"We're fighting two wars"

[bigtree]

I just heard Pres. elect Obama repeat this phrase that he introduced in the campaign. While I appreciate the sentiment behind that statement I expect that his words as president will carry much more weight and meaning than during the initial election.

Mr. Obama has given his verbal acceptance of the SOFA agreement mandating withdrawal from Iraq by 2011 (as opposed to his own plan for a 2010 exit), and he re-stated his belief today that he would be inclined to leave a 'residual force' in Iraq to accommodate whatever mission that falls under the 'terrorist/al-Qaeda' fighting envisioned in his Iraq plan.

However, outside of that dubious terror fighting mission, the U.S. isn't really fighting a 'war' in Iraq, as much as they are managing an occupation which has been opportunistically prolonged for the political benefit of George Bush and his would-be republican successor.

Unless Mr. Obama is prepared to spell out what mission he envisions for the troops he intends to remain in Iraq, there is a credibility gap between his stated intention to withdrawal and his declaration that there is still a 'war' to be fought there.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Mr. Obama has dissuaded himself that there's still something to 'win' in Iraq. I think he's been too satisfied to accept the consolidation of power behind the 'surge' (of both the U.S. and Iraqi regime) as a legitimate exercise of power in the less eventful aftermath, even as he opposed the 'surge' in his campaign.

I wonder if he's prepared now to declare the occupation some sort of success. That posture may well serve to pacify enough republicans and right-wing observers in order to effect a withdrawal that is universally supported, but that attitude won't serve to adequately define the Iraq nation-building debacle outside of a legitimate exercise of military power and authority.

I hope that the President-elect will find a way to talk about the occupation as the disaster that it is as he effectively ends it. I fear that with his acceptance of some further role for our military forces in Iraq, he will not be making that clean break from the blundering, political war of opportunity that Bush waged.

Repeatedly referring to the continuing Iraq occupation as a 'war' invites and encourages the notion that we can't leave Iraq until we win that war that he's conjured in his rhetoric.

[hendo]

1. It is much easier to campaign to end a war

than to actually end it.

If he withdraws troops and then it all goes to hell it will be his a** on the line.

Nixon campaigned to withdraw troops from Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

[Robbien]

7. It already is pure hell. Just ask the six million Iraqis taking refuge

outside the country and ask the people in Iraq walking around in filth, darkness and hunger.

If we withdraw the troops and the horrible situation gets worse, who will know? No one is reporting anything as it is now.

Ending the occupation without any consequences to Obama seems pretty easy to me.

[hendo]

10. What we dont want

is another Somalia.

[Robbien]

18. Don't look now, but that has already happened

We tore down the only legitimate government structure and smashed it. The current one is not respected by any faction and only holds the reigns of power because we are there. It cannot stand on its own.

There are no working public services. The streets are lawless or are controlled by factions. Outside of the GreenZone, the power is in the hands of fundamentalists. The oil will soon be turned over to one of the international oil companies leaving Iraq with no source of national income. How is this different than Somalia?

[Nederland]

30. Your description of Iraq is inaccurate

The Iraq you describe is the one that existed three years ago. I think you need to update your view of the country.

[EFerrari]

9. He won. n/t

[hendo]

11. who did?

Nixon sure didn't win in Vietnam.

[EFerrari]

13. Nixon won his election. There was no "winning" in Viet Nam

just as there is no "winning" in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

[hendo]

15. exactly

no one ever "wins" a war, regardless of the outcome. However, we now have a moral obligation to ensure that Iraq does not become another Somalia.

The US created this mess and now its up to the US to fix it.

[Junkdrawer]

2. I'm thinking the 400 billion barrels of oil will be there after 2011...

and so will the US military bases and a strong contingent of US troops.

[gravity]

3. Obama is planning for a responsible withdrawal

which means making sure that Iraq is stable enough before we can leave.

[bigtree]

19. what does that 'stability' effort entail for our troops?

I wonder at the wisdom of reducing the force and signaling that the remaining troops are there, primarily, to fight the resistance. The entire occupation is merely a defense of the installed regime which is based inside of the U.S. protected Green Zone. Once we leave, the Iraqi regime will be forced to actually adhere to the democracy that they now pretend behind the sacrifices of our military forces. That won't look like 'stability' to anyone.

[gravity]

23. It means not leaving a power vacuum in the region

You are just assuming that Iraq will be in a Democracy when the US leave, just like George Bush assumed they would be one entering the region.

We need to take a realistic view of the situation, and look at the costs and benefits of our actions carefully instead of making ideological decisions. Getting out right away might do more harm then good to the Iraqi people. This is why Obama has very intelligent people advising him on the manner so he can come up with the best course of action based on all the facts.

[bigtree]

25. There are regional actors which are better positioned to fill any 'vacuum'

It's not reasonable that our aggravating forces can provide that 'stability' you want indefinitely. At some point, whatever power structures that exist will be required to either work together or break down in conflict. Already, the Maliki regime has worked to forge military and economic ties with Iran and has made several agreements in that vein. I expect Iran to advantage themselves of the leadership roles of Sadr and Sistani as they work to increase their influence in Iraq (and with any other regime which emerges after 'elections' are held). I further expect that security from Iran will be part of that arrangement (if not, then Iran will provide the military edge for whatever resistance emerges as dominant).

[elkston]

4. Obama has never used the language "Victory" with respect to Iraq.

I think he knows that there is no "war" being waged or victory to be had. But he must be careful to not use language which would seem to trivialize the effort of the troops.

[bigtree]

26. true, he has repeatedly referred to 'success' in Iraq

I think that the only 'success' to be had in Iraq will come when we take our military boots off of their throats.


Candidate Obama's recipe for 'success' in Iraq: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/full_text_of_obamas_iraq_speec.php

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollars.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Should be, "We're fighting two misbegotten, illegal, lost wars.

Wars that shouldn't have happened, shouldn't be pursued, and are disastrous for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the USA.

[bigtree]

27. Instead, it looks like we're about to be schooled on the efficacy of military force

from his remarks today: http://www.returningsoldiers.us/NationalSecurityTeamAnnouncement.htm


We will show the world once more that America is relentless in the defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world. Democracy and justice, opportunity and unyielding hope because American values are America's greatest export to the world.

To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully using, balances, and integrates all elements of American power, our military, and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Well, that's a nice collection of political platitudes to cover aggression.

But, I must say, I expected nothing better.

[Nederland]

6. Obama Iraq Policy == Bush Iraq Policy

There is no difference now. As the above poster noted, it's a lot easy to campaign to end a war than to actually end it. The safe path right now is to simply follow the path that the Bush administration laid out when it negotiated the SOFA. That way if things go wrong, Obama can just say he was merely executing in good faith the agreements that the US made prior to his taking office.

[LSK]

12. TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT

Bush Iraq Policy is to stay in Iraq because War = Profit. His goal is to stay in Iraq as long as possible with as many troops as possible.

Obama has repeatedly stated his goal is to leave Iraq. A few troops to guard the embassy is not the same as 150,000 troops in a countrywide occupation. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I have no reason to doubt Obama because

- I know he grew up in recently war torn Indonesia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_to_the_New_Order where he saw his own step father caught up in a purge that killed half a million people.

- He was opposed to the war from the beginning. Like he said in a debate, don't drive the bus in the ditch in the 1st place, but once you are in the ditch, you have to figure out how to get out of the ditch.

- He has no ties to defense contractors or Halliburtans or special interest groups.

- He has spent the past 25+ years working on behalf of the poor, downtrodden, unpriviledged and hopeless. He quit his nice Wall Street job in the early 80s to organize. Do you really think someone working on the South Side of Chicago since the 1980s, trying to get people jobs, would just forget about that and side with big business and defense contactors? Really??????

I STRONGLY suggest you read Dreams From My Father. You apparently DONT HAVE A CLUE who Barack Obama is. NOT ONE CLUE.

[Nederland]

14. You are in Denial

The Bush administration negotiated a withdrawal date for US forces. Obama says he plans to abide by that date. There is no difference between the two on Iraq policy.

[LSK]

16. so let me get this straight

Bush, whos policy has been unending occupation of the country since 2003, finally agrees to withdraw and now we are calling Obama the same as Bush because Bush actually did something right?????

Also does this negotiated withdraw date forbid Obama to get out earlier???????

[Nederland]

17. He won't get out earlier, despite his campaign promises

He will get out by the date that Bush negotiated--wait and see.

[cali]

22. It's simply premature to make that assessment.

We'll just have to wait and see. I suspect you're wrong, but we'll soon find out.

[EFerrari]

8. Precisely. Very well said, bigtree. n/t

[leftofthedial]

20. don't worry. when the time cones, he'll do whatever the truly powerful want him to do.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Two wars...... and neither of them ever had a GOD DAMN thing to do with defending America

Any sane person can now admit that about Iraq. Hopefully the rest will catch up when it comes to Afghanistan too. US troops keeping Afghanistan "safe" for UNOCAL pipelines and Bush Crime Family opium fields, that's what it was really all about. How do you think the old bastard got the nickname "Poppy" in the first place?

The recent events in Mumbai will be spun into an excuse to expand this useless war into Pakistan. God help us all if they take the bait. :(

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Well Then, Let's Quit That

Look i'm as big a supporter of his as anyone, but if we're at two wars that are accomplishing nothing, it's time to quit.
The Professor

[Time for change]

29. Very well said

A tragedy of American political life is that those who try to spell out the truth about the catastrophic wars that we fight often have to pay a high political price for doing so. It takes a lot of courage to do that. I hope Obama will give it a lot of thought.

[Bette Noir]

31. It's premature to parse his words at this time.

Watch what he does in January and February.