« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama campaign: There will be "no dramatic changes" on Iraq, if Obama is elected
Who is Obama telling the truth?
Obama says in public that he represents change, specially on the issue of Iraq, which sets him apart from McCain and to a lesser extent Hillary Clinton.
I never had reason to doubt his promises until I read the news that, if elected, Obama may leave it up to the "generals on the ground" to decide what are the best steps to take in regards to this war, according to what his advisors just told the Iraqi Foreign Minister.
This was first reported a couple of days ago by the (liberal) London-based Al-Hayat newspaper-the most important Arab newspaper in the diaspora-- and picked up Friday by Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, who quipped, "Obama has gulled millions with promises of "change." But remember, change for a dollar is still a dollar.."
This is NAFTA-Gate all over again. Back then, Obama told voters one thing--basically that NAFTA is bad--while his top economic advisor reassured Canadian officials that Obama's words were just campaign rhetoric.
If these war-mongering generals decide that we need to keep the same level of troops in Iraq for an extended period of time, will Obama comply? Or will he listen to the American people, who has made him favorite to become our next president in part because of his relatively quick troop withdrawal proposals?
We need answers.
Here's the link to the story, via the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Comments (10)
From the story you linked to:
"Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign managers had reassured Baghdad that if Obama is elected he will not dramatically change Washington's policy towards Iraq and will take into account the opinions of the commanders in the field. "
Two things:
- Do you consider Zebari to be an impartial and trustworthy source? Is there any reason we should?
- "Will take into account the opinions of the commmanders . . . " is far from a promise to leave it up to the generals to call the shots.
June 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore just sent out this email...
Dear Friend,
Make a donation A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.
Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.
This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.
That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.
With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.
If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.
We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.
Thank you for joining me,
Al Gore
LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
http://www.BarackObama.com
June 16, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my understanding that the Canada "NAFTA-Gate" comment and wink-wink was actually discovered to have come from the Clinton campaign, and not the Obama campaign. I'm rather busy right now reading the live-blog of the Tiger Woods/Rocco Mediate playoff right now, but I will google Goolsbey later and get back to you, if no one else does it before me.
Bye, I have to run now...17th hole results await!
June 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
dug into my "way back machine." in short, it was republican dirty tricks. they placed a guy in canada's embassy in washington. this was doable because canada has a hard-right, bush-loving prime minister. buddy the plant then leaked this "memo." except they didn't seem sure who to stick it to - first hillary, later obama. a nasty piece of political dirty work on multiple levels. not least of which is sticking someone in your best neighbor's embassy.... sigh. all sources from toronto star , major paper.
cheers. and apologies for the length, but i thought it was revealing of the republican role in the democratic primary debate - and the degree to which they were happy to go.
quinn esq
Obama & NAFTA-Gate - Republican "Dirty Tricks"
By quinn esq - May 28, 2008, 11:27AM
The leak of the NAFTA-Gate memo alleging that Barack Obama was merely "playing politics" by questioning NAFTA, is now being tied to the son of Wisconsin Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner - the man who introduced the Patriot Act.
Investigations by James Travers and Tim Harper of The Toronto Star have fingered U.S. Republican sources working within the Canadian embassy as having leaked the document, which was portrayed as showing Senator Obama's questioning of NAFTA was insincere.
"This was a very deliberate piece of business for political purposes," one source says. Questions were raised from the point when the memo was first (verbally) leaked, as it appeared to initially suggest the conversations had involved Senator Clinton's campaign. After some time, Conservative government sources attributed the statements instead to the Obama campaign.
The Star's investigations appear to have raised the stakes beyond the identity of the particular Democratic campaign involved, by naming particular U.S. Republicans as potentially having been involved in the process of leaking the memo to the AP.
Frank Sensenbrenner (27) - a former Republican fund-raiser and the man identified as the embassy "conduit" in the affair - has since stated he is "dismayed" at the allegations, that he categorically denies them and that he had "never seen the memo in question." Sensenbrenner was working in the Canadian embassy to the U.S. at the time, but against the wishes of many of the diplomats there, including the Canadian Ambassador himself.
The Star states that "The diplomatic corps on Pennsylvania Ave. didn't want him there and ultimately were so distrustful of the son of a right-wing Republican congressman, they muttered that they wanted his door left open so they could hear who he was talking to."
The hard-right Canadian Conservative government appears to have forced his placement in the Embassy, against these wishes. Sensenbrenner was brought to Canadian Embassy staff by Gerry Chipeur, a lawyer "who headed the Republicans Abroad Canada," and who "has deep ties to the evangelical movement" as well as to Kansas Senator Sam Brownbeck.
June 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my understanding that the Canada "NAFTA-Gate" comment and wink-wink was actually discovered to have come from the Clinton campaign, and not the Obama campaign.
That's not true. there was a memo uncovered showing Obama's main economic advisor telling a Canadian official not to worry because it was all campaign rhetoric. When you have no proof to say something, don't say it, Mr. Rumor spreader. Here's the memo:
The memo was released by the Associated Press, not the Clinton campaign. Don't talk out of your arse.
link: http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/
June 16, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i read the memo. again. it says obama wanted to change the labor and environmental provisions. a position he and others support publicly, and an approach that is well-understood and widely-accepted in both countries. this is somewhat different from your description of it being "all campaign rhetoric."
now. as for talking out arse. (which is damned painful, though i CAN do it. with a lisp.) the point of the toronto star article is to identify WHO leaked the memo. answer? a young republican working for the canadian embassy. that may sound strange, but the canadian government is hard right and loves bush. so a young republican inside decided what to release, who it should go to, and how to spin it. in addition, remember that many of the embassy staff are also hard right supporters of the republicans. mike wilson, for instance, is the former conservative finance minister. this is not a shot at hillary, nor was i saying she leaked it. it's actually just pointing out the types of tactics the REPUBLICANS will use.
the ONLY clinton link i know of is that it WAS initially stated to the press (by canadian officials) that clinton's advisors had met and said this stuff. then they changed their field, and the obama memo came out. the question this raised on everyone's minds was whether BOTH campaigns had actually briefed along similar lines, but then a "decision" had been made by the political bosses as to which one to target with the leak. this was never confirmed, but if you read the memo, NO american politician, anywhere anyhow, is gonna throw the entire nafta agreement out the window. canada is a massive, secure, supplier of energy to the US, and on advantageous-to-the-US terms.
hope this clarifies anything i may have muddled.
June 17, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Problem
The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
Military Strain: The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.
Barack Obama's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
Barack Obama's Record
* Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences." In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.
* Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf
June 16, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the Obama comment is less meant to describe an Iraq strategy, and more meant to reassure the nominal leaders in Iraq that the new administration isn't going to hang them out completely to dry.
June 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hat tip for this to user Lamont on one of M.J. Rosenberg's threads. It reminded me to check out The Nation more often to see what kind of analysis of Obama is going to come from the left now that he's in general election mode. Turns out they also have a Naomi Klein piece complaining about his economic team:
June 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment