Obama Proposes An Eighteen Month U.S. Troop “Anti-Surge” From Iraq
By now, we’ve all heard of the “One Hundred Year or Longer Plan” from John McCain and some of us have wondered what plan, if any, his Democratic opponent for the Oval Office had in mind with the exception of “We must get out of Iraq and if I’m president, we will withdraw from Iraq.”
While that sounds great on the surface to those of us who believe the war was won and theoretically believe it should have been the end of it once Saddam Hussein was effectively removed from power in our arguably “legal” enforcement of U.N. Article 1441, it was a bit too “vague” for our liking as well.
But hey — Barack really does appear to actually have a plan now if he didn’t before, and he explains it well in his Op-Ed in today’s New York Times appropriately entitled “My Plan For Iraq“…
Some “snips”:
CHICAGO — 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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. …”
BRAVO, Senator Obama…
This “Bush II’s Bush II” strategy of having our troops remain in harm’s way solely for the purpose of securing oil fields for their “Big Oilmen” and the rest of Iraq to pave the way for the hugely profitable “Nation Buildin’ Bidness” is transparent to anybody who follows the money trail has gone on long enough. While there may be some truth to the “al-Qaeda’s there because we’re there” train of thought, the same can be stated domestically, on the home front — “al-Qaeda’s here because we’re there.” Either this is the case or our politicians have lied to us about the need for the unconstitutional and traitorous U.S.A. Patriot Act. Or, more likely, all of the above constitutes the truth.
THINK about what I’m pointing out here — if sending our troops to Iraq is supposed to keep al-Qaeda over there, we would have no need on the home front for wiretapping, eavesdropping and data-mining. Then, we have the open-borders situation to deal with also. We supposedly need this equally unconstitutional RealID crappola because the “terr’ists” could be strolling across the Mexican border (and indeed they are) and this gives us a national ID card with a tracking device in it so we can leave those borders just WIDE-OPEN and catch those “al-Qaeda types” when you go to card them on their way into the strip clubs. You just can’t have it all ways, folks, and that’s just common sense. While it’s easy to spot the hypocrisy, it’s a bit harder to narrow down the outright lies from the equation.
If only this “Barack Obama” guy could convince me he really WAS “thrilled” with the Heller Decision in favor of our Right To Keep And Bear Arms (“RTKBA”) by the Supreme Court of The United States on the Washington, D.C. gun ban, I might consider sending the man a few bucks to help defeat the even more annoying Panama John McCain. But he’s got a LONG way to go before I’m willing to go there. I’d rather just toss my (one more of many in the past) “protest votes” toward someone who has no chance of winning in the end than vote AGAINST somebody. I tend to sleep easier that way.
***
Other bloggers weigh in (“must reads“, all of ‘em):
“… The Bush administration has always meant to establish a lasting presence in Iraq. Many people, my colleague Deb Cupples being one of them, said so from the first. I wasn’t so sure. But though I might be short-sighted when it comes to reading the hand-writing on the wall, I can see it when it’s pushed right in front of my nose and — unlike John McCain — I know a hawk from a hand-saw. …”
Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic:
“… There’s still some wiggle room here. Obama writes that he’d ask commanders for advice about where to withdraw troops first and “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.” …
Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish (The Atlantic):
“… Whether we could have found a less traumatizing, expensive, fatal path past Saddam will be for historians to judge. But it is worth remembering, as Pete somehow omits, that the fundamental casus belli – the WMD threat from Saddam – was false. And we removed Saddam over five years ago. The war since is what we are discussing. …”
“… Obama’s anti war speech was simply his foundation. Beyond that he’s been pragmatic and very cautious making sure he has room to consider reality in 2009, which is months ahead. …”
“… What I don’t get is why a phased, rational withdrawal (something all sides except Bush and McCain want) can’t be defined as winning? Withdrawal has to happen eventually and if the Right would stop framing it as losing maybe we could call withdrawal a victory and get the hell out. …”
And last but not least, a voice from the “Right” — Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey:
“… Obama notes that General James Dubik says that the army and police will be ready to stand on their own by 2009, but he forgets to mention that the same assessment shows their air force and navy to be years away from viability. …”
[Editor's Note -- While all of these pieces offer incredible, thought-provoking commentary, my question for Hot Air's "Captain Ed" would be -- How is it we were able to deploy hundreds of thousands of our troops to the region within weeks but it would be "impossible" to redeploy them back to the United States or into Afghanistan where they are needed and where they should be in a nearly two-year time window? Did our military logistics capability suddenly get "broken" without my knowledge? Before you answer, allow me to remind our readers I am assigned (IRR at this particular moment) to a VERY capable U.S. Air Force logistics unit who has served in "The Desert". Ummm... yeah, I DO believe we are capable of pulling this one off, Sir.]
Loading ...
12:19 am on July 15th, 2008 1
I’m thinking Obama is right on the money and I’m also thinking that McCain is just to much like Bush to even think of voting for him.
You and I were on the same thought pattern again today and I found your piece linked to the same article on Memeorandum. Personally, I think you would be wasting your vote on a third party candidate if you are pissed off at the status quo. If you really think about it only one of the candidates is offering a solution and the other is promising more of the same. One is ignoring the lies that got us into Iraq and the other is looking at solutions and ways to get our troops home.
11:07 am on July 15th, 2008 2
Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
He cant make up his mind what he wants to do. Theres so much double talk in this statement. Not only that but whatever happened to the Antiwar talking point that Al Quaida was not in Iraq?
Im so confused when he speaks.
1:30 pm on July 15th, 2008 3
Neo
I’m with ya bro. When it comes to Sen. Obama’s positions, I’ve been relocated to the state of confusion. He starts by saying that AQ is stronger now, but follows that up with:
“…and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.”
Then regarding keeping forces in Iraq, he says:
“…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.”
But follows that up with:
“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.”
GTL..
Help. I’m a simple right wing death squad type person. What is Sen. Obama really saying? Is he saying we will keep troops in South Korea instead of Iraq? Is he saying that he will re-deploy AQ to Afghanistan? How about deploying South Korean troops to Iraq? I just don’t quite seem to be able to pin this down, and this is why I rely on you, my friend to help out. Please, ‘splain it to me.;-)