PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Iraq Plan


yeahwho
07-13-2008, 11:42 PM
From the horses mouth, NYTIMES July 14, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Op-Ed Contributor
My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008

THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Documad
07-14-2008, 07:54 PM
I like the part where we send more troops to Afghanistan. I'm very worried about Pakistan though. I think it's dangerous and hopeless. I'm glad I don't have kids, honestly.

yeahwho
07-15-2008, 12:02 AM
You know I read the fallout of his bold statement on Iraq and the cartoon thing and I cannot help but be impressed with his handling of the media and the spotlight he has garnered.

The only thing missing is an actual debate with McCain. He obviously knows how to get the media to rally around him, what will happen when McCain completely disagrees with his approach and ability to do more than elaborate?

The longer he waits for an open mic debate the more ammunition he gives the Republicans.

McCain is pushing his side by side open debate via town hall or any stage at this moment (Christ it's just about the only way the MSM will cover him equally) and Obama continues to say, "no". This sort of "attention deficit disorder" soundbite selected by the media will backfire soon. Obama needs to debate with live mic's and equal footing. Really it's just dumb to ignore the inevitable debate, plus in the coming days McCain will drive his point home, we, Americans deserve to know about these candidates other than their media profile, McCain is on top of his game here. He's looking good, sounding good and actually bringing up a valid serious point, can Obama make time to actually debate in front of millions of Americans at once? Does the general population get this opportunity?

RobMoney$
07-15-2008, 05:08 AM
You know I read the fallout of his bold statement on Iraq and the cartoon thing and I cannot help but be impressed with his handling of the media and the spotlight he has garnered.

The only thing missing is an actual debate with McCain. He obviously knows how to get the media to rally around him, what will happen when McCain completely disagrees with his approach and ability to do more than elaborate?

The longer he waits for an open mic debate the more ammunition he gives the Republicans.

McCain is pushing his side by side open debate via town hall or any stage at this moment (Christ it's just about the only way the MSM will cover him equally) and Obama continues to say, "no". This sort of "attention deficit disorder" soundbite selected by the media will backfire soon. Obama needs to debate with live mic's and equal footing. Really it's just dumb to ignore the inevitable debate, plus in the coming days McCain will drive his point home, we, Americans deserve to know about these candidates other than their media profile, McCain is on top of his game here. He's looking good, sounding good and actually bringing up a valid serious point, can Obama make time to actually debate in front of millions of Americans at once? Does the general population get this opportunity?

I can't believe he said the surge worked, but it was a mistake. LOL

Obama is just saying things people want to hear, without any regard for whether it can actually happen. It's all political pandering. Obama says this deserves discussion, but he has refused to talk about it (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1216047925-wgBiTfgcj6a+mQuJRe+ouQ) when given the chance, even when CBS offered to air it nationally. Sure, the guy gives great speeches, but the fact of the matter is that he's exactly the same kind of politician we have always had -- not the Change he would like for you to believe in.


NOTHING WILL BRING ABOUT POLITICAL RECONCILIATION. The Shiites will NEVER share power with the Sunnis. We now only have two choices:

1. Leave our troops there, despite the high cost both financially and with every casuality, and prevent the slaughter of the Sunnis, the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, and the seizure by Iran of control over one third of the world's oil supplies.

2. Bring our troops home, and witness the potentisl collapse of our economy which is dependent on foreign oil for the forseeable future.

When you strip away all of the talk and nonsense from this discussion, that's what it comes down to.

I do not believe this person Obama should be Commander in Chief.

saz
07-15-2008, 10:58 AM
NOTHING WILL BRING ABOUT POLITICAL RECONCILIATION. The Shiites will NEVER share power with the Sunnis.

how do you know?


We now only have two choices:

1. Leave our troops there, despite the high cost both financially and with every casuality, and prevent the slaughter of the Sunnis, the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, and the seizure by Iran of control over one third of the world's oil supplies.

how do you know? this is classic right-wing fear mongering about about getting out of iraq. do you now know or realize that the us is paying sunni and shiite militias to not attack us troops, and patrol specific districts? do you not know or realize that millions of iraqis have fled the country, creating a massive refuge crisis, with therefore leaving many neighbourhoods abandoned? the civil war has already been raging in iraq since saddam was toppled.


2. Bring our troops home, and witness the potentisl collapse of our economy which is dependent on foreign oil for the forseeable future.

how do you know?


When you strip away all of the talk and nonsense from this discussion, that's what it comes down to.

more like your nonsense.


I do not believe this person Obama should be Commander in Chief.

well, get over it. obama won, hillary lost. and he's the ideological twin of hillary.

DroppinScience
07-19-2008, 11:45 AM
I do not believe this person Obama should be Commander in Chief.

Then it seems to me you should consider voting for John McCain, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or any other third party candidate that happens to be on the ballot. Chances are any of the above are closer to your ideological viewpoints.

yeahwho
07-19-2008, 07:02 PM
Then it seems to me you should consider voting for John McCain, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or any other third party candidate that happens to be on the ballot. Chances are any of the above are closer to your ideological viewpoints.

I thought it was me (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1597444&postcount=17), but that is bullshit too.

Options, choices and then compromise. The other candidates have a much larger compromise ratio than Barack Obama.

Really it's not rocket science. Support the candidate closest to your ideals and just maybe life will present itself as obvious. Having reservations is one thing, but actually having nothing good to say about your candidate seems moronic. The ratio of good over bad should be somewhere above 50% are else just switch brands.

I always have respected that you, DroppinScience, are the very first poster to ever mention Obama and the US Presidency (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=37263&highlight=Obama) in the same sentence here at BBMB. That actually was quite clairvoyant.

DroppinScience
07-20-2008, 06:55 PM
I always have respected that you, DroppinScience, are the very first poster to ever mention Obama and the US Presidency (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=37263&highlight=Obama) in the same sentence here at BBMB. That actually was quite clairvoyant.

Wow, now that one is a blast from the past.

At that time, I was profoundly moved by his 2004 DNC speech and thought this was a guy who could set about making things right with America in a time were (and still are) going wrong. In 2004, I was quite lukewarm about Kerry (particularly when I was a big fan of Howard Dean in the primaries) and thought that someone like Obama could be the bright shining spot of the Democratic party that was so sorely needed.

Fast forward to 2008. I'm definitely not as illusioned about Obama and his policies (unfortunately, he's not as liberal as I would have hoped). Having said that, I do think that if there is always a strong, progressive grassroots activist base working to hold Obama accountable, then I think things will definitely be back on the right track. I know it worked with Roosevelt getting the New Deal going, so one can only hope for a repeat in these next 4 years if indeed Obama does get the presidency.

And it is also nice to know we got here when back in 2004 very few people would have expected Obama to get where he is right now.

Ali
07-29-2008, 07:29 AM
NOTHING WILL BRING ABOUT POLITICAL RECONCILIATION. The Shiites will NEVER share power with the Sunnis. We now only have two choices:

1. Leave our troops there, despite the high cost both financially and with every casuality, and prevent the slaughter of the Sunnis, the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, and the seizure by Iran of control over one third of the world's oil supplies.

2. Bring our troops home, and witness the potentisl collapse of our economy which is dependent on foreign oil for the forseeable future.

When you strip away all of the talk and nonsense from this discussion, that's what it comes down to.

I do not believe this person Obama should be Commander in Chief.

I don't think he wants to be Commander in Chief, which is why he says "It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war." is he?

The presence of US forces in the region is acting as a beacon for freedom fighters, jihadists wanting to be martyrs. The leader of Iraq is asking for the US to leave FFS. Why would he do this if that would mean being taken over by Iran? There are reports of Sunni fighters being armed by occupation forces, to combat the (allegedly) Iran-funded Shiite militias. What government wants that sort of shit?

Obama says:

"I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees."

Bush and his cronies, especially Rumsfeld, studiously ignored the warnings of military commanders who said that the US would get stuck in Iraq and that Afghanistan should be stabilised before Saddam was attacked. If Obama's going to listen to his military advisers, then he'll make a damn sight better Commander in Chief than the Rodeo Clown he replaces.