J. Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq

Jeremy Scahill reports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will not "rule out" using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years.

via Democracy Now [transcript, video/audio links]

Is this Colin Powell's "pottery barn rule" -- "You break it, you owe it." -- in action?

Releated -- Chris Hedges says about Iraq: "[It] is a caldron of weapons, lawlessness, hate and criminality that is destined to implode."

see: The Calm Before the Conflagration, by Chris Hedges

•  I saw this today. It saddened me.

  We are not getting out of Iraq unless we the People hit the streets and demand it.

  by Owllwoman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM PDT

  •  Our Power is In the Streets

    Anybody who thinks electing Obama (or even less plausibly, Clinton) will end this war is fooling themselves. The stakes are far too high for our corporate imperial overlords: a loss in Iraq will spell the end of US global hegemony within a generation. The only way those troops will come home is if they are decisively defeated militarily (not impossible) or/and there is a movement in this country that raises the political costs of the war by threatening social peace and stability. Anything less will not do the trick.

    by Christopher Day on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:04:25 PM PDT

  •  Last Time It Took Both Citizens in Streets and

    troops mutinying to do it.

    Today's troops won't mutiny.

    by Gooserock on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM PDT

•  We need to pressure them to ban mercenaries.

  That is plain common sense.

  As for right now, the US occupation of Iraq seems to be relying on mercenaries pretty heavily, so getting them out will have to be part of ending the occupation. Which we'll also need to pressure them to do.

  by klizard on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:46:11 PM PDT

•  Personally

  I think the US exit policy should be this. Pull the troops out and tell Iraq they are free to hire BlLackwater and any other " private security force" if they need top notch protection. The government shouldnt be in the " war and protection" business.. obivously " socialized" armies are inefficient and cant can't the job as well as the "private sector". Iraq's vast oil revenues could support the higher wage private forces. Use the Republican line to get out of Iraq. "Let the private sector do it better, and let the person who needs the protection foot the bill".

  by yogipohaku on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM PDT

•  (groan) it's their vagueness that's the story

  and it's incredibly frustrating.  

  Thanks for catching this.

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM PDT

  •  Not Really Vaguenes

    but rather dissembling. They say they will end the war when a close examination of their proposals clearly indicates that they won't. They are both beholden to the same corporate-financial-military elite as McCain. the war won't end unless we understand that we are going to have to turn up the heat on whoever is in the White House after the elections. We can't afford any illusions about these folks.

    by Christopher Day on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM PDT

    •  Well...the 'war' ended a long time ago

      the problem is the occupation.  And I do think Obama and Clinton have different ideas about what to do with this occupation.

      Obama wants to put everyone in a room and then he will  make peace.   I think he believes he can do that.

      Clinton wants to set up a process and then use that to stabilize the region.  I think she believes she can do that.

      Bush/Cheney/Satan want to keep the tap open so they can run as much cash through the machine as possible.  

      There are, of course, ties between Obama and Clinton and the military industry, but it's no the same as Bush.

      But I agree: the mess needs to end and our folks need to do a much, much better job telling the country how that's going to happen (and when).

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM PDT

•  very sad news ...

  Couple of my friends are serving in Iraq and they barely get paid like $15,000, $18,000 a year. While many mercs are making 6 figures easily (according to many sources such as this:
  http://iraqforsale.bravenewtheaters....

  I think if McCain is the president, and that economy sinks to the level which oil hits $150 a barrel, dollar worth as much as 80% of Canadian dollar.

  Maybe, and just maybe by then people will realize how much the GOP have looted the country.

  by neoconjob on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM PDT

  •  ahh never mind, wrong link

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/...

    by neoconjob on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

    •  and here:

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      by neoconjob on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM PDT

•  Without Unremitting Pressure

  Obama will prove himself to be just another DLC-grown Democrat with a tremendous gift for upbeat rhetoric and the ability to put a progressive mask over the same old corporatocracy.

  With unremitting pressure from the left, he has a chance to achieve greatness.

  Let's help him go through door number two.

  To get there, it's not enough to vote. We will be needed in the streets demanding the change he's been selling, or we will certainly be served a cheap counterfeit.

  by greenskeeper on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:52:26 PM PDT

  •  testify! n/t

    by kulshan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:54:21 PM PDT

•  nice 3 paragrpahs

  I like Jeremy Scahill , but this smells of book pimping, not a lot, just a little.

  by Roger Fox on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM PDT

•  Recommend This Diary

  I heard this on the radio this morning. Scahill very persuasively breaks down how both Obama and Clinton's plans for "exiting" Iraq would leave in place an occupation force of between 60 and 90,000 troops, which, frankly, is all McCain would probably be able to keep there as well given the effects of the heavy rotations.

