Obama: "It's time to succeed in Iraq"
By Steve Hynd Thursday Aug 21, 2008 2:50pmDespite Condi Rice's prevarications, it's now looking certain that the US will be forced to accept Iraqi demands that any new "status of forces" deal be for only 3 years and to stipulate all US troops out of Iraqi urban areas by 2009. A draft of the agreement is being circulated to Iraqi political leaders for their approval and it says that while there will be no firm schedule for a U.S. withdrawal, they want U.S. combat troops to go home by the end of 2011.
Obama already has his statement out, and it's a doozy. (H/T Spencer Ackerman):
"I am glad that the Administration has finally shifted to accepting a timetable for the removal of our combat troops from Iraq. Success in Iraq depends on an Iraqi government that is reconciling its differences and taking responsibility for its future, and a timetable is the best way to press the Iraqis to do just that. I welcome the growing convergence around this pragmatic and responsible position.
"This agreement is still draft and vital pieces of it must be finalized, so I will reserve final judgment on the agreement until it is complete. The agreement needs to be carefully reviewed, and must include immunity for U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi jurisdiction. I continue to believe that in consultation with our commanders and the Iraqi government, we can safely redeploy at a pace that removes our combat brigades in 16 months, with a residual force to target remnants of al Qaeda; to protect our service members and diplomats; and to train Iraq's Security Forces if the Iraqis make political progress.
"Senator McCain has stubbornly focused on maintaining an indefinite U.S presence in Iraq, but events have made his bluster and record increasingly out of touch with reality. While Senator McCain continues to offer unconditional military and economic support for Iraq, I strongly believe that we need to use our leverage with the Iraqi government to ensure a political settlement. In addition to a timetable, we should only train Iraqi Security Forces if Iraq's leaders reconcile their differences, and we must insist that Iraq invests its $79 billion surplus on rebuilding its own country. It's time to succeed in Iraq and to honor the sacrifice of our servicemen and women by leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government.
"Ending the war in Iraq responsibly is in the broader strategic interests of the United States. It's long past time to drawdown our troop presence and to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq so that we can increase resources for the mission in Afghanistan, rebuild our military, and invest in our struggling economy at home," said Senator Obama.
Spencer's bang on when he says this hits all the right notes.
First, it makes the point that the administration came around to the wisdom of Obama's position after exhausting the alternatives. Second, it portrays Obama's position as the consensus view. Third, it puts McCain on the horns of a dilemma: Either endorse Obama's consensus position -- and thereby flip-flop and concede his opponent's judgment is superior -- or be out of the responsible mainstream. Third-and-a-half, if McCain stays consistent, the Obama line draws a wedge between Bush and McCain.
But there's a fourth reason, and it's the most crucial of all. Did you notice how Obama is talking about "success in Iraq"? He's taking that concept and giving it a common-sense meaning: getting out responsibly -- that is, leveraging withdrawal into a diplomatic strategy with the Iraqi government and the region -- is what success means.
A definition of success that actually works and a plan that even the Bush administration has come around to, albeit very reluctantly. That shows both leadership and judgement.
Login or Register to post comments.
This is part of the move to get a new enemy. We have to forget the mid east and focus on the new enemy, RUSSIA!
The People need a new scapegoat. Russia is the new neocon creation. Listen, can you here the drums?
And the worst part, Poland will be the sacrificial lamb, not a couple of buildings in New York.
Silly children. Of course this is happening, but mark my words. McCain will get all the credit. He will claim his surge is working and is the reason we have gotten to this point. And all the media outlets will bring him endless victory coverage and donuts with sprinkles.
Not sure how I feel about that caveat. I don't want honest U.S. personnel held accountable to arbitrary Iraqi laws, for example Sharia-based laws that might exist. But I want U.S. personnel who have behaved criminally to be subject to some sort of legal action, and if they've injured or killed Iraqi's in an unjust manner I think subjecting them to Iraqi law is just.
On a third read I notice that doesn't include contractors, so I feel a bit better about it. At least U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel are subject to military discipline. These Blackwater contractors have gotten away with, literally, murder.
What about the contractors? Would they then fall under Iraqi jurisdiction?
.."the agreement needs to be carefully reviewed, and must include immunity for U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi jurisdiction". Surely Obama has been misquoted, or is delusional. Why should there be immunity for lawbreaking? Would we grant immunity for acts of malevolence against our citizens? Only presidential pardons are so unethical.
"must include immunity for U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi jurisdiction"
Haha... Like American courts will take care of crimes committed there...
Because Blackwater was hired by the Defense dept are they considered DOD personnel?
Obama wants to increase the defense budget, he wrote as much in has Audacity of Whatever. We already spend more than the rest of the world combined.
Where will social programs fit into that agenda. They won't.
The war profiteers need new territory, the Islamic world is played out.
They have it, Russia. Everything old is new again.
This time Russia is not running on ideology.
Of course! Immunity from the raping of Iraq! Obama is a zealot who only works for his "base". See Wall Street donations to Obama!
This is all a farce!
DNCC=RNCC
Wake up you idiots.
One question remains: How will the MSM spin this?
Doesn't matter. As with the GI Bill, McCain can just claim it was his idea all along and Bush will give him credit for it. Most importantly, most of the media will let him get away with it.
I hope McCain does try to take credit for this idea, this way sites like this can inform people how wrong McCain and his media cronies are.
I can't wait until McCain flippy-flops on this one.
I think we'll be withdrawing without choice if this crap we're pulling with Russia keeps going the way it is.
You know your countries screwed when Russia are the GOOD guys in a dispute.
What's really stupid is that everything Sen. Obama has been saying is the direction the administration continues to move towards.
Surge in Afghanistan
Timetable in Iraq
etc.
Keith O. did a thing on BUSHED last night about "Obama foreign policy"-gate; very good!
I meant to add that with all this, there are people out there who still believe that Sen. Obama is anti-American, c communist, an appeaser, etc. and that is so not the case. Just about everything he has espoused is so right, its amazing!
And just like the Webb GI bill, when it comes to the timetable, Bush will roll Sen. McCain out and tout him as the hero of the day. Way to go Bullsh.
Crian @ 13:
Yes, because everyone over 30 reads sites like this.
I love it. McCain's "advantage" on foreign policy has been soundly PWNED over the last couple months.
I find it endlessly ironic that after five and a half years of hearing about "victory" in Iraq from Bush and the GOP, the person to finally define what "victory" in Iraq is is a Democratic presidential candidate who opposed the war in the first place. I bet the neocons are livid about this. Hopefully, this message from Obama will gain some traction in the media.
I also question the part about immunity.....Blackwater needs to be held accountable not only here, but also in Iraq.
I also agree that McCain will spin this whole thing by saying that it was his surge that allowed such a timetable to be generated.
McTrollop is pwned again, in reality anyway..
A phased redeployment of troops that allows Iraqis to re-gain control of their country is - and always has been - the most pragmatic and effective option. It has nothing to do with retreat or losing as the neocon base would try and have many to believe, and certainly Petraeus and other commander, worried over the escalating problems in Afghanistan and other areas of the globe, knew the occupation of Iraq was/is sucking our military dry.
So long as we don't redeploy to Iran or Georgia, the main theme of redeployment offered up by Obama months ago has finally been accepted for what it is: a common sensical approach to a poorly handled situation that never should have taken place.
McShame went "all in" that the surge would tamp down everything and show the world he knows best.
It didn't and he doesn't.
I don't give a damn how many times these Neocon Fairies have to declare victory, just get our military people the hell out of Mission Impossible. The greedy contractors can get their nuts in a sling, for all I care. Obama shows insight again and again, with his foreign policy positions. It's obvious his foreign policy advisors are miles above anything Gramps or the Neocons can put together. See a McCranky flip flop coming again soon, but it seems to be a daily occurence anyway.
Yeah, Obama's statement makes great sense, but is it being reported on the tube? Nope. Nothing on CNN but the unending frenzy over who will be Obama's veep pick. Nothing on MSNBC but Olympics. Nothing on FOX but the fiery train crash in Oklahoma (great visuals for the mouthbreathers glued to that channel). The media has completely abrogated its responsibility to provide the information that we the citizenry need to make informed political decisions.
General Jack D. Ripper @ 21:
.
Q U E S T I O N:
How does one "WIN" an occupation?
How does one "SUCCEED" in a war that was based on lies?
What is a "REDEPLOY" when the troops are shifted for an Afghan surge?
Why no mention of private "MERCENARIES" being removed?
.
Meditating Upside-Down @ 11:
They'll no doubt spin it for McCain and say it was all down to the surge. Obama can't allow that to happen. Both he, and perhaps Biden, need to frame this decision as "reality asserting itself," and hammer McCain for being out of touch. No excuses, If McCain is allowed to take credit for this like he did with Webb's G.I. bill, the Obma camp will only have themselves to blame. The MSM won't do their job for them.
Obama in lockstep with Bush : )
"combat troops" code for "we'll always have a presence, but we won't call them combat troops, rather some other owellian name that helps justify occupation". ;)
.
So, when Satus quObama voted to fund the continuation of the troops in Iraq, he was really for getting them out?
That's like funding the addicts habit because you really want them to enter rehab... it's called being a hippocratic enabler!
nObama was against the war in Iraq before he was for funding it...
Status quObama was for Campaign Finance Reform before he opted out...
He swore to "support and defend the Constitution FAITHFULLY, without mental reservations or a purpose of evasion" before he began to excuse the bell he rang with empty promises to unring it "IF YOU ELECT ME" a-la "read my lips..."
.
.
Support the troops...
... And stop the American Government from using them as pawns in the continued perpetration of WAR CRIMES!
.
umen @ 25:
That's okay, for now. But starting tomorrow in Chicago, and especially next Wednesday and Thursday at the Democratic convention, Obama and his VP pick have to neutralize the "surge" argument and frame it on their terms, othersise McCain will take credit for it at the Republican convention....and the voters will believe him.
And that's a good thing? Isn't McCain trying to build some distance between himself and Bush anyway? Can't McCain now lump Obama in with an unpopular president?
WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP.
This is exactly where the two parties are really just one party.
This is essentially the same info from Obama as what Amy Goodman managed to wrangle out of him in her brief interview with him.
The key is in the language used people!!
- 'Combat troops' - this doesnt mean they are pulling out troops - it means they are leaving 14 - possibly wayyy more - fully operational military bases in place across Iraq that will serve as a constant source of antagony for all proud Iraqi's.
- Not one f****g mention of the 150,000 private military troops from Obama - nice work there you dick. That means you can expect constant civilian deaths by gun-toting, kill-for-money troops our favourite Blackwater sons are recruiting from the third world.
- No rule of law - thanks Obama - nice to see we're setting a great example to the world so our standards of law continue to sink beneath the floor.
- No end in sight to our occupation of Iraq !
Don't let the term 'pull out combat troops' confuse the truth of the matter here - we are going NOWHERE and iraq will be a permanent battleground until we work with the Iraqi's and the UN to properly arbitrate self-rule. [which we'll never do because setting up the bases and conducting the war simply cost too much money now to undo]
I'm sorry - McCain and Obama are effectively espousing the same strategy - they are using different, fluffier words though to make us think there is a difference.
"even the Bush administration has come around to, albeit very reluctantly."
They have really been forced to "come around to it" because the Iraqi Shite government (which Bush created with the invasion and then saw to it's election) is a creature of Iran and subject locally to the theocratic rulings of the most powerful Shite cleric in the county al Sustani. The Iraqi government has been told by both Iran and al Sustani to not yield Iraqi sovereignty to the U.S. It's probably safe to say that Iran does not want to see a 100 year U.S. presence in Iraq. As a result Bush is taking what the Shite government is giving him... out by '11. This is not the deal Bush and the neocons were looking for, but it's all they can get from the Iraqi Shite government which is sympathetic to Iran. I am wondering if they can even get U.S. troop immunity as this borders on Iraqi sovereignty as well.
...with a residual force to target remnants of al Qaeda; to protect our service members and diplomats; and to train Iraq’s Security Forces if the Iraqis make political progress
Talk about death by a thousand qualifications. How large will this residual force be? And how will we determine if the Iraqis are making political progress? And why keep playing the remnants of al Qaeda meme when everyone knows damn well that Al Qaeda in Iraq represents a miniscule percentage of the Iraqi resistance?
Obama is playing the politics of triangulation like a friggin' virtuoso and when the smoke clears and he's sitting in the White House, we'll still have thousands of troops in Iraq getting killed and wounded in 2's and 3's every day. And let's not get started on his Afghanistan policy.
Osama bin Laden isn't the only one who can't believe his good fortune. Putin must be pinching himself watching the U.S. empire expire in the deserts of Mesopotamia and mountains of Afghanistan. Who knew that in just 8 years we'd go from Pax Americana to Russia resurgent, holding all Western Europe at its beck and call via natural gas and oil. It's wickedly delicious.
Good analysis, Cernig.
4. His response also continued the theme 'Billions spent in Iraq - struggling US Economy!'
4.1 $79 Bil. Iraqis aren't spending their own revenue on this supposed 'joint venture.'
A fifth point about what Obama said: He paints John McCain as stubborn, irresponsible and given to bluster.
success in iraq means recognition by americans that it was based on a fraud and the troops were ordered there did their job and won the "war" and the only thing keeping them there is a minority of chickenhawks and war profiteer who don't mind people lying to protect their egos and profits. the only losers are the republicans and the dems who allowed them.
"who don’t mind people lying to protect their egos and profits."
dying dying dying
jesus where were all you peoplw when i was getting beat up for saying the emperor and the two wana bees have no clothes?
Does Obama have the courage/wherewithall/balls to acknowledge that the US, under the Simian Warmonger's watch, invaded a sovereign nation and killed 200K - 450k Iraqi soldiers and civilians (UN figures)? That's reality. This "success" and "failure" shit is decades-old Americo-centric propoganda and spin and transparent to anyone with half a brain and the ability to read at a grade 7 level.
"My friends, we could not have had this victory with honor if we'd listened to my (terrorist fist-jabbing, America-damning, terrorist befriending) opponent, who you will recall opposed the Surge(tm) that made this possible.
I am glad to see that, now that the Surge(tm) has worked, my (secret Muslim) opponent supports it, they way I did when everyone opposed it."
"Yeah, but if we'd listened to Obama in the first place, we never would have..."
"Noun, verb, POW, Surge(tm)."
"Oh, right. Sorry."
Obama is going to lose it if he keeps referring to 'the war in Iraq'. He's setting it up as something that can be won or lost. He has to refer to it as 'the occupation of Iraq' instead, because that implies that winning means leaving.
I think it would be timely for all Democrats to review the MLK Jr. speech "Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam"
Like now, we were faced then with a war that was draining our resources. In order to win the presidency, Obama needs to state clearly that the war was wrong not just a bad idea at the time.
Failure to do so will give all the social conservatives who disagree with the war to McCain.
NO immunity for lawbreakers!
America won't prosecute the torturers, the kidnappers, the rapists, the mass murderers... even when American servicepeople are the victims. It is all covered up. From Pat Tillman to LaVena Jones. Covered up. And what is done deliberately to Iraqis is worse. Children renditioned and old men shot at prayer taxi drivers beaten to death and girls like Abeer Qasim Hamza raped and murdered and burned. What happened at Haditha? How many wedding parties have been demolished? What about Blackwater's unprovoked shootout in the square? What about all the tapes from torture sessions?
WHAT ABOUT THE MORE THAN A HUNDRED PEOPLE WHO DIED UNDER "INTERROGATION"?????
What about Justice?
If America can't deal with its war criminals from Bush and Cheney to the lowliest soldier or twitchiest mercenary, then foreign governments and criminal courts will have to take up the sword of justice.
Remember the 4 mercenaries who were caught by the Iraqis at Fallujah and strung up on the bridge? Unless we allow for proper criminal proceedings, then summary justice will become the ONLY justice and the world will simply devolve into yet more violence. Rule of Law or Rule of Force? There are 4 mercenaries for every 3 soldiers in Iraq right now... and the ratio keeps tipping. What law covers people who are only loyal to a paycheck?
Login or Register to post comments.