Obama: Iraq now needs a political solution

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama: Iraq now needs a political solution stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DAVID ESPO | July 22, 2008 08:10 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, flanked by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., left, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., speaks during a news conference at the citadel in Amman, Jordan, Tuesday, July 22, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

AMMAN, Jordan — Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama declined Tuesday to rate the Bush administration's troop surge in Iraq a success despite a reduction in violence, and expressed understanding of Gen. David Petraeus' opposition to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

"Not surprisingly he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said of the general, with whom he met in recent days while touring Iraq.

"I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to _ to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq.

"But keep in mind, for example, one of Gen. Petraeus' responsibilities is not to think about how could we be using some of that $10 billion a month to shore up a U.S. economy that is really hurting right now," Obama said.

"If I'm president of the United States, that is part of my responsibility."

Obama commented at a news conference after arriving in Jordan, his first stop on an election-season trip to the Mideast and Europe paid for by campaign funds.

His remarks about Iraq drew criticism from Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain. "By admitting that his plan for withdrawal places him at odds with Gen. David Petraeus, Barack Obama has made clear that his goal remains unconditional withdrawal rather than securing the victory our troops have earned," the aide said.

The Illinois senator opposed the war from the start and has long called for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops along a 16-month timetable. He favors leaving a force of undetermined size behind to help counter terrorists, protect U.S. personnel and facilities and train Iraqis.

Story continues below
advertisement

He said he would consult with military commanders to determine how many troops to keep in the country to protect diplomatic and humanitarian operations, to train Iraqis and to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida in Iraq.

He also opposed Bush's decision to add 30,000 troops more than a year ago, saying it would not succeed, although a gradual reduction in violence and U.S. casualties has called that prediction into question.

Asked for his current assessment, he said, "I believe that the situation in Iraq is more secure than it was a year and a half ago."

Yet he added, "I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it.

"Originally, the administration suggested that the key measure was whether it gave breathing room for political reconciliation. So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that's going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq," he said.

Obama toured two war zones with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., both of whom joined him at a news conference at the Amman Citadel, an ancient hilltop ruin that bears evidence of settlements dating to 2000 B.C. The skyline of modern-day Amman, cement dwellings and the occasional mosque, formed a made-for-television backdrop.

The three lawmakers issued a written statement last week saying that Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Osama bin Laden believed to be hiding, is the central front in the war against terrorism.

Obama repeated the sentiment at the news conference, adding, "The situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent," he said. "We must act now to reverse a deteriorating situation."

Obama commented as Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in London that Britain will begin a major troop withdrawal from Iraq in early 2009, if security continues to improve and work to train local security forces is completed. Britain currently has around 4,100 troops in Iraq, based mainly on the outskirts of Basra.

Brown told lawmakers Britain will keep current numbers in place for several months, but Britain's role in Iraq will change next year from combat and military training to boosting the economy of the oil-rich southern region.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also has spoken favorably of the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces along a timetable similar to Obama's.

Before leaving Iraq, Obama traveled to a former hotbed of the Sunni insurgency for talks Tuesday with tribal leaders who joined the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq and now seek a deeper role in Iraq's political future.

Obama met leaders of the so-called Awakening Council movement in Ramadi, one of the main cities of the western Anbar Province where al-Qaida once had the upper hand against embattled U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Tribal sheiks last year began an uprising against insurgents that is credited with uprooting extremist strongholds and helping bring violence around Iraq to its lowest levels in four years.

___

Associated Press writers Robert H. Reid in Jordan and Brian Murphy in Iraq contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS DELETES incorrect reference to Obama voting against 2002 legislation; Obama was not in the Senate at that time; AP Video.)

AMMAN, Jordan — Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama declined Tuesday to rate the Bush administration's troop surge in Iraq a success despite a reduction in violence, and expressed und...
AMMAN, Jordan — Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama declined Tuesday to rate the Bush administration's troop surge in Iraq a success despite a reduction in violence, and expressed und...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
17
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Is Iraq safe because of the “surge”? Are we “winning”?

In November 2007, 9.5 months after the “surge” began, TOTAL CIVILIAN DEATHS were 33.3 PER DAY (999 total). http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/baghdad-surge/

In 2008, the CIVILIAN deaths-per-day number is 32 (960/month). In 2003, number was 16.4 per day (492 per month), in 2004, 23 per day (690 per month), in 2005, 35.6 per day (1068/month). The 2008 per-month number --- 960 --- is greater than those of 2003 & 2004, and 90% of the 2005 count. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

In 2007, the year of the surge, the death toll was 60 per day (1800/month) the second highest of the war. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ The 2008 per-month count is, to date, 50% less than 2007's, but just 10% less 2005's and substantially greater than the counts of 2003 and 2004.

But death-counts tell a lesser part of the story. The rest is the toll of non-fatal casualties, AND displacements, economic ills, and continued dire inadequacy of infrastructure and basic services; and the displacements, economic ills, and infrastruc­ture/servi­ces inadequacy translate into delayed casualties. We have insufficient data for THOSE consequences of the CONTINUED great, wide violence; but those consequences are huge and will linger.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 07/23/2008
- egal I'm a Fan of egal 13 fans permalink
photo

People keep seeming to forget (or maybe civilians just don't know and generally don't bother to learn?) that Petraeus has no choice but to support whatever plan and analysis is passed down to him from our Commander in Chief. Military officers must present all orders frm superiors as wonderful, working, and completely realistic plans even--espe­cially--wh­en they're far from it.

He can go to military jail, he can be retired unwillingly, or he can toe the Bush party line and act as if he believes it and make soldiers follow its outline as he spouts lies any NCO will tell us are completely based on political agenda, not troop situations.

Oh, look, and they're still trying to say the surge "worked" when all it did was to bring the violence level down ALMOST as low as it was when we had HALF as many troops in Iraq before the surge.

Doing the same amount of work with twice as many workers is a HUGE drop in efficiency, and it effectively means the surge has been a complete and utter failure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 AM on 07/23/2008

What is it with all this "winning" or "losing" the war in Iraq? Since the Iraqis don't want us there anymore, the American public doesn't want us there anymore and given that would shouldn't have been there in the first place, I just can't quite see why it is so freaking important for us to be "VICTORIOUS." I'm not even sure what the hell that means! Anyone??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 07/22/2008
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 25 fans permalink

For an oilman Commander and Chief that conned Congress and the public into invading Iraq based on a maze of shifting pretexts, winning is providing the oil industry with access to Iraq's oil, regardless of the cost or what anyone else wants.

McSame's committed to what HE knows - War for it's own sake.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 PM on 07/26/2008

David Espo's article says “violence around Iraq” is at “its lowest levels in four years.” That is FALSE.

Since May 2008, the Iraq war's CIVILIAN death-rate has been GREATER than the average of the period June 2003 through June of 2006, and great as or greater than the average of October 2007 through January 2008. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ .

In May & June of 2008, U.S. troop-deaths were 196 & 142, respectively. http://icasualties.org/oif/ . See also http://icasualties.org/oif/USbyYear.aspx . The 196 number is high as those of November 2007 through February 2008. Though smaller, the 142 number is FAR, FAR GREATER than the number of US troop deaths of ANY month of the Afghanistan war -- which has killed 478 U.S. troops since 2001, or 6 per month average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 .

See also http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-iraq :

“Despite all the talk about Iraq being 'calm,' ...the month...before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (...January, 2006), there were 537 ... Iraqi casualties. In June...2008, there were 554, according to AP. These...official statistics­...probabl­y only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.”

