Article image
Robert Scheer
Truthdig / Truthdig Op-Ed
Published: Friday 6 January 2012
“[Obama] entered his re-election year by signing a $662 billion defense authorization bill that strips away some of our most fundamental liberties and keeps military spending at Cold War levels, and by approving a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.”

Arms Dealer Obama Will Win by Default

Article image

Barack Obama will be re-elected not as a vindication of his policies but because the Republicans are incapable of providing a reasonable challenge to his flawed performance. On the central issue of our time—reigning in the greed of the multinational corporations, led by the financial sector and the defense industry—a Republican presidential victor, with the possible exception of the now-sidelined Ron Paul, would do far less to challenge the kleptocracy of corporate-dominated governance.

As compared to front-runner Mitt Romney, who wants to derail even Obama’s tepid efforts at regulating Wall Street, and who seeks ever more wasteful increases in military spending, the incumbent president appears relatively enlightened, but that is cold comfort.

Not only has Obama been a savior of the banking conglomerates that so generously financed his campaign, but he also has proved to be equally as solicitous of the needs of the military-industrial complex. He entered his re-election year by signing a $662 billion defense authorization bill that strips away some of our most fundamental liberties and keeps military spending at Cold War levels, and by approving a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Those two actions represent an obvious contradiction, since the attack on American soil that kept defense spending so high in the post-9/11 decade was carried out by 15 Saudis and four other men directed by Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi primarily using funding from his native land. Now Saudi Arabia is to be protected as a holdout against the democratic impulse of the Arab Spring because it is our ally against Iran, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudi Arabia, it should be recalled, was one of only three nations, along with the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan, to recognize the Taliban government that harbored bin Laden before 9/11.

This is the same Saudi monarchy that rushed its forces into Bahrain last March to crush a popular uprising. But that doesn’t trouble the Obama administration; for two years it has been aggressively pushing the Saudi arms deal, which includes $30 billion in fighter jets built by Boeing. Forget human rights or the other good stuff Democrats love to prattle on about. As White House spokesman Josh Earnest put it: “This agreement reinforces the strong and enduring relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a strong Saudi defense capability as a key component to regional security.”

The rationale for the first big arms deal with the tyrannical Saudi monarchy since 1992 is that a better-armed Sunni theocracy is needed to counter the threat from the Shiite theocracy in Iran. Once again the U.S. is stoking religious-based fratricide, just as we did in Iraq. Only this time, we are on the side of Saudi Sunnis oppressing Shiites both at home and in neighboring Bahrain. That oppression—along with a U.S. invasion that replaced Tehran’s sworn enemy in Sunni-led Baghdad with a Shiite leadership that had long been nurtured by Iran’s ayatollahs—is what enhances the regional influence of Iran.

If Iran ever does pose a regional military threat because of its nuclear program or any other reason, real or concocted, it will be NATO forces that will take out the threat, not the Saudis, who will still be polishing their latest-model F-15s as icons of a weird conception of modernism.

The real reason for this deal is that it is the only sort of jobs program that Democrats are capable of pushing through an obstructive Congress. The administration boasts that the arms package will result in 50,000 jobs in 44 states, underscoring the warning from Dwight Eisenhower, the last progressive Republican president, about the power of a military-industrial complex that has tentacles in every congressional district. As Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, an Armed Services Committee member who championed this sale, put it: “The F-15 is a world-class aircraft built by hardworking folks right here in St. Louis. I am thrilled for all of the skilled men and women on the F-15 line that this important, big order that I have stood side-by-side with them in working to secure is finally happening.” 

A Democrat running for re-election, McCaskill added, “These are important jobs in our community. I will continue advocating for sales of Boeing products wherever appropriate.” Being a good Democrat, she doesn’t reference Boeing’s profits, which are increasingly dependent upon arming the rest of the world.

That’s the win-win of government-generated profits and jobs on which the Democrats are counting to defeat the Republicans, both through campaign contributions from the more rational among the wealthy and the votes of ordinary people who, despite being seriously hurt in this economy, have nowhere else to turn.

This article was originally posted on Truthdig.

Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer, editor in chief of Truthdig, has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist. His columns appear in newspapers across the country, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. He conducted the famous Playboy magazine interview in which Jimmy Carter confessed to the lust in his heart and he went on to do many interviews for the Los Angeles Times with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and many other prominent political and cultural figures.

FEATURE A

Connect with your friends

Find new content you might like and see what your friends are sharing!

Top Stories

16 comments on "Arms Dealer Obama Will Win by Default"

ywkosgll

bevswitz

January 07, 2012 9:48am

Readers: Pay attention to Robert Scheer. He has the truth about Obama, and hopefully there will rise up a great progressive leader to challenge Obama, that we can all run to and get elected this year. We must havehigh goals that involve the many possible progressive leaders out there, who are just waiting for the right opening to step into the race. Keep your eyes open and support the right people. ........ bevswitz

nhpoet

January 07, 2012 8:21am

I disagree with your premise that Republicans will not be able to nominate anyone who could defeat President Barack Obama next November. New Hampshire's primary next Tuesday may end up with one of the two dark-horse candidates pulling a "Bill Clinton" with a second-place finish.

Two former governors - Buddy Roemer of Louisiana and Jon Huntsman of Utah - are as well qualified (and Huntsman has foreign policy qualifications that none of the other Republican candidates have) as Governor Jimmy Carter was in 1976.

Our sitting president has broken so many campaign promises and has forgotten that he himself is a constitutional attorney that many Democrats (like me) cannot vote for his reelection. Until last fall, Mr. Obama did not know how to stand up to the Opposition in Congress. Only now is he recognizing that the Department of Defense should be the first deep budget cut, and he waited too long to begin winding down our foreign wars. Many more than just Republican conservatives have no faith in his judgment and cannot trust that he actually believes what he says.

I think you could find many reasons why President Obama will be a one-term president like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.

rifbeach

January 07, 2012 12:22pm

YES, Robert Scheer is correct. (Obama is beholden to the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street thugs.) Scheer, I am sure, is also saying we have no alternative in 2012 but to vote for Obama. The alternative would be much worse.
ALWAYS remember that whether we like it or not, politics tends to be voting for the "lesser of two evils".
AND, not voting or voting for a third party candidate is a vote for who ever wins.

rifbeach

January 07, 2012 12:22pm

YES, Robert Scheer is correct. (Obama is beholden to the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street thugs.) Scheer, I am sure, is also saying we have no alternative in 2012 but to vote for Obama. The alternative would be much worse.
ALWAYS remember that whether we like it or not, politics tends to be voting for the "lesser of two evils".
AND, not voting or voting for a third party candidate is a vote for who ever wins.

theosofie

January 06, 2012 6:01pm

So military-Barack ( new name , much more appropriate ) Obama is as we all know , only a puppet of the of the Zionists the money-parasites the sick psychopaths , and are keeping up USA strong economy as it has in ALL TIMES WITH WEAPON SALE and CREATING WARS HERE AND THERE TO MAKE BISSNIES AS USUAL , the Iran-Irak war was started by the Bullshit-Artists by telling BOTH SIDES that you are maybe going to BE ATTACKED , and then they just gave a someone a GOOD MONEY DEAL TO GO ON THE BORDER AND THROW a HAND GRENADE and the proses was going on for 9 years , selling to BOTH SIDES , TO MAKE a good ECONOMY !

boomerscoutofamerica

January 06, 2012 5:53pm

Re. Obama and the banks. Well, the forest was burning and he was put in charge of putting it out. He didn't start the fire, but he made sure it was out. If the implication is, he should have let big banks fail, no one, not even you, Mr. Sheer, knows what the result of that would have been, but one possibility is world wide catastrophe. Yes, the BIG BANKS should be prevented from risking public monies again, but that will take a differently configured Congress with BO in the lead again.

richarda_ga

January 07, 2012 12:23am

@BOOMERSCOUTOFAMERICA - You are living in a fantasy world if you think the Obama administration will ever do anything to regulate the banking and finance industry to in anyway try to prevent a recurrence. His administration didn't just put out the fire. After the fire was out, his administration proceeded to not only protect the arsonists, but to financially reward them, their families, and their friends with both publicly disclosed and recently identified secret programs that further enriched them at the expense of the US taxpayer. Geithner and Summers, who were instrumental in both the final elimination of Glass-Steagall and in preventing any regulation of the derivatives market during the Clinton administration, will ensure that their friends and former peers and co-executives in the financial industry continue to benefit at the expense of the American and global public. And Obama will be complicit in every program in order to ensure the flow of campaign funds. No other reason that a Democratic candidate should receive the massive amounts of campaign contributions he has already received and will continue to receive. He is bought and paid for by the financial industry.

boomerscoutofamerica

January 07, 2012 12:14pm

I've always been an advocate of a clawback provision of any bail out, such that the perps do not enjoy any personal gain from public funds, a.k.a., a reward for their management failures. But seeing BO as a tool of the monied classes is . . . well, disingenuous at the very least. Once BO is reelected he will have no need of a "flow of campaign funds" and, given, one hopes, a Dem House, would quite willingly reinstate a Glass Steagall kind of control. The more worrying fact than BO is the departure of Barney Frank, to my mind the potential brains behind any effective regulation. (And thanks for the thought, but someone holding a position other than yours does not therefore live in a fantasy world.)

Julie C Z

January 06, 2012 4:52pm

The greatest sector of job growth recently has been the health care industry, not the military. I think that is a triumph.

Julie C Z

January 06, 2012 4:51pm

the greatest sector of job growth recently has been the health care industry, not the military. I think that is a triumph.

Riconui

January 06, 2012 3:35pm

That the Saudis can seem to do no wrong in the eyes of those sitting in the seats of power in this country is no accident. Few governments have more money tied up in our economy than the Saudis. Few are invested in defense manufacturers like the Saudis. And I suspect few have spread their hard earned dollars around the salons of Washington like the Saudis. I think the case could easily be made that the real reason that the cheney/bush administration was a fixated on attacking Iraq was because Saddam was selling oil on the black market and thus outside the scope of OPEC and thus outside of Saudi control. The motivation wasn't about TAKING Iraqi oil, it was about keeping it in the ground, the one thing that would have made the benevolent sheikhs in Riyad happy as wealthy oil sheikhs can be. For the most repressive regime in the middle east to be more or less scott free of the effects of the Arab Spring, something bad has to be happening and it has to be happening in DC and there is no doubt large sums of money changing hands. .... I expected the bushies to spend a sizable amount of their time in office kissing Saudi ass, and I wasn't disappointed. I had hoped for better from Obama.

lois v harrison

January 06, 2012 3:20pm

President Obama is doing brain surgery - the skull of America has been split wide open - only the experts around the table can see, grasp the mess. How to stop the bleeding without permanently disabling the patient? Unfortunately, he has to be re-elected to complete the operation America hired him to do - doing both at the same time - in the raging, bloody war zone at home. May the Force be with you President Obama.

Change Agent

January 06, 2012 12:35pm

Obama must be doing something right: both sides are using name-calling to undermine his presidency. He said in 2008 that the ship of state will not turn on a dime, a turn that many left wing ideologues demand. What will turn on a dime is an administration that doesn't even believe in the ship of state except as a battleship--a Republican administration propped up by right wing ideologues.

daviswite

January 06, 2012 11:40am

You should have mentioned this, which greatly complicates your thesis. Perhaps he's trying to balance our payments deficit while making the world a safer place by exporting more weapons. No different from his predecessors or successors, but not by the means you suggest.

daviswite

January 06, 2012 11:44am

You should have mentioned this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/pentagon-to-present-vision-of-reduc...

which greatly complicates your thesis. He's trying to balance our payments deficit while making the world a safer place by exporting more weapons.