New Internationalism

"Obama's going to be very careful, very cautious. There's no room for victory speeches here and I don't think he'll give one...We're not going to hear the realization that the 50,000 that remain in Iraq are combat troops -- they've been remissioned, but they're combat troops. We won't hear about the 4,500 Special Forces troops still carrying out their 'kill or capture' work, and training a new 'death squad' of Iraqi forces...And the final thing we won't hear about is the cost. The cost of keeping just these 50,000 troops in Iraq for the next year and a half could pay for 240,000 new green jobs here at home. I don't think we'll hear that from President Obama," said Phyllis Bennis.

"We're [now] going to call them something different. These are conventional combat brigades that the Pentagon now calls 're-missioned,' that the Washington Post called "re-branded'...They are prepared for combat; they are capable of combat. They will be embedded with Iraqi units that will be engaging in combat. And within them are 4,500 Special Ops forces...so this is combat, on a smaller scale."

Soon after becoming President, Obama announced that the U.S. would try to get its seat back on the U.N. Human Rights Council, and in May of 2009, it was elected. "The decision that was made by the Obama administration was largely to distinguish Obama’s approach to the UN from that of Bush, who had really tried to undermine and discredit the UN across the board," said Phyllis Bennis.

Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS the U.S. crusade for new U.N. sanctions against Iran has been underway for a long time.  "But the new intensity, the new scurrying around to make sure China and Russia were on board, the new scramble for an immediate public announcement, all reflected Washington’s frustration with Iran’s new agreement with Turkey and Brazil," she said.

"The main point – and I don’t know if it’s been resolved – is a significant strategic difference on the question of negotiations and reconciliation,” [Phyllis Bennis] told RFI. “There are very different views between President Karzai and the Obama administration. It’s essentially on the question of who do we negotiate with, when do we negotiate and what is up for grabs.”

"The likelihood of the US planning to keep troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011 has to be measured in the context of the history of US violations of other countries' sovereign territory, airspace, etc.," Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, explained to Truthout. "At the moment, this is perhaps most obvious in Pakistan - where the US has been routinely attacking alleged Taliban or al Qaeda supporters with both air and [limited] ground troops in Pakistani territory despite the stated opposition of the Pakistani government which is nominally allied to the U.S."