A Commander-in-Chief Elected to End a War

A Commander-in-Chief Elected to End a War

A Commander-in-Chief Elected to End a War

Barack Obama’s presidency will be recorded in the history books as having begun on January 20, 2009, in Washington, D.C.

In fact, it began on another, colder January night in Dubuque, Iowa. Obama was not in Dubuque that night.

But Brianna Cleland, a 22-year-old teacher, was.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Barack Obama’s presidency will be recorded in the history books as having begun on January 20, 2009, in Washington, D.C.

In fact, it began on another, colder January night in Dubuque, Iowa. Obama was not in Dubuque that night.

But Brianna Cleland, a 22-year-old teacher, was.

“I really want to make something happen in America,” she told me that night. “And the way to do that is with someone new, with someone different, and that’s Barack Obama.”

Cleland had never caucused before.

Neither had most of the Iowans who joined her at Dubuque County Precinct 19’s Democratic presidential caucus in the Mississippi Riverfront city’s Carnegie-Stout Library.

For them, and for thousands like them, Obama represented the promise of fundamental, transformational change.

It was not just a matter of breaking with George Bush.

It was a matter of breaking with Bill Clinton, and with the definition of the Democratic party as a managerial institution that was poised to run things for awhile after a more dynamic but less able Republican party had messed up sufficiently to make dull centrism seem appealing.

As Obama takes office, far from Iowa, and far from the political dynamic that was in play last January, he would do well to remember that it was this sense that he would be different that made people like Brianna Cleland brave the cold, and people like 25-year-old Liz Wagner, a high school social studies teacher who caucuses wearing an orange “I Caucus for Darfur” t-shirt that night.

Wagner’s shirt may have referenced a neglected region of Africa, but she was really motivated by a deep, genuinely pained frustration with a foreign-policy consensus that saw Democrats joining Republicans in making excuses for humanitarian, diplomatic and strategic failures that culminated with a unwise and unnecessary war in Iraq.

“I’m glad that he was opposed to the Iraq War before it started,” Wagner said of Obama. “It shows he has some judgment. That’s more that you can say about most of the other candidates or most of the Democrats in Congress.”

Wagner was right. Obama might not have run as an anti-war candidate, but he was understood as such. The Iowans who caucused for the young senator from Illinois, giving him the victory that would propel him into serious competition for the presidency, did so because they saw him as the most political viable foe of the Bush doctrine and the disasters it has caused.

It ought never be forgotten that Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee because of his opposition to George Bush’s wrongheaded approach to the world.

As a candidate, Obama promised change.

Today, as he assumes the presidency, Obama will continue to promise change.

Pundits in Washington may debate what that change entails.

But the people who made Barack Obama our president understand – and so should the man who is now our president.

The first and most fundamental change must come in how this nation relates to the rest of the world.

And the place to begin is with Iraq.

This new president, our new president, should end George Bush’s war.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x