Full Version: Snuffysmith's Blog - June 26th - September 17th, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
Bush Says Success Allows for Troop Cuts
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and CARL HULSE President Bush argued that his plan to begin gradually withdrawing some troops from Iraq was a “return on success” that could be squandered by deeper and speedier reductions.
News Analysis
VideoMultiple Messages and Audiences
By DAVID E. SANGER President Bush’s address again raises the question of what America’s mission in Iraq really is.
Doug Mills/The New York Times President Bush spoke from the Oval Office on Thursday.
Military Analysis
Why Officers Differ on Troop Reduction
By DAVID S. CLOUD President Bush opted for higher troop levels than some of his senior military advisers wanted.
Rudy's NYT ad
Marrying a political attack with a fundraising gambit, Rudy has fashioned his own ad for the New York Times. He blasted it out to supporters this afternoon as part of a money solicitation and has put a portion of it on his website just above a contribution form.
Of course, it's not just MoveOn.org that Rudy is beating up on. He seeks to tie the liberal group with Hillary Clinton in one fell swoop, citing comments she made about Gen. Petraeus next to the controversial language MoveOn used in their ad Monday.
Asked to respond, Hillary spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "Mayor Giuliani might be to content to bury his head in the sand when it comes to ending the war in Iraq, but Senator Clinton will continue to ask the hard questions in an effort to get out troops home."
As for whether they actually bought the ad, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella would only say, "You'll have to pick up the Times to find out."
So it's a win-win for Hizzoner and the paper he so enjoys disparaging -- he gets a free media hit and a few bucks for beating up (creatively) on the dreaded Times, and the Grey Lady sells a few more copies tomorrow from people to see if the thing runs.
Of course, as somebody who brags about running a fiscally austere campaign, would Rudy really part with tens of thousands of dollars for a newspaper ad -- and particularly one that puts money in Sulzberger pockets?
By Jonathan Martin 08:39 PM
Marrying a political attack with a fundraising gambit, Rudy has fashioned his own ad for the New York Times. He blasted it out to supporters this afternoon as part of a money solicitation and has put a portion of it on his website just above a contribution form.
Of course, it's not just MoveOn.org that Rudy is beating up on. He seeks to tie the liberal group with Hillary Clinton in one fell swoop, citing comments she made about Gen. Petraeus next to the controversial language MoveOn used in their ad Monday.
Asked to respond, Hillary spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "Mayor Giuliani might be to content to bury his head in the sand when it comes to ending the war in Iraq, but Senator Clinton will continue to ask the hard questions in an effort to get out troops home."
As for whether they actually bought the ad, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella would only say, "You'll have to pick up the Times to find out."
So it's a win-win for Hizzoner and the paper he so enjoys disparaging -- he gets a free media hit and a few bucks for beating up (creatively) on the dreaded Times, and the Grey Lady sells a few more copies tomorrow from people to see if the thing runs.
Of course, as somebody who brags about running a fiscally austere campaign, would Rudy really part with tens of thousands of dollars for a newspaper ad -- and particularly one that puts money in Sulzberger pockets?
By Jonathan Martin 08:39 PM
Reacting to Bush's Speech on Iraq 
I'm going to be over at Al Jazeera tonight listening to and then offering reactions on Bush's speech on Iraq.
Bush is going to restate his intention to draw down US force levels in Iraq by 30,000 troops, to pre-surge levels. In the judgment of many, this reduction was a structural reality anyway and is something that the Pentagon would have had to do -- no matter what the results on the ground in Iraq. But politically, Bush's reduction of forces deployed to Iraq will hold the line in Republican ranks increasingly skittish about the war.
However, House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton sent this out this evening -- and I think this articulates well the view of many skeptical Dems and some of the Republicans who have already defected from the White House's position:
I found particularly compelling the metaphor of farmers planting crops in a flood plain as a way of framing any "false positives" that we may be seeing in Anbar or in other regions because of the so-called "surge."
Lugar said:
-- Steve Clemons
I'm going to be over at Al Jazeera tonight listening to and then offering reactions on Bush's speech on Iraq.
Bush is going to restate his intention to draw down US force levels in Iraq by 30,000 troops, to pre-surge levels. In the judgment of many, this reduction was a structural reality anyway and is something that the Pentagon would have had to do -- no matter what the results on the ground in Iraq. But politically, Bush's reduction of forces deployed to Iraq will hold the line in Republican ranks increasingly skittish about the war.
However, House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton sent this out this evening -- and I think this articulates well the view of many skeptical Dems and some of the Republicans who have already defected from the White House's position:
""The force reductions proposed tonight by the President, while welcome, do not take the necessary step of changing the mission of American forces in Iraq and getting our forces out of policing a civil war. For our country's sake, we need to begin a more significant redeployment of our troops from Iraq. The burden our country has placed on our military personnel and their families is tremendous, and their sacrifices deserve to be honored with a policy that furthers American national interests at home, in the Middle East, and around the world. "We currently have more than 160,000 U.S. military personnel deployed to Iraq. General Petraeus testified this week that since the beginning of the surge of troops, levels of violence are down from the catastrophic levels of late 2006. But despite security improvements made possible by the dedication of our forces, the Government of Iraq has yet to achieve tangible progress toward national reconciliation. Without political progress, no security gains made by American troops will matter.Since President Bush will be commenting as well on the testimony offered in Congress by US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus, I think it is well worth taking time to read again Senator Richard Lugar's opening statement at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing -- which I found riveting -- and the single best implied critique of the Bush administration's failures in Iraq and the Middle East.
