foreign and military policy.

Conclusion? Without an enormous mass movement similar to the 60s and early
70s, the "change" just won't happen. A few pleasant words pitched at
progressive voters influenced by ahistorical hopes, negative campaigning
(Republicans are bad), and wedge issues (abortion, guns, sustainability),
may win "lesser evil" votes, but they will not produce a qualitative change
in foreign policy.