  The forces needed for: 1. the "defense of our embassy" (i.e. the giant Green Zone complex and routes to the airport), 2. "trainers" and their security, and 3. "a force able to attack Al Qaeda will make for a significant occupation force.

  I think its still important to elect a president who the American people will EXPECT to get out of Iraq, but we should not have any illusions that either Clinton or Obama will actually end the occupation if we don't have an independent anti-war movement that isn't afraid to target a Democratic administration.

  We need to adjust our understanding of the situation for the moment when the war in Iraq becomes a "Democratic war." The movement against the wra in VietNam had to deal with this situation from the outset and was only able to really apply effective pressure once large numbers of liberals were willing to understand that the Democratic Party was as committed to imperialism and the military-industrial complex as the Republicans. This will be a hard lesson for many people here to re-learn, but re-learn it we must if we want to stop the war.

  by Christopher Day on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM PDT

  •  and yet Jeremy chose to title his article on....

    Common Dreams , "Obama's Mercenary Position"??

    huh.

    so its whoring for book sales and a hit piece??

    Sweet.

    couldnt even title is Obama & Clinton's Mercenary Position?

    what a Shill.

    by kulshan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM PDT

    •  dont worry NetRoots will hold Obama accountable.

      no free passes for any president.

      regardless of party.

      by kulshan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM PDT

      •  "Don't Worry"?

        It won't happen unless we make it happen and unless we are willing to put our bodies on the line and threaten domestic social peace. There is nothing guaranteed in this world, and certainly not that the people will step up to their responsibilities to stop this war.

        by Christopher Day on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM PDT

        •  and all the protests in the world wont change it.

          representative government is the only way.

          sorry.

          Dont kill the messenger .

          someone should have told you a while ago.

          by kulshan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM PDT

    •  Nonsense

      Readers at Common Dreams already expect MCCain and Clinton to continue the war. What is "news" to many is that Obama is just as committed to continuing the occupation and using Blackwater et al as Clinton.

      by Christopher Day on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM PDT

•  Jeremy Scahill is intellectually dis-honest.....

  He doesnt bother to mention that HRC has the same stance and he hasnt turned it into a hit piece on Commmon Dreams for her.

  Now of course he qualifies it by saying....

  (Hillary Clinton’s staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)

  As if her silence means she is any less deserving of the same criticism??

  Why did he choose to write a hit piece on Obama instead??

  Are we really to believe it was because they returned his calls ,opposed to Clinton's staff who seems to have a problem with that issue specifically?

  The fact is , Jeremny is choosing to interject his personal agenda(and sell some more books in the meantime) into the Presidential election.

  Try asking Obama if he would use Blackwater for mercenaries and security I bet you would get a diffrent answer. Instead he asks if they will vow to not use "private contractors". Knowing how broad a scope that covers and that it would be impossible to do.

  And then titles the article , not "Obamas stance on Contractor", its" Obama's Mercenary Position".

  Journalist huh?

  fuckin pathetic.

  by kulshan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM PDT

  •  from J.S. --

    Scahill: "[T]he reason I focus on Obama instead of Hillary on this is because Barack Obama has actually been at the forefront of addressing the mercenary issue in the Congress."

    by manonfyre on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

  •  Apparently

    your loyalty to Obama trumps your commitment to getting us out of Iraq. The reason Scahill targets Obama is because that is where the greatest illusions are. Most of us already distrust Clinton's commitment to ending the war. Scahill is confronting us with an inconvenient truth about Obama. I say we should face up to it.

    by Christopher Day on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM PDT

    •  not to mention

      aren't we told dozens of times daily on DKos that Obama IS the Democratic nominee?  Why give a sh*t about what Clinton thinks at this point?

      by h bridges on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:25:26 PM PDT

      •  i'm sleeping better since hillary lost

        by memofromturner on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:38:34 PM PDT

  •  Today on Democracy Now he

    was talking about both of them, not one over the other.

    by Owllwoman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM PDT

•  I saw the Hedges piece the other day...

  ...it scared the crap out of me.

  by a gilas girl on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM PDT

•  Running to the Center

  It sunk Hillary when she started doing it too early in the primaries.  I hope that a President Obama will ultimately do the right thing.  

  by Spirit of Fighting Bob on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM PDT

•  Bill C had no problem employing mercs

  in Colombia and the Balkans. Dynecorp.

  by ben masel on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:27:30 PM PDT