"Beyond disappointment that the Iraqis have not done enough to achieve political accommodation at the national level, we must not allow our focus on Iraq to jeopardize other critical national security concerns. This ongoing U.S. military commitment in Iraq has consequences, which include the strain placed on the health of the Army and the impact on U.S. military readiness should forces be needed to respond to other situations affecting our national interests. Bringing troop levels down to pre-surge levels will help reduce some of the strain on the Army, but not enough to ensure that it is trained and ready to deal with any future threat. I doubt it will also be enough to allow us sufficient forces for the hunt for Osama bin Laden and those who attacked us on September 11th.
"I remain unconvinced that placing U.S. military forces in charge of the counterinsurgency mission in Iraq, essentially fighting an Iraqi civil war, is worth the sacrifice in American lives, treasure, and the continued damage to the strategic ability of the United States to react to growing problems in other parts of the world. I believe that a change in mission for our forces in Iraq, coupled with a substantial reduction in their number, is in the best interest of U.S. national security. The Administration's proposal of minimal troop reductions does not do enough to get us out of the civil war in Iraq and ready to deal with our many other strategic challenges."
I found particularly compelling the metaphor of farmers planting crops in a flood plain as a way of framing any "false positives" that we may be seeing in Anbar or in other regions because of the so-called "surge."
Lugar said:
One can debate, as many will do this week, whether progress in Iraq has been sufficient to justify continuing American sacrifices. But the greatest risk for U.S. policy is not that we are incapable of making progress, but that this progress may be largely beside the point given the divisions that now afflict Iraqi society. The risk is that our efforts are comparable to a farmer expending his resources and efforts to plant a crop on a flood plain without factoring in the probability that the waters may rise. In my judgment, some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policy makers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals.More later.
-- Steve Clemons
America is Debating Tactics, Not Strategy 
My New America Foundation colleague Michael Lind and author of The American Way of Strategy has just penned a thoughtful op-ed that gets right at the nugget of what Senator Lugar was pushing in his opening statement at the Crocker/Petraeus Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings.
Lind writes in The Australian:
Lind continues:
In my view, the Sunnis in Anbar -- now less one important Sheikh killed perhaps in part because of his high profile support of the US mission and his handshake with George W. Bush -- are working with American troops so as to buy time to re-organize and rejuvenate before going after Shia interests later, particularly after US troop levels taper.
And frankly, if US troops don't depart, our Sunni allies today may be attacking us tomorrow.
But again, Michael Lind is exactly on target that we need to engage in a discussion about our strategic objectives -- not the micro-tactics discussion the administration has seduced Congress into.
-- Steve Clemons
My New America Foundation colleague Michael Lind and author of The American Way of Strategy has just penned a thoughtful op-ed that gets right at the nugget of what Senator Lugar was pushing in his opening statement at the Crocker/Petraeus Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings.
Lind writes in The Australian:
The long-awaited report by David Petraeus to the US Congress on the war in Iraq has provoked a debate about tactics rather than what is needed: a debate about strategy. The tactics are those of the US troop surge (a weasel word for escalation). Observers agree that the surge has had some effect in reducing violence in parts of Iraq, temporarily if not permanently. But this success, if it is a success, ignores the larger question of US strategy.I'm not completely on board with Lind on the complete break-up of Iraq into three distinct nations, and I recognize many problems with the somewhat similar Biden-Gelb plan to create a tripartite federal structure -- but still, working through the dimensions of that debate is what is important and what we should be spending most of our time wrestling with.
The US did not invade Iraq to provide it with a police force. The goal is not reducing Iraqi violence as an end in itself.
The tactic of reducing violence by Shia and Sunni militias and jihadists, some Iraqi and some foreign, was supposed to serve two goals: reconciling the Iraqi population to the central government and giving Iraq's three main ethnic groups - Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds - time to agree on a stable power-sharing arrangement in a national unity government.
Unfortunately, it appears that however successful the surge may be as a tactic, the two strategic goals are incompatible. The Iraqi nation cannot be reconciled to the Iraqi government if there is no Iraqi nation, only three ethnic nations, each of which prefers a government it controls to one in which it shares power with the others.
Lind continues:
The beginning of wisdom is to realize that the US needs a new strategy in Iraq, not new tactics in the service of an unworkable strategy. Recently the US has experienced successes in getting Sunni leaders to co-operate in suppressing jihadists in their territories. This success, however, exposes the falsehood on which the Bush administration has based its justification of the war since 2003: the claim that the US has been fighting a single group called "the terrorists", consisting of Sunni and Shia militants as well as al-Qa'ida-linked jihadists.I also disagree with Lind that an effective US strategy to decrease the Hobbesian temperature would be to create temporary alliances with Shia leaders as we have with Anbar Sunnis to attack and kill resident jihadists.
The US should build on this success by reaching out to Shia militants as well as Sunni militants, on condition that they agree to capture or kill jihadists operating in their territory.
Iraq has degenerated into a Hobbesian anarchy in which power grows from the barrel of a gun, as well as from the minaret of a mosque. If mullahs and militias are the real authorities in Iraq, not powerless politicians in a paper parliament, then to avert the further unnecessary expenditure of Iraqi as well as American and British lives, the US should build its policy on this fact.
In my view, the Sunnis in Anbar -- now less one important Sheikh killed perhaps in part because of his high profile support of the US mission and his handshake with George W. Bush -- are working with American troops so as to buy time to re-organize and rejuvenate before going after Shia interests later, particularly after US troop levels taper.
And frankly, if US troops don't depart, our Sunni allies today may be attacking us tomorrow.
But again, Michael Lind is exactly on target that we need to engage in a discussion about our strategic objectives -- not the micro-tactics discussion the administration has seduced Congress into.
-- Steve Clemons
From THE DAILY STANDARD: Obama's 'New Plan', by Frederick W. Kagan.
From the State: The Surge is Making Progress, by John McCain.
From RealClearPolitics: A New Strain of Anti-Semitism is Spreading, by Victor Davis Hanson.
From the Washington Post: Consultant Probed in Bogus Interview, by Howard Kurtz.
From the State: The Surge is Making Progress, by John McCain.
From RealClearPolitics: A New Strain of Anti-Semitism is Spreading, by Victor Davis Hanson.
From the Washington Post: Consultant Probed in Bogus Interview, by Howard Kurtz.
Kindness of Concerned Observer
New York Times
September 13, 2007 <h1 style="font-weight: normal;"> Text of the President’s Address </h1> Following is the prepared text of President Bush’s address on Iraq, as provided by the White House:
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.
We are now at such a moment.
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar Province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.
Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to Al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where Al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow Al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”
The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show Al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours — a decent life and a peaceful future.
In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt against Al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: “We are determined to strike back and continue our work.” And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.
Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.
One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad’s neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.
One year ago, much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baquba was emerging as an Al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baquba is cleared. Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.
One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.
These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces, and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.
Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.
And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus’s recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror — and that will make us safer here at home.
Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.
To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.
To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.
To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq’s economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.
To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices and the sacrifices of your families.
Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: “We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win ... even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.”
This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to Al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
Good night, and God bless America.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
September 13, 2007 <h1 style="font-weight: normal;"> Text of the President’s Address </h1> Following is the prepared text of President Bush’s address on Iraq, as provided by the White House:
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.
We are now at such a moment.
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar Province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.
Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to Al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where Al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow Al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”
The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show Al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours — a decent life and a peaceful future.
In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt against Al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: “We are determined to strike back and continue our work.” And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.
Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.
One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad’s neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.
One year ago, much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baquba was emerging as an Al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baquba is cleared. Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.
One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.
These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces, and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.
Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.
And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus’s recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror — and that will make us safer here at home.
Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.
To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.
To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.
To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq’s economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.
To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices and the sacrifices of your families.
Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: “We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win ... even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.”
This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to Al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
Good night, and God bless America.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Laura Ingraham Outsells Clinton and Rosie... Book Hits #1 at Barnes & Noble and Amazonby Human Events"Power to the People" off to a roaring start in sales
NYT Discriminates Against Conservatives on Ad PricesConservative Freedomswatch.org Bought an ad in the New York Times on 9-11 praising the memory of those who lost their lives in the terrorist attack. BUT -- and this is a huge "but" -- unlike hyperlib MoveOn.org, FreedomsWatch didn't get the NYT's antiwar discount. They just sent a letter to the Times asking for the discount for another ad to defend Gen. Petraeus. Read the letter - and see their new ad -- here
Gen. Petraeus brings some clarity to the Iraq debate. Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
Free Iraqis are prepared to take extraordinary risks to side with America and the liberty for which we stand. Editors, New York Sun
The president has a chance to win back supporters he lost. John Podhoretz, New York Post
There hasn't been a major upset in a presidential-nomination race since Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976. We're due. Bill Kristol, Time
Look who won Petraeus week. Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal
Flip-flopping has a grand tradition. Richard Brookhiser, Time
America is not Rome. Gerard Baker, London Times
PETE HEGSETH: I hope and pray he’s right. ““The President's Position”” 09/14 12:42 PM
GEORGE W. BUSH: The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. ““Return on Success”” 09/13 9:01 PM
FREDERICK W. KAGAN: Jim Webb's amendment would be a nightmare to execute. “Webb of Problems” 09/14 12:00 AM
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Petraeus won the congressional confrontation hands down. “Petraeus’s Success” 09/14 12:00 AM
RICH LOWRY: Democrats missed an opportunity. “Party of Impotents” 09/14 12:00 AM
CLIFFORD D. MAY: What would Winston Churchill Do? “Advice for a Presidential Candidate” 09/14 12:00 AM
W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Condemning Petraeus is condemning the troops. “The MoveOn Choice” 09/14 12:00 AM
GEORGE W. BUSH: The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. ““Return on Success”” 09/13 9:01 PM
FREDERICK W. KAGAN: Jim Webb's amendment would be a nightmare to execute. “Webb of Problems” 09/14 12:00 AMCHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Petraeus won the congressional confrontation hands down. “Petraeus’s Success” 09/14 12:00 AM
RICH LOWRY: Democrats missed an opportunity. “Party of Impotents” 09/14 12:00 AM
CLIFFORD D. MAY: What would Winston Churchill Do? “Advice for a Presidential Candidate” 09/14 12:00 AM
W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Condemning Petraeus is condemning the troops. “The MoveOn Choice” 09/14 12:00 AM
Mr Bush, your sheikh is dead
Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq on Thursday, was the congenial face of US efforts to engage Sunnis in reconciliation with the Shi'ite-led government. The prime suspect is al-Qaeda, which the sheikh's alliance was fighting with weapons and money supplied by the US. But Abu Risha had other enemies, especially among Sunnis whose goal is ending the occupation, not befriending it. Whoever is responsible, the "surge is a success" story being sold by the White House and its tame general has been ruined. - Pepe Escobar (Sep 14, '07)
Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq on Thursday, was the congenial face of US efforts to engage Sunnis in reconciliation with the Shi'ite-led government. The prime suspect is al-Qaeda, which the sheikh's alliance was fighting with weapons and money supplied by the US. But Abu Risha had other enemies, especially among Sunnis whose goal is ending the occupation, not befriending it. Whoever is responsible, the "surge is a success" story being sold by the White House and its tame general has been ruined. - Pepe Escobar (Sep 14, '07)
Deep flaws in Afghan peace drive
Even as it puts the finishing touches to its master plan for Pakistan's new political order, Washington is gearing up for the endgame in Afghanistan - politically engaging the Taliban. This ignores the interests of the regional players, notably Russia and Iran. And if US-Iran tensions escalate, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will become even more intertwined, with peace as remote as ever. - M K Bhadrakumar (Sep 14, '07)
Al-Qaeda sets Lebanon record straight
The Lebanese army's three-month battle to defeat the Fatah al-Islam militant group is widely perceived as a setback for al-Qaeda, to which Fatah claimed allegiance. In fact, Fatah failed even the initial al-Qaeda "test" that would have led to financial and military support. Al-Qaeda is more concerned that jihadis direct their energies against the multinational forces in South Lebanon. - Sami Moubayed (Sep 14, '07)
Even as it puts the finishing touches to its master plan for Pakistan's new political order, Washington is gearing up for the endgame in Afghanistan - politically engaging the Taliban. This ignores the interests of the regional players, notably Russia and Iran. And if US-Iran tensions escalate, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will become even more intertwined, with peace as remote as ever. - M K Bhadrakumar (Sep 14, '07)
Al-Qaeda sets Lebanon record straight
The Lebanese army's three-month battle to defeat the Fatah al-Islam militant group is widely perceived as a setback for al-Qaeda, to which Fatah claimed allegiance. In fact, Fatah failed even the initial al-Qaeda "test" that would have led to financial and military support. Al-Qaeda is more concerned that jihadis direct their energies against the multinational forces in South Lebanon. - Sami Moubayed (Sep 14, '07)
Russia's new premier has bite
Surprise new Russian Prime Minister Victor Zubkov may himself have a few surprises in store. The man whose name translates as "tooth" has the backing of the siloviki - the "power men". And his background in monitoring tax and money-laundering sends a message to business people and politicians in Asia and elsewhere who have begun to think of the Russian oligarchs as co-investors and friends: look behind the smile. - John Helmer (Sep 14, '07)
War of words over Korean peace treaty
While the current debate over a "peace treaty" formally marking closure of the Korean War is largely an exercise in semantics, it has conservatives and liberals battling in Washington and Seoul over its ultimate significance to North Korea's Kim Jong-il and US influence on the peninsula. - Donald Kirk (Sep 14, '07)
Korean defector deaths raising concern
The unexplained death of a North Korean defector in an overcrowded Thai refugee camp and the suicide of a 36-year-old North Korean woman in Seoul have raised questions and debate about South Korea's seeming indifference to the overall plight of defectors from the North. Refugee support groups are calling on Seoul to take stronger action on several fronts, but so far their pleas seem to be in vain. - Sunny Lee (Sep 14,
Surprise new Russian Prime Minister Victor Zubkov may himself have a few surprises in store. The man whose name translates as "tooth" has the backing of the siloviki - the "power men". And his background in monitoring tax and money-laundering sends a message to business people and politicians in Asia and elsewhere who have begun to think of the Russian oligarchs as co-investors and friends: look behind the smile. - John Helmer (Sep 14, '07)
War of words over Korean peace treaty
While the current debate over a "peace treaty" formally marking closure of the Korean War is largely an exercise in semantics, it has conservatives and liberals battling in Washington and Seoul over its ultimate significance to North Korea's Kim Jong-il and US influence on the peninsula. - Donald Kirk (Sep 14, '07)
Korean defector deaths raising concern
The unexplained death of a North Korean defector in an overcrowded Thai refugee camp and the suicide of a 36-year-old North Korean woman in Seoul have raised questions and debate about South Korea's seeming indifference to the overall plight of defectors from the North. Refugee support groups are calling on Seoul to take stronger action on several fronts, but so far their pleas seem to be in vain. - Sunny Lee (Sep 14,
BOOK REVIEW
That '800-pound gorilla' ...
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi
Nothing is as it seems in the Middle East, and author Parsi sheds light on the dark, back-door wheeling and dealing among supposed enemies - Israel, Iran and the US - going back decades. The book is a timely and important read for anybody who wants push back the essentialist arguments that suggest an impending clash of ideologies. (Sep 14, '07)
That '800-pound gorilla' ...
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi
Nothing is as it seems in the Middle East, and author Parsi sheds light on the dark, back-door wheeling and dealing among supposed enemies - Israel, Iran and the US - going back decades. The book is a timely and important read for anybody who wants push back the essentialist arguments that suggest an impending clash of ideologies. (Sep 14, '07)
Bush Preserves Big Troop Level in Iraq For Next 10 Months: Announcement shadowed by discouraging developments on the security and political front
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296744,00.htmlNation is at a critical moment on Iraq, Democrats say
A Look at Bush's Assertions About Iraq - Assertions checked against the facts -- Behind the Anbar myth
Bush: US 'blessed' by dead Michigan soldier's sacrifice - praised a Michigan soldier killed in Baghdad in his Thursday night address
Bush's speech sways few minds in Michigan: Residents' reactions to president's Iraq plans range from 'pretty good' to 'very predictable.'
Rice concerned over Syrian nukes: "We have to have policies that prevent the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons"
SKorea, US start consulting on NKorea peace pact
Seoul (AFP) Sept 13, 2007
South Korea and the United States have already begun talks about a possible agreement with North Korea formally ending the 1950-53 war on the peninsula, the US ambassador to Seoul said Thursday. "I think that we have already begun consultations with the South Korean government in order to develop a common approach to these talks," ambassador Alexander Vershbow told a forum. He said it ... more
North Korea helping Syria build nuclear facility: report
Washington (AFP) Sept 13, 2007
North Korea may be helping Syria build some kind of nuclear facility, The Washington Post reported Thursday citing unnamed intelligence sources. Israeli secret service relayed the information to the US government, which the Post described as "dramatic. The new information, particularly images received in the past 30 days, has been restricted to a few senior officials under the instruct ... more
Iran minister in China for nuclear talks
Beijing (AFP) Sept 13, 2007
Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pour Mohammadi arrived in Beijing on Thursday for two days of talks that he said would focus on the debate over his nation's nuclear programme. "I will talk about the most important international and regional questions, Iran's nuclear case and also issues relating to the Middle East," he told Iranian state media after arriving in the Chinese capital. ... more
Nuclear experts return from Yongbyon: report
Beijing (AFP) Sept 13, 2007
A US team of experts studying the disabling of North Korea's nuclear weapons programme has returned to Pyongyang after two days at the Yongbyon nuclear site, Chinese state press reported Thursday. The experts, from the United States, Russia and China, were expected to meet North Korean officials Friday to discuss the measures required to shut down the complex, the Xinhua news agency said in ... more
Seoul (AFP) Sept 13, 2007South Korea and the United States have already begun talks about a possible agreement with North Korea formally ending the 1950-53 war on the peninsula, the US ambassador to Seoul said Thursday. "I think that we have already begun consultations with the South Korean government in order to develop a common approach to these talks," ambassador Alexander Vershbow told a forum. He said it ... more
North Korea helping Syria build nuclear facility: report
Washington (AFP) Sept 13, 2007North Korea may be helping Syria build some kind of nuclear facility, The Washington Post reported Thursday citing unnamed intelligence sources. Israeli secret service relayed the information to the US government, which the Post described as "dramatic. The new information, particularly images received in the past 30 days, has been restricted to a few senior officials under the instruct ... more
Iran minister in China for nuclear talks
Beijing (AFP) Sept 13, 2007Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pour Mohammadi arrived in Beijing on Thursday for two days of talks that he said would focus on the debate over his nation's nuclear programme. "I will talk about the most important international and regional questions, Iran's nuclear case and also issues relating to the Middle East," he told Iranian state media after arriving in the Chinese capital. ... more
Nuclear experts return from Yongbyon: report
Beijing (AFP) Sept 13, 2007A US team of experts studying the disabling of North Korea's nuclear weapons programme has returned to Pyongyang after two days at the Yongbyon nuclear site, Chinese state press reported Thursday. The experts, from the United States, Russia and China, were expected to meet North Korean officials Friday to discuss the measures required to shut down the complex, the Xinhua news agency said in ... more
US, China to reward North Korea multi-million dollar fuel aid
Washington (AFP) Sept 13, 2007
The United States and China are preparing to provide tens of millions of dollars in fuel aid to North Korea as it moves to declare and disable its nuclear weapons program, US officials said Thursday. China is expected to send 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil to its hardline communist neighbor this month to be followed by a similar US shipment, an administration official said, speaking on ... read more
Washington (AFP) Sept 13, 2007
The United States and China are preparing to provide tens of millions of dollars in fuel aid to North Korea as it moves to declare and disable its nuclear weapons program, US officials said Thursday. China is expected to send 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil to its hardline communist neighbor this month to be followed by a similar US shipment, an administration official said, speaking on ... read more
<h2>Americans are still as inattentive as ever.</h2> [/b]
Stephen Soldz: New study: Over one million Iraqis killed by violence since invasion A new survey by a mainstream British polling firm has estimated that over one million Iraqis have died since the invasion. This provides important independent replication of the findings of a 2006 study, published in the British medical journal Lancet, which estimated 650,000 "excess deaths" since the 2003 invasion. The case is now stronger that many hundreds of thousands have died.
Len Hart: Boxer: "The Biggest Foreign Policy Mistake --EVER!" Sen. Barbara boxer calls Bush's attack and invasion of Iraq the "biggest foreign policy mistake --EVER!" She is right. Bush's war is an international crime, punishable by death yet Bush hasn't laid a glove on terrorism. Instead, he's made it worse.
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ke...oreign_poli.htm
September 14, 2007
Obama's Foreign Policy: A Detailed Analysis
By Kevin Gosztola
In the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama published his plans for foreign policy under the title, “Renewing American Leadership”, which appears at the start of each section. In the same way that Bush repeated that Iraq had WMDs or Iraq was connected to 9/11, it seems Barack Obama wanted to make sure it was clear he will be renewing American leadership. But will that renewal bring necessary changes or keep America on the same path it is on? Will he simply be renewing America’s stranglehold over the world or will we be cooperating with others to bring about a more peaceful globe?
