The best chance for Iraq is to bring American troops home by Barack Obama

[ProSense]

The best chance for Iraq is to bring American troops home

This war has diverted us from the struggle against terror. We need to refocus on Israel/Palestine, so long neglected by Bush

Barack Obama
Tuesday June 5, 2007
The Guardian

At moments of great peril in the past century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world - that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past.

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.

The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of US forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31 2008 - consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. But we must recognise that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.

At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq.

<...>

Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region - a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al-Qaida, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hizbullah. Now more than ever we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security.

more

Start with getting out of Iraq.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. So why doesn't he advocate bringing them home?

First, though, I must say it was an impressive piece. He offered a lot of substance and clearly has thought deeply about these particular issues. I agree with him on everything completely--except on complete withdrawal from Iraq. Obama, like HRC, opposes that.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

==Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

He sounds like HRC:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

==She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations.==

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

==WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.==

==In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.” ==

[FrenchieCat]

2. Cause he's a realist..........and ain't just out pandering from votes

by saying things that folks want to hear, only to go back on his word later and simply say sorry.....but "I'm paying for it"....(yeah, right! :eyes: ).

It will take a year just to bring home most of who's out there.....

And he would be stupid to believe that there won't be any U.S. Troops AT ALL left in the middle east, including Iraq.

The mess was made long ago. To think that we are gonna make it all better by waving a wand and yaking a mouth is ridiculous. It will be a complex process....and most understand that. As long as the strategy is going to be totally different, with some wise men at the helm, it can be resolved, and the overwhelming majority of our troops can come home. However, extracting ourselves out of Iraq without causing simply more damage will require seriousness and determination. I think that Obama, if he has the right folks working on this with him can do this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Really? Then why is he hiding his Iraq plan?

I didn't see him mention that his great "realist" proposal during the last debate. Instead, he said he would end the war (saying something that is false because people want to hear it is not pandering? He will have to go back on his word--well his public words. His plan's words contradict them. He will go back on what he says before the cameras. Maybe he'll say sorry too.).

==It will take a year just to bring home most of who's out there.....==

That is irrelevant. The question is whether the aim of the next president will be to end the war or merely de-escalate it. Obama and HRC are in the latter camp.

==And he would be stupid to believe that there won't be any U.S. Troops AT ALL left in the middle east, including Iraq.==

No one is talking about removing troops from the ME. We are talking about Iraq. Some candidates want to take all troops out of Iraq, aside from the normal token presence at the embassy. HRC and Obama want to keep a force to conduct military operations. That is war.

==To think that we are gonna make it all better by waving a wand and yaking a mouth is ridiculous.==

No one is claiming that.

==As long as the strategy is going to be totally different, with some wise men at the helm, it can be resolved, and the overwhelming majority of our troops can come home.==

A new strategy will finally win the war? That sounds familiar...Anyway, this is essentially the HRC and Obama position: we'll run a more efficient, smaller-scale war in Iraq indefinitely.

"Overwhelming majority" is not enough. Paraphrasing a great lifelong progressive Democrat (unlike those Democrats of conveinence), how do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake? "Overwhelming majority" of 150,000 may be 90,000. That would leave 60,000 troops in Iraq. It may mean 130,000. Who knows? HRC and Obama don't feel they have to tell the rabble what exactly they intend to do regarding Iraq if elected.

You seem to place a lot of faith in Obama, "wise men" (presumably experienced advisors around an inexperienced president who will give him proper guidance. Sound familiar?), and his team . Voting should not be a faith-based initiative. We don't know who his team will be (although apparently there is a good chance Republican Colin Powell will be on it since he is reportedly advising Obama.) We don't know how many troops he wants to keep in Iraq. We don't know when he wants to get out of Iraq. Are we supposed to vote for him, turn over the keys to him for four years simply because he has a nice smile? Policies be damned? After all, he is someone you could have a beer with.

We have a history of candidates with generic and vague, albeit appealing, rhetoric turning out to be far different than advertised... This is arguably the most important election in decades. We cannot simply rely on faith in "secret plans to end the war", unknown teams of advisers, personality, etc. deciding who to vote for.

[FrenchieCat]

4. He's not "hiding" it ......its just that because his name ain't John Edwards

You ain't read nothing he's put out.

Not my problem, you know.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. I am quoting from his own website

I actually read what the candidates propose. You apparently didn't even read my post. If you did you would know that I have read what Obama has presented on Iraq.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Why doesn't he mention his real position in Iraq during debates, forums, and fundraisers? If it is such a great "realist" position he should be touting it, not hiding it. Maybe he thinks his plan sucks. I doubt that, though. After all, why present a plan you think is lousy? So why the silence? The answer was stated well by you: "just out pandering for votes by saying things that folks want to hear, only to go back on his word later..." The odd thing, though, is his words before the cameras say one thing but his HRC-like policy says another. He is for ending the war--while he is against it. Read it for yourself http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq

==The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.==

[FrenchieCat]

6. Hel-LO......he wrote an OP-Ed outlining his views on Iraq, ........so far as I'm concerned....

He's mentioned it, and it is in print for the world to see. Doh! :eyes: