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

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama's way forward, via Iraq


> [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.

  Did someone challenge the newspaper reports?  I missed that.


>  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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss