Jeremy Scahill writes:
Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn’t think much of Rep. Barney Frank’s call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. "To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit," Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. "If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs."
But Obama instead went to The Dark Side and is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan War/Occupation spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan civilians. Obama’s budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush-Cheney administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration’s projections for FY 2010.
Where's the change folks?
Clearly the audacity of "stay the NeoCon course" has won out, while any hope of reduced global violence, and a reduced Military foot print on the World has lost.
Just what does this say about Obama sense of priorites (and his honesty)?
More and more Democrats are getting a little restless:
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.): dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as "embarrassingly naive,". Conyers continued, "He occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances."
Rep Jim McGovern (D., Mass): "I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D., CA): "I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it. As currently proposed this funding will do two things: It will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely. I cannot support either of these scenarios. Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid and regional diplomatic efforts."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., OH): "This budget is a statement of principles for the upcoming year, and I cannot accept it in its entirety. I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. The Washington Post reports today another 10,000 troops may be sent to Afghanistan, bringing our total number of troops there to as much as 78,000 by 2011 – a more than 100% increase from today’s troop levels. This budget is a plan that authorizes the expansion of the war. I simply cannot endorse a budget or a plan that sends more of our brave men and women to Afghanistan, a conflict which has the potential to become this generation’s Vietnam."
Not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the Wars and Occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan in a "supplemental" spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush’s campaign to mask the full military budget and the total outrageous cost of these wars.
Unfortunately, the antiwar caucus of Democrats is unlikely to have enough votes to block it, given the increasingly overt pro-war nature of the Democratic leadership. Neither Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, or Nancy Pelosi will put up a fight (they didn't put up any serious fight against George W. Bush or Dick Cheney either).
Obama represents a betrayal of everything that Martin L. King really stood for:
The grassroots needs to speak out now and mobilize.