Kasama

By Mike Ely

Most readers know the details: Obama has now announced that he will expand the U.S. war of conquest in Afghanistan — sending tens of thousands of more troops.

His plan is to have new deployment create a window — for bullying-and-bribing Pashtun tribal leaders until they abandon the Taliban and help kill Osama Bin Laden.

Most readers understand this war is not about “defending the American people” — but establishing a stable U.S. domination over a highly strategic arc reaching from Iran (west of Afghanistan) to Pakistan (east of Afghanistan).

Let’s discuss where we don’t have any common understanding. I read the following comments (by JAK) in another forum:

“I did not vote for Obama so he could send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan… To be honest, he did run on expanding the US role in Afghanistan instead of Iraq and I voted for him anyway. So I am not surprised, but it is still some bullshit… Yeah, he didn’t fake it. But I was hoping he’d be more accountable to the people who put him in office.”

I think this pained comment raises important questions:

Why exactly is Obama not “more accountable to the people who put him in office”?

Why does he not represent the core social base of the Democratic Party? Or even the broader spectrum of people who voted for him?

Is it that the poor and unorganized working people are less able to “exert pressure” in Washington than corporate lobbyists, the military and national security establishments? Should we listen to those who urge the people to organize themselves (electorally and non-electorally) to better push this government to the left?

Why do elected Democratic politicians (especially at the presidential level) so unfailing uphold imperialist interests — instead of the interests and desires of their own base? Is it that (by electoral logic) they simply think “where is our base going to go — to the Republicans?” and so “take them for granted”?

Or is all this much more profoundly structural — arising from the inherent functioning of this capitalist class society and the nature of its political system?

Is it that this state and its government serve the imperialist ruling class (through complex historically-evolved institutions and mediations) — and not the popular sentiment of “voters”? And is it that in the absence of huge upheavals, that ruling class has little need to take the desires of the people too seriously into account?

Is there a profound chasm running through the Democratic Party — a fracture line ultimately rooted in class — separating the quite consciously imperialist interests of its establishment and the profoundly different interests of its base? And is that division inherent – especially when it comes to matters of war and empire?

Why is it that many thoughtful and progressive people (like the commentator above) have been so caught up in ” but I was hoping…”?

Why are so many confused and demoralized by these developments? We knew all along that Obama called for “defending U.S. national interests” — in the Persian Gulf, in Afghanistan, in the world as a whole.

Some said they supported Obama because a Black president was historic, and because they felt they were voting against the white racist backlash. Ok, but given that, why are still so many still saying “but I was hoping….”?

Is it because large sections of the people have objective interests in maintaining the empire, or because they don’t clearly understand their own interests and how this system works?

Is it because “nothing else seems possible” — in a non-conjunctural moment without a significant socialist pole in the world? Is it because more radical forces have been unable to articulate an alternative? (What’s the chicken, what’s the egg?)

How do revolutionaries act in this situation?

What will it take to rip people out of these terrible political moorings? And what can we do to accelerate that — while preparing forces capable of forming a revolutionary movement?

For more of this post and discussion, go here.