Obama's Introduction
The introduction cites Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms which defended America against fascism, Truman’s pairing of military strength with the Marshall Plan, and Kennedy’s modernization of our military doctrine, strengthening of our conventional forces, and creating of a Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress. Barack Obama then dove into how he plans to deal with threats just like FDR, Truman, and JFK did:
Continuing on, Barack Obama addresses how Bush responded to 9/11 with “state-based and principally military amenable solutions that showed conventional thinking of the past” and then added that the world has lost trust in us because of Iraq and Abu Ghraib. At this point, I think Bush and his cohorts could admit that is a harsh truth. Keep going:
Obama on Moving Beyond Iraq
With respect to Iraq, Obama recognizes that “civilian leaders must acknowledge that military solution cannot be imposed on civil war” between the Sunnis and the Shiites. However, his way for solving the dilemma should cause many to stare in disbelief for Obama wishes to “pressure parties” so that they make a lasting political solution. He plans to pressure them by supporting a phased withdrawal that will remove all combat brigades by March 31, 2008.
I don’t know how this would work, Mr. Obama. Do you honestly expect to get the Iraqi people to do as we say by threatening to remove troops from the region? Is that what they want? Various news stories have pointed to Iraqi government officials wanting us to leave Iraq. And they want us to leave because our troops are targets for terrorism and are causing an influx of terrorists to move into the broken country and increase the chaos.
It gets better though because Obama states that redeployment could be “temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets security, political, and economic benchmarks.” These would no doubt be benchmarks we set. And yes, you read the quote correctly. Obama’s foreign policy involves leaving troops in Iraq if the Iraqis cooperate. So, Americans if you thought Iraq is fun now, just imagine what it will be like when Barack takes over.
In all fairness, Barack Obama in this section calls for dealing with the civil war more effectively, making it clear that we seek no permanent bases, and leaving behind a “minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel/facilities, continue training Iraqi security, and root out al-Qaeda.” So, don’t worry, Iraq. Those bases are only “temporary” if Barack wins. And you can expect American troops to continue to be in the way of the Iraqi people as they protect American contractors and military outposts while attracting al-Qaeda, which they will be “rooting out” as they defend American personnel. Oh, and don’t forget, while al-Qaeda is flowing in to kill Americans, these same Americans who are al-Qaeda targets will attempt to show Iraqi people how to maintain security in their country, which we may or may not let them run on their own at some point in the not so distant future.
Really though, Barack Obama does not want to deal with Iraq anymore. He believes in his policy that America needs to move from Iraq to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Bush has ignored. Pay attention because is where Barack Obama’s AIPAC connections come into play. For example, Obama believes the starting point for solving the conflict must always be “clear strong commitment to security of Israel”, our “strongest ally in the region and the region’s only established democracy.” Already the Palestinians are getting kicked to the side. The policy will be designed for Israel and maybe it will make the Palestinians happy. Who knows?
Obama’s reasoning for a “clear strong commitment to security of Israel” stems from his belief that it is necessary when “confronting strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, a resurgence of al Qaeda, and reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah.” With all do respect Mr. Obama, I don’t think propping up Israel will solve any of these conflicts with Iran, Iraq, al-Qaeda, or especially Hamas and Hezbollah. Unless you plan on nuking them off the face of the Earth, please do us all a favor and elaborate on how propping up Israel solves the conflict. Essentially, what you are advocating would breed terrorism. But terrorism may be what you need for your policy to thrive because terrorism will provide tactical target for you to carry out your foreign policy strategy of increasing Israel’s security.
For those skeptical that Obama really will do for the Israelis what they want and do for the Palestinians what Israel wants, just look at what Obama said about securing a lasting settlement with the two states. Obama wants America to “help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict/instability.” Through isolation, meaning killing, bombing, arresting and other horrific things, those who do not wish to do as Israel tells them to do will submit to the rule of Israel. And Israel will thank America for what it did and agree to police the region for us. And Muslim extremism will continue.
After laying down the policy, Obama details how it would be implemented. For one, he states that we “must not rule out using military force.” Of course not! Heaven forbid we keep our nuclear weapons to ourselves. No, as Obama went on to say, America must use its instruments of power---political, economic, and military---to support tough-minded diplomacy. I guess one must remind Obama that it was John F. Kennedy, whom he cited previously, that said, “Let us not negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.” Obama’s policy seems to be far from what Kennedy promised as his policy plans for American diplomats to come to the table with tools of aggression ready to be used at any given moment.
Obama on Revitalizing Our Military
The presidential candidate wastes no time cutting to the chase here and states, “Strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” Barack Obama continues saying, “I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or threatened.”
Again, I refer to the Bush Doctrine. From goal three, which is, “Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends”, Bush states, “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.” Both Obama’s policy and Bush’s policy were waged to sustain peace. Both used peace as a cover for their primary objective, which is to spread American rule to more nations and convince more nations through instruments of power to listen to what we say or else.
Obama on Halting Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Obama opens saying:
It might a make a few of you feel better to know that Obama supports his call by mentioning that George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. George Shultz lied about Iran arms shipments in the Iraq Contra scandal, William Perry previously suggested launching a high-explosive cruise missile from a submarine to destroy the Taepodong on its launch pad in North Korea, Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, and Sam Nunn . In fact, this excerpt from Information Clearing House should help you understand how dangerous this group of advisors to Obama are:
Obama on Combating Global Terrorism
Here Obama calls for refocusing efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan. You see, that bit about Pakistan wasn’t some flub. It was a slip that his supporters have been all too willing to give him a pass on. I am specifically referring to the supporters who expect him to be different on foreign policy than Bush was and think he would never go into Pakistan. To those supporters, here are his plans for Pakistan.
Obama says America should “insist, not request, Pakistan crack down on Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden & his lieutenants, and end relationship with all terrorist groups.” He also plans to get them to solve their border disputes with India over Kashmir and Afghanistan over the Pashtun border region. He adds, “There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans.” Well, Mr. Obama, what about having no safe haven for those that use “instruments of power” that may or may not include military? What about the fact that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and maybe these “terrorist groups” are gearing up for your arrival?
Barack Obama gets rolling here with this huge rhetorical and boastful pronouncement:
No longer is it strikingly similar. No, I believe the words are frighteningly alike.
That said do you think Obama can go toe-to-toe with Bush? Bush’s favorite mantra is “either your with us or against us.” Mr. Obama what do you got:
Obama on Rebuilding Partnerships
Obama feels that America needs to rebuild alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. I can’t imagine why this may be but I am sure Obama will explain it. Just what does he have to say?
September 14, 2007
Obama's Foreign Policy: A Detailed Analysis
By Kevin Gosztola
In the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama published his plans for foreign policy under the title, “Renewing American Leadership”, which appears at the start of each section. In the same way that Bush repeated that Iraq had WMDs or Iraq was connected to 9/11, it seems Barack Obama wanted to make sure it was clear he will be renewing American leadership. But will that renewal bring necessary changes or keep America on the same path it is on? Will he simply be renewing America’s stranglehold over the world or will we be cooperating with others to bring about a more peaceful globe?
Obama's Introduction
The introduction cites Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms which defended America against fascism, Truman’s pairing of military strength with the Marshall Plan, and Kennedy’s modernization of our military doctrine, strengthening of our conventional forces, and creating of a Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress. Barack Obama then dove into how he plans to deal with threats just like FDR, Truman, and JFK did:
“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. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.”Mr. Obama, the Bush Doctrine published in 2002, which can be found under the title, “National Security Strategy of the United States”, stated that, “We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants,” and also stated, “Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.” That rhetoric in Bush’s introduction is very similar to yours. Does that bother you? Do you think it will bother the American people? Or do you think that your personality and the fact that you aren’t George W. Bush will make it acceptable to continue talking with ignorance that promotes fear? We may their alienation and perceived injustice to be unfounded but they don’t and when America responds to them the way you just did, America inflames them further and guess what? Terrorism increases.
Continuing on, Barack Obama addresses how Bush responded to 9/11 with “state-based and principally military amenable solutions that showed conventional thinking of the past” and then added that the world has lost trust in us because of Iraq and Abu Ghraib. At this point, I think Bush and his cohorts could admit that is a harsh truth. Keep going:
“After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world by deed and example.”Mr. Obama seemingly ignores that many of the threats have been produced because of years of flawed foreign policy that has involved interventions, cultural ignorance, and globalization that has economically depleted many countries. We have occupied sacred lands that have increased Islamic extremism yet failed to admit America is responsible for Taliban forces running crazy terrorist operations all over the world. But he did not stop there in his introduction. He had more to say:
“The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.”Strikingly similar to this last sentence in the Bush Doctrine’s introduction which is, “Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.” Well, if you don’t agree that they are related, it bears the same tone and conjures up images of America leading missions and operations all over the world to convince the world that our way, the American way, is the right way and all other ways are the wrong way.
Obama on Moving Beyond Iraq
With respect to Iraq, Obama recognizes that “civilian leaders must acknowledge that military solution cannot be imposed on civil war” between the Sunnis and the Shiites. However, his way for solving the dilemma should cause many to stare in disbelief for Obama wishes to “pressure parties” so that they make a lasting political solution. He plans to pressure them by supporting a phased withdrawal that will remove all combat brigades by March 31, 2008.
I don’t know how this would work, Mr. Obama. Do you honestly expect to get the Iraqi people to do as we say by threatening to remove troops from the region? Is that what they want? Various news stories have pointed to Iraqi government officials wanting us to leave Iraq. And they want us to leave because our troops are targets for terrorism and are causing an influx of terrorists to move into the broken country and increase the chaos.
It gets better though because Obama states that redeployment could be “temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets security, political, and economic benchmarks.” These would no doubt be benchmarks we set. And yes, you read the quote correctly. Obama’s foreign policy involves leaving troops in Iraq if the Iraqis cooperate. So, Americans if you thought Iraq is fun now, just imagine what it will be like when Barack takes over.
In all fairness, Barack Obama in this section calls for dealing with the civil war more effectively, making it clear that we seek no permanent bases, and leaving behind a “minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel/facilities, continue training Iraqi security, and root out al-Qaeda.” So, don’t worry, Iraq. Those bases are only “temporary” if Barack wins. And you can expect American troops to continue to be in the way of the Iraqi people as they protect American contractors and military outposts while attracting al-Qaeda, which they will be “rooting out” as they defend American personnel. Oh, and don’t forget, while al-Qaeda is flowing in to kill Americans, these same Americans who are al-Qaeda targets will attempt to show Iraqi people how to maintain security in their country, which we may or may not let them run on their own at some point in the not so distant future.
Really though, Barack Obama does not want to deal with Iraq anymore. He believes in his policy that America needs to move from Iraq to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Bush has ignored. Pay attention because is where Barack Obama’s AIPAC connections come into play. For example, Obama believes the starting point for solving the conflict must always be “clear strong commitment to security of Israel”, our “strongest ally in the region and the region’s only established democracy.” Already the Palestinians are getting kicked to the side. The policy will be designed for Israel and maybe it will make the Palestinians happy. Who knows?
Obama’s reasoning for a “clear strong commitment to security of Israel” stems from his belief that it is necessary when “confronting strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, a resurgence of al Qaeda, and reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah.” With all do respect Mr. Obama, I don’t think propping up Israel will solve any of these conflicts with Iran, Iraq, al-Qaeda, or especially Hamas and Hezbollah. Unless you plan on nuking them off the face of the Earth, please do us all a favor and elaborate on how propping up Israel solves the conflict. Essentially, what you are advocating would breed terrorism. But terrorism may be what you need for your policy to thrive because terrorism will provide tactical target for you to carry out your foreign policy strategy of increasing Israel’s security.
For those skeptical that Obama really will do for the Israelis what they want and do for the Palestinians what Israel wants, just look at what Obama said about securing a lasting settlement with the two states. Obama wants America to “help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict/instability.” Through isolation, meaning killing, bombing, arresting and other horrific things, those who do not wish to do as Israel tells them to do will submit to the rule of Israel. And Israel will thank America for what it did and agree to police the region for us. And Muslim extremism will continue.
After laying down the policy, Obama details how it would be implemented. For one, he states that we “must not rule out using military force.” Of course not! Heaven forbid we keep our nuclear weapons to ourselves. No, as Obama went on to say, America must use its instruments of power---political, economic, and military---to support tough-minded diplomacy. I guess one must remind Obama that it was John F. Kennedy, whom he cited previously, that said, “Let us not negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.” Obama’s policy seems to be far from what Kennedy promised as his policy plans for American diplomats to come to the table with tools of aggression ready to be used at any given moment.
Obama on Revitalizing Our Military
The presidential candidate wastes no time cutting to the chase here and states, “Strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” Barack Obama continues saying, “I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or threatened.”
Again, I refer to the Bush Doctrine. From goal three, which is, “Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends”, Bush states, “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.” Both Obama’s policy and Bush’s policy were waged to sustain peace. Both used peace as a cover for their primary objective, which is to spread American rule to more nations and convince more nations through instruments of power to listen to what we say or else.
Obama on Halting Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Obama opens saying:
“To renew American leadership in the world, we must confront the most urgent threat to the security of America and the world---the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology and the risk that nuclear device will fall into the hands of terrorists.”Oh, so you support the bill that is currently circulating which would work towards the abolition of all nuclear weapons? Nope, while a bill calling for abolition of nuclear weapons was drafted in the House in 2006 and had 11 cosponsors, you did not sponsor it in the Senate or cosponsor it. Therefore, that leaves me no choice but to presume that you wish to allow America to hold on to its nuclear weapons while at the same time telling other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Hmm....does the insanity ever end?
It might a make a few of you feel better to know that Obama supports his call by mentioning that George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. George Shultz lied about Iran arms shipments in the Iraq Contra scandal, William Perry previously suggested launching a high-explosive cruise missile from a submarine to destroy the Taepodong on its launch pad in North Korea, Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, and Sam Nunn . In fact, this excerpt from Information Clearing House should help you understand how dangerous this group of advisors to Obama are:
“This time the media completely ignored---or should we say censored—Kissinger’s trip to Russia and his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, apart from a few short blurps in the Moscow Times and one measly article in the UK Guardian, no major news organization even covered the story. There hasn’t been as much as a peep out of anyone in the American media.This trip happened in July of 2007. These guys are moving in to take over after the Bush administration is done. And the group has connections reaching back to the days of Nixon just like Cheney and Rumsfeld. How dare Obama stand up deliver ad hominem attacks on Cheney and Rumsfeld and then turn around and allow his friends to advise him on foreign policy?
Nothing. That means the meetings were probably arranged by Dick Cheney. The secretive Veep doesn’t like anyone knowing what he’s up to.
Kissinger was accompanied on his junket by a delegation of high-powered political and corporate big-wigs including former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., former Senator Sam Nunn and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.
Wow. Now, there’s an impressive line up.
The group was (presumably) sent to carry out official government business as discreetly as possible. The media obviously complied with White House requests and kept their mouths shut.”
Obama on Combating Global Terrorism
Here Obama calls for refocusing efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan. You see, that bit about Pakistan wasn’t some flub. It was a slip that his supporters have been all too willing to give him a pass on. I am specifically referring to the supporters who expect him to be different on foreign policy than Bush was and think he would never go into Pakistan. To those supporters, here are his plans for Pakistan.
Obama says America should “insist, not request, Pakistan crack down on Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden & his lieutenants, and end relationship with all terrorist groups.” He also plans to get them to solve their border disputes with India over Kashmir and Afghanistan over the Pashtun border region. He adds, “There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans.” Well, Mr. Obama, what about having no safe haven for those that use “instruments of power” that may or may not include military? What about the fact that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and maybe these “terrorist groups” are gearing up for your arrival?
Barack Obama gets rolling here with this huge rhetorical and boastful pronouncement:
“To defeat al-Qaeda, I will build a 21st century military and 21st century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.”Are you ready for another comparison to the Bush Doctrine? Under goal three, Bush mentions that, “our best defense is a good offense,” and, “While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide.”
No longer is it strikingly similar. No, I believe the words are frighteningly alike.
That said do you think Obama can go toe-to-toe with Bush? Bush’s favorite mantra is “either your with us or against us.” Mr. Obama what do you got:
“Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists’ rest on fear. That is why we can---and will--- win this strategy.”Good enough.
Obama on Rebuilding Partnerships
Obama feels that America needs to rebuild alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. I can’t imagine why this may be but I am sure Obama will explain it. Just what does he have to say?
“The United Nations requires far-reaching reform. The UN Secretariat’s remain weak. Peacekeeping operations are overextended. The new UN Human Rights Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel---but not a single resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur or human rights in Zimbabwe.”