Patraeus's casualty-counts falsify statistics downward by disregarding various kinds of violence -- roadside bombings, suicide bombings, car-bombings... Why? Because they are “haphazard”? Not clearly sectarian or non-sectarian? Not paramilitary violence of Shiite or Sunni militias? Or just too frequent and embarrassing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 07/22/2008

This corrects one aspect of my earlier post — of 4:23 PM, 22 July 08. U.S. troop CASUALTIES (deaths AND other) of May & June 2008 were 215 & 171 respectively. The 215 count was about the same as the counts of November 2007 through February 2008. The 171 count was 73% of the December 2007 count and still a horrible loss of life and limb. http://icasualties.org/oif/ Again compare the Afghanistan war -- which has killed 478 U.S. troops since 2001, or 6 troops per month (average). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 07/23/2008
- Wildspirit I'm a Fan of Wildspirit 3 fans permalink

Speaking as a 20-year military retiree, I would say that the man is Commander-in-Chief material...and Presidential, far more than Bush or McCain! I feel that he is more a diplomat than either of them, and that is exactly what we need!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 07/22/2008

Right on Wildspirit. All this qualification stuff from McCain is just smoke. He couldn't hold a candle to Obama in insight and certainly has not even come close in his communications skills. If you put him in Obama's spot on this tour, we and he would be a joke to the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 07/22/2008
- OBXartist I'm a Fan of OBXartist 45 fans permalink

"Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain, responded, "By admitting that his plan for withdrawal places him at odds with Gen. David Petraeus, Barack Obama has made clear that his goal remains unconditional withdrawal rather than securing the victory our troops have earned." "

No, Tucker. Barack Obama is making it clear that there are other important issues facing an American president besides Iraq and that the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances at home and abroad must be maintained. Currently, our economy is sucking wind. We could certainly use some of the moneys being poured down the black hole of Iraq. We are engaged in a conflict in Afghanistan where we do not have the resources we need to win because they are dedicated to Iraq. What if we become unavoidably involved in another military conflict somewhere in the world? How do we respond? What if we fall victim to a major natural disaster here at home? What then? These are things a president must consider. Bush and McCain, with their obsession with Iraq, obviously do not understand the complicated responsibilities of the presidency.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 07/22/2008
- teacheng I'm a Fan of teacheng 4 fans permalink

I'm consitently impressed with this man. Sure, I disagree with him on FISA, etc. But he is a LEADER in a way that I have not seen in my lifetime, at least.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 07/22/2008
- mikey2 I'm a Fan of mikey2 4 fans permalink

B.O. : "But my job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq."
Bingo!!!
That's something that poor old Gramps can't seem to wrap his tiny little mind around...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 07/22/2008
- Gma11 I'm a Fan of Gma11 12 fans permalink

This man has guts!! I'm so proud of him for visiting the tribal area of eastern Afghanistan close to Pakistan and now stopping in Anbar Province.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 07/22/2008
photo


Only reason the surge worked was Al Sadr let it work, McCain the wannabe hero is a lost cause.

now we need to clean out the gangs in LA and Chicago starting now!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 07/22/2008

What? No stability in Iraq? I wonder why that is?...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaVPdxJe0Ps

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 07/22/2008
- kasinca I'm a Fan of kasinca 158 fans permalink
photo

Obama makes McSame and Dubya look worse everyday.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 PM on 07/22/2008
- Bagger I'm a Fan of Bagger 14 fans permalink
photo

He looks like a President,
Sounds like a President,
In a few months he'll..........

Please God! Let this man represent the United States.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 07/22/2008
- MaeScott I'm a Fan of MaeScott 15 fans permalink
photo

"They do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces. The prime minister said that now is an appropriate time to start to plan for the reorganization of our troops in Iraq _ including their numbers and missions. He stated his hope that U.S. combat forces could be out of Iraq in 2010," Obama said in a joint statement with Hagel and Reed.

Now that's bipartisan collaboration. The rest of the gop, take note.
This is how you do it. It is WINNING when the sovereign nation you occupy tells you it's ok now, we have this ok, go now, you won!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 07/22/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect