On March 28, 2008 at a town hall event in Pennsylvania, Mr. Change said he would return the country to the more traditional foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. According to Obama, "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan..."

Obama went out of his way to praise the first Bush for his handling of the first Persian Gulf War. He said he admired the way Bush and his foreign policy team put together a large coalition before they started the war. Obama represents those in the ruling class that prefer that their imperialist acts be supported by a coalition of other nations. But is multi-lateral imperialism any better than the unilateral brand?

Killing can be made cheaper

He also likes the idea of making war on the cheap. He emphasized that the first Gulf War only cost the U.S. $20 billion, as many of the U.S. allies helped finance the war. Of course Obama made no reference to the cost of the war in Iraqi lives or the over one million Iraqis killed as a result of the sanctions against Iraq that were instituted after the first Gulf War. (He further failed to mention the 1989 Bush invasion of Panama, which cost the lives of as many as 4000 Panamanian civilians.)

The Foreign Policy of Reagan & Kennedy

And don’t forget that Obama also wants to follow in the footsteps of that great foreign policy President, Ronald Reagan. Is that the same Reagan who supported terrorist wars by the right-wing governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and who supported terrorists fighting the government of Nicaragua? Didn’t Reagan support Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war and then sell weapons to the Iranians at the same time in one of the biggest slaughters of the 1980s? Maybe Obama is a big fan of this Iran Contra "diplomacy." Or maybe he admired the Reagan regime’s invasion of the tiny island nation of Grenada (the U.S. won that one).

Of course there is always Obama’s mention of Kennedy’s "successful" foreign policy. Let’s see – the Bay of Pigs’ invasion of Cuba, the escalation of the Vietnam War, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, and all those wonderful precedents.

Obama is against the Iraq War?

Of course we know Obama is against the war in Iraq. He said so. But why did he then support the pro-Iraq war Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in his primary election battle against anti-war Ned Lamont in 2006? Why did he also support and campaign for other pro-war candidates who faced anti-war challengers in their primary races?

Why after his election to the Senate did Obama support and vote for unconditional funding for the Iraq War in both 2005 and 2006. Why did he vote to confirm Bush’s National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to become Secretary of State? Did he admire how she helped launch the Iraq war? Why did he vote against an amendment by Senator Russ Feingold which called for an Iraq withdrawal timetable?

Why in a speech in November 2006, did Obama call for "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq," while also making repeated references to the need to defeat the Iraqi resistance against the U.S. invasion? Why has he refused to pledge to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of his first term if he is elected president? Why has he admitted that U.S. troops may need to remain in Iraq for an "extended period of time," and that "the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq." Why has he called for U.S. forces to maintain a "reduced but active presence," to "protect logistical supply points" and "American enclaves like the Green Zone" as well as "act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists?" How many tens of thousands of troops will remain indefinitely in Iraq with these large loopholes?

War on Pakistan?

If a President Obama is to be an agent of change why did he in August 2007 threaten to attack Pakistan? Obama boasted, "Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Is this any different from the Bush policy of regularly launching missile strikes toward Pakistan?

Increasing the size of the U.S. war machine and escalating the war in Afghanistan

Why does candidate Obama want to increase the size of the U.S. military? "I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines," he says. Maybe he wants to send them to Afghanistan. Obama has promised to send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan.

Supporting U.S. hegemony

Why in a April 24, 2007 major foreign policy speech did the agent of change explicitly reject "the notion that the American moment [he means global hegemony] has passed", and insist that the U.S. once again fill "the position of leader of the free world," while building "the first truly 21st century military...we must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world." In the same speech he stated, "No President should ever hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect ourselves and our vital interests." Whose vital interests – those of the ruling imperialists?

Targets Iran & North Korea

Further in the speech he argues, "[T]he world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program...In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table."

Following in the footpath of George W.

Under Obama the U.S. foreign policy will change? Then why has he refused to unconditionally endorse U.S. ratification of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court? Which war criminals does he wish to protect from prosecution? Why has he not condemned the torture policies of the Bush regime and called for impeachment and criminal proceedings of those responsible? Why does Obama refuse to call for an end to most U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba? Why has he not endorsed a ban on nuclear weapons in space? How is he different from the current leader who also refuses to do the above?

Middle East Peace?

He will have a different policy toward reaching peace in the Middle East, right? Then why did he say on March 5, 2007, "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel." He also stated, "we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests" and that no Israeli leader should ever feel "dragged" to the negotiating table. In 2006 after Israel invaded Lebanon, Obama co-sponsored a Senate resolution defending the invasion. He has called for "fully funding military assistance" to Israel. Did he oppose the $30 billion arms deal that the Bush regime promised to Israel and the billions in arms that will be provided to Saudi Arabia and Egypt in a related arms deal? Of course not!

While he has called for the strict enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions targeted at Iran and Syria, he has never called for the strict enforcement of similar UN Security Council resolutions targeted at Israel, especially those aimed at its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

Who does Obama represent?

None of the above should really surprise anyone. Obama did not get to where he is by threatening the interests of the actual rulers of this country. While posing as an agent of change, he is actually catering to the real interests of the U.S. imperialists. But in his campaign he is also playing a powerful role. There are tens of millions of Americans alienated by the political trajectory of the Bush regime. Obama’s role is to play the "pied piper" to round up these people to follow in his footsteps to serve U.S. imperialism. He knows he can not do this by telling the truth, so instead he plays on people’s hope for change by sowing false illusions of what he will do as president.

We do not have to follow

But we do not have to follow and his real intentions must be exposed. Electing Obama, or Clinton, or McCain will not change the fundamental direction charted by seven plus years of the Bush regime. We can not just hope for change, but we must act in our millions to actually create change. Following false leaders will only lead us down the path to destruction. To see how you can create real change, see worldcantwait.org.