[Peace-discuss] Obama's way forward, via Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Obama's speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on 11/20 ("A 
Way Forward in Iraq") is now up on his website <obama.senate.gov>.  Most 
of it is boiler-plate, but you can judge how accurate the newspaper 
reports were from passages such as the following ones.  Despite Iran's 
being the primary concern of administration policy-makers, as described 
in Seymour Hersh's article in the current New Yorker, Iran was mentioned 
only in passing -- as a "growing threat," a "hostile country," and, with 
Syria, "countries [that] want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast 
in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran’s nuclear 
ambitions." --CGE]


...“cut and run,” “stay the course” -– the American people have 
determined that all these phrases have become meaningless in the face of 
a conflict that grows more deadly and chaotic with each passing day -– a 
conflict that has only increased the terrorist threat it was supposed to 
help contain.

...The conflict has left us distracted from containing the world’s 
growing threats -– in North Korea, in Iran, and in Afghanistan...

...Americans demanded a feasible strategy ... based on ... our interests 
in the region...

...our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and finish the job in Afghanistan...

...I am hopeful that the Iraq Study Group [made up of Bush Sr. people 
--CGE] emerges next month with a series of proposals around which we can 
begin to build a bipartisan consensus. I am committed to working with 
this White House and any of my colleagues in the months to come to craft 
such a consensus. And I believe that it remains possible to salvage an 
acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war.

...the question is what strategies, imperfect though they may be, are 
most likely to achieve the best outcome in Iraq, one that will 
ultimately put us on a more effective course to deal with international 
terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and other critical threats to our 
security.

...We must ... turn our focus to those concrete objectives that are 
possible to attain -– namely ... maintaining our influence in the Middle 
East...

...The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy 
will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. He 
should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan 
for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates. When 
possible, this should be done in consultation with the Iraqi government...

I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly-rigid. We cannot 
compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust 
to realities on the ground. The redeployment could be temporarily 
suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political 
arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and 
compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels. [Overwhelming 
majorities of Iraqis in every poll want the US out! --CGE]

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional 
troops to Northern Iraq [sic] and elsewhere in the region as an 
over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in 
Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, 
reassure allies in Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda 
wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist 
organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

Perhaps most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to 
Afghanistan, where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led 
to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there ... By 
redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will ... provide a much-needed 
boost to this critical fight against terrorism.

As a phased redeployment is executed, the majority of the U.S. troops 
remaining in Iraq should be dedicated to the critical, but less visible 
roles, of protecting logistics supply points, critical infrastructure, 
and American enclaves like the Green Zone, as well as acting as a rapid 
reaction force to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists [i.e., 
what some have called a Fort Apache strategy --CGE].

In such a scenario, it is conceivable that *a significantly reduced U.S. 
force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time* [emphasis 
added] ... We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States 
would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do 
what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state 
and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active 
presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran 
and Syria that we intend to remain a key player [sic] in this region.

The second part of our strategy should be to couple this phased 
redeployment with a more effective plan that ... *expands the numbers of 
our personnel -– especially special forces -– who are deployed with 
Iraqi units advisers* [emphasis added; cf. Nixon's Vietnamization].

...if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another 
Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other 
countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to 
prevent this from happening.

We should also make it clear that, even after we begin to draw down 
forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat 
international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction [cf. his comments about Iran in 2004 --CGE]...

...we should also think about what Iraq has taught us about America’s 
strategy in the wider struggle against rogue threats and international 
terrorism.

...If we commit our troops anywhere in the world, it is our solemn 
responsibility to define their mission and formulate a viable plan to 
fulfill that mission and bring our troops home.

The final lesson is that in an interconnected world, the defeat of 
international terrorism -– and most importantly, the prevention of these 
terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction [Iran 
again?] -- will require the cooperation of many nations.  *We must 
always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever 
they may exist* [that's hard to distinguish from the Bush preventive war 
policy --CGE]...

...the war is hurting our efforts in the larger battle against terrorism 
... and distracted us from the growing threats of a dangerous world.

...There is one other place where our mistakes in Iraq have cost us 
dearly -– and that is the loss of our government’s credibility with the 
American people. According to a Pew survey, 42% of Americans now agree 
with the statement that the U.S. should "mind its own business 
internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on 
their own.” [That's what's really bothering Democrats like Obama, who 
call it "isolationism"; cf. his scandalous remarks about Vietnam, as 
described by Paul Street. --CGE]

...it is time to refocus America’s efforts on the wider struggle yet to 
be won [i.e. -- no change in the foreign policy that has guided all 
recent administrations --CGE].

[Obama's job, for which he's well paid, is to convince the large number 
of Americans who voted for withdrawal from Iraq (61% in Champaign 
County) that this is really what they want instead.  Against him and all 
the others like him in the national government, the antiwar movement 
must continue to insist as loudly as possible on an end to US/Israeli 
occupations and no war with Iran. --